The Top 100 Wines of the Year

[Craig Camp]

The J.J. Prum which is #8 on that list really interests me. Thats a fairly easy wine to find.

...that wine should interest everybody.

as should this one - perhaps even more:

H. Dönnhoff Riesling Spätlese Nahe Niederhäuser Hermannshöhle 2001

The thing is everyone will beat themselves up to get that stupid merlot and ignore the Germans. Good thing - keeps the pricing down.

*note: Yes, I know the Paloma people are very nice.

[Jason Perlow]

I've never had anything from the Donhoff producer. Not sure how easy it is to get around here, but I will try it.

[Rieslingfan]

The J.J. Prum which is #8 on that list really interests me. Thats a fairly easy wine to find.

...that wine should interest everybody.

as should this one - perhaps even more:

H. Dönnhoff Riesling Spätlese Nahe Niederhäuser Hermannshöhle 2001

The thing is everyone will beat themselves up to get that stupid merlot and ignore the Germans. Good thing - keeps the pricing down.

*note: Yes, I know the Paloma people are very nice.

You might as well ignore the Donnhoff. It's long gone. The 2002 however is a worthy follow up.

I've seen a few bottles of the Prum still laying around here and there. They will be gone soon I'm sure.

The Loosen is an interesting selection. It's a pretty, true to the form kabinett. It's actually not very '2001' if you know what I mean.

I still don't get the Eroica Riesling always makign the list. It's like WS says "Holy cow! They can make a drinkable Riesling in the US. Let's put it on the list."

[Craig Camp]

I still don't get the Eroica Riesling always makign the list. It's like WS says "Holy cow! They can make a drinkable Riesling in the US. Let's put it on the list."

That's called hitting the nail on the head.

[docsconz]

Classic, ageworthy wines that do not drink well in youth rarely garner top scores from WS.

I agree with most of what you said, but this statement is belied by the inclusion of Gruaud Larose on the list. I do not believe, however, that this contradicts your statement. It does confirm my feeling that there is certainly no consistency here. At least if it was consistent, I could use it as a guide to or away from wines.

[Bill Klapp]

John, I promise you that it does not belie my argument. I keep a data base of wine scores in order to plot my buying strategy, and when the 1990 Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva and the 1996 Gaja Sperss continue to wear "89s" from WS, they know not what they do...

[jddoyle]

I would have figured that as harsh as most people were to the Wine Clip here for it's unpoven claims, someone would have some actual proof to back up these accusations.

If you don't like their scores, fine; I don't usually. If you don't like the wines they choose, fine. But to almost accuse them of fraud without any proof is questionable at best.

[Harry Covére]

I must be alone in my happiness for Paloma, but I'm not really that surprised. Raise your hand: How many of you love Merlot the mostest? (Let's see: one, two...four--only two of you?) Okay, how many have tried the Paloma? (Umm: one, two...that's it?)

I don't love Merlot. I tried the Paloma. Loved it. Not the best wine I've ever had, maybe not the best 2001 wine I've had (I'm Pinot Noir guy), but incredible nonetheless. Then take into account that I paid $40 for it (the sky's the limit now), that Merlot's tough to grow in California, has been the laughing stock of California wines since its fall from popularity, and since it exemplifies everything a California wine should: small-production, careful craftsmanship, dedicated winemakers. Should these characteristics receive bonus points? Definitely, if WS is ranking these wines using more criteria than taste alone. (Plus, for you point-chasers, it's the highest related Merlot (by WS) ever. Does that mean it's the best Merlot ever? Doubt it. But it's very damn good.)

Based on what I drank, would I have named it Wine of the Year? No, I'd probably have gone with the Donnhoff, unless I was feeling patriotic that day.

I don't pay much attention to who advertises in Wine Spectator, but I've never seen a Paloma ad and I doubt I ever will.

I was really surprised at this year's prices (why didn't you reprint those, Craig?) They seem down from last year. I read somewhere the average is around 35 bucks.

Someone mentioned WS and its repeated shellacking for its WOTY picks. Last year was even worse. Check it out.

[Phil Ward]

Well, to quote WS re the Paloma: "is also an exceptional value at $45".

Hmmm... to me an exceptional value is a lot less expensive than that but then it did get their highest rating ever for a CA Merlot. I'm cornfused

To me the #7 wine, Beaurenard CdP 2001 with a score of 94 and SRP of $27 and the #21 wine, Ch. de Flaugergues with a score of 92 and a SRP of $13, are exceptional values. That's my idea of two values.

As to Eroica, I sell it and I love German Rieslings and to me it is one of the best American Rieslings I have ever put in my mouth.

All of the above in IMHO.

Thanks,

Phil

[tjaehnigen]

I think, I did not check, there are only three German Rieslings on the list. Isn't that just silly given the high quality 2001s that came out early this year?

[Craig Camp]

I think, I did not check, there are only three German Rieslings on the list. Isn't that just silly given the high quality 2001s that came out early this year?

It's not cool to push German wines.

[Rieslingfan]

I think, I did not check, there are only three German Rieslings on the list. Isn't that just silly given the high quality 2001s that came out early this year?

There are five German Rieslings on the list.

[Carema]

I think, I did not check, there are only three German Rieslings on the list. Isn't that just silly given the high quality 2001s that came out early this year?

There are five German Rieslings on the list.

I do not have an '01 left in the shop. I am all on '02s. As for Germans, Advocate finally deemed them cool enough to rate so Speculum is now following suit. last year we had 11 of the top 100 wines in the shop. This year I am happy to report we have only 2. I am doing something right obviously. Right now I am drinking the Hirsch Gruner Veltliner 'Heiligentstein' '01. I am happy because I have my new toy, a la crueset 'decanting' pitcher. Gruner has never appeared on a top 100 as far as I know. Yet is is one of the great whites of the world. the whites on that list were awfully underrepresented. New Zealand SB- you'd have to have the palate of a lampost not to get those. This Gruner is so much more comnplex than most of those awful chardonnays they mentioned. And it went with madras curry turkey and rice AND a peanut butter cup covered in milk chocolate.

[Rieslingfan]

Gruner has never appeared on a top 100 as far as I know.

A 2002 Nigl Gruner Veltliner made the list this year.

The '02 Germans are really good. Are they up to '01 for pure aging potential? No. But they are incredibly enjoyable and perhaps more accessible than the '01s. They will age just fine & are still a bargain.

I've tasted over 350 2002s to this point & it's another excellent vintage from the good producers. (The lower level producers did not do as well in '02 in my opinion. The rising tide of 2002 did not float all boats.)

[budrichard]

Echezeaux:

I agree compleltely with your analysis of the trade.

If you look at the 'Fanzines' regardles of the particular market the magazine is aimed at, you never read a review where a product is simply bad.

If there are dollars involved, you can bet someone is sitting up nights thinking how to obtain those dollars(Mutual funds!).

A publication like the Wine Spectator can sell a LOT of wine. In EVERY wine shop you now see each indiviudal wine with it's ratings from the various pundits.

I certainly do not have any information about any money changing hands for ratings but it does not have to be money per se.

I know some corporations and some news media have 'Ethics Codes' and that helps somewhat. I am not aware that any of the wine publications or 'Fanzines' have such standards.

BTW as a data point, one of the wines that I purchased without knowing it was on a previous Wine Spectator 'Top 100 List' was judged by myself to be very nice but certainly not worthy of inclusion on such a list. I am certain if I told people who were about to drink that wine that it was on the list, it's profile would increase. -Dick

[winebill]

Bad ratings. Check these out.wine spectator

Chapoutier needs to take out some ads

[Mark Sommelier]

I think, I did not check, there are only three German Rieslings on the list. Isn't that just silly given the high quality 2001s that came out early this year?

It's not cool to push German wines.

I push them. I have an auslese (Bernkasteler Lay, Dr. Thanisch) on my by the glass list right now. It sells very well. I also use it with the menu degustation. People always comment on the delicious reisling they just drank.

[Craig Camp]

I think, I did not check, there are only three German Rieslings on the list. Isn't that just silly given the high quality 2001s that came out early this year?

It's not cool to push German wines.

I push them. I have an auslese (Bernkasteler Lay, Dr. Thanisch) on my by the glass list right now. It sells very well. I also use it with the menu degustation. People always comment on the delicious reisling they just drank.

I mean for the wine press. There is not enough financial return.

Sommeliers have been the best ambassadors for fine German wines for years and they made the USA market for Austrian wines.

[sammy]

Here's an example of the marketing power of the Wine Spectator Top 100 list. I purchased a case of Termes after having a glass at Artisinal six months ago at a price of $14.50 per bottle. I saw it in a wine shop on Wednesday for $29.99. Ouch! At $14.50, the wine is a steal. Not worth it at $29.99.

Edited December 12, 2003 by sammy (log)

[Rieslingfan]

Or this:

A local shop for me had over 15 cases of the 2001 St. Urbans-Hof Riesling Qba about two weeks ago. It had been lingering for months. As of last Monday: three bottles left. That was only number 46 or so on the list.

[sammy]

People all of a sudden think something tastes good because someone else tells them it tastes good.

[wnissen]

I would have figured that as harsh as most people were to the Wine Clip here for it's unpoven claims, someone would have some actual proof to back up these accusations.

If you don't like their scores, fine; I don't usually. If you don't like the wines they choose, fine. But to almost accuse them of fraud without any proof is questionable at best.

I agree with you completely. In fact, I will go one further, and state that it would be extremely suspicious if advertisers did not get high scores. Yes, you read that correctly. It only stands to reason that wineries getting poor scores would decline to advertise, and wineries getting good scores would advertise to point out that fact. If my $40 bottle of wine gets an 84, there is no way in hell I am going to send ad money to the publication that is causing me problems. Conversely, if W.S. gives a great score, you had better believe that I am going to trumpet it, and what better place than the publication that bestowed the score in the first place.

Walt

[Mark Sommelier]

People all of a sudden think something tastes good because someone else tells them it tastes good.

sammy,

This is why many of us hate these stupid lists. No one can tell you what tastes good to you unless you taste it yourself.

[winebill]

To some it's not even a matter of what tastes good. It's the status of possesing one of the top 100 wines. It's the old "I have it,and you don't" mentality.

Meanwhile there are thousands of wines people miss out on enjoying.

[Bill Klapp]

jddoyle, nobody accused anyone of fraud. The Spectator stands accused only of placing its own pecuniary interests above any serious attempt at objectivity respecting the world's finest wines. An independent study a couple of years ago bore this out. However, at this point, I think that you have to pay a couple of hundred dollars to buy the study, which was ostensibly done for the benefit of wineries that wanted to know how to get high ratings from the Wine Spectator. To my knowledge, nobody has found a reason to conduct a similar study on the ratings of Parker or Tanzer. I rest my case.