What's wrong with "top" lists?

[Craig Camp]

(this post merged here to go with the post by bilrus)

OK, so it wasn't that difficult to put so many delicious Sauvignon Blancs, Chardonnays, Pinot Noirs, Syrahs and Cabernet Sauvignons into our mouths, swishing, slurping and gargling them to judge the personality and complexity of each wine. We do this every week, with a panel of wine merchants, wine buyers and sommeliers that tastes, evaluates and recommends quality wines -- many of them terrific values -- for the Thursday Wine section.

Edited December 9, 2003 by Craig Camp (log)

[bilrus]

The recent thread about the Wine Spectator list and the new post by Craig Camp about the San Francisco Chronicle list have made me curious as to why there is such distate for wine lists and ratings.

As a novice wine drinker I have little to no idea of where to start in selecting wines aside from sources like this and what I read here on eGullet. I want to do more than say - "Oh that's a pretty looking bottle, and its not too cheap or too expensive - let's go with that one."

So in looking at these lists, along with the descriptions that accompany them, wouldn't that give me some idea of places to start?

Obviously, the more you learn about wine the more you can make your own decisions, but couldn't these be helpful for me and my fellow beginners?

Or is there something else I should be looking for?

[Mark Sommelier]

The recent thread about the Wine Spectator list and the new post by Craig Camp about the San Francisco Chronicle list have made me curious as to why there is such distate for wine lists and ratings.

As a novice wine drinker I have little to no idea of where to start in selecting wines aside from sources like this and what I read here on eGullet. I want to do more than say - "Oh that's a pretty looking bottle, and its not too cheap or too expensive - let's go with that one."

So in looking at these lists, along with the descriptions that accompany them, wouldn't that give me some idea of places to start?

Obviously, the more you learn about wine the more you can make your own decisions, but couldn't these be helpful for me and my fellow beginners?

Or is there something else I should be looking for?

Bill,

The thing you should be looking for is your personal taste. Can you already say what kinds of wine you like and what kinds you don't?

The thing with these kinds of lists that many of us detest is that so many of them seem to have some kind of market force behind them. Does anyone really think that St. Jean Cinq Cepages is a better wine than Chateau Margaux? The "ratings" made it look that way one year. The first time you are able to buy the number one wine on a list and when you open it you HATE it, you'll understand better.

[melkor]

The problem with lists is mostly that it's much easier to bitch about them than it is to make them. The SF Chronicle list is just what they liked from the wines they reviewed through the year, hardly groundbreaking and really it's not very useful if your outside of Northern California where the wineries they are sampling from have larger distribution. I think for the WS list, the main gripe is that the list seriously lacks consistancy, they have higher scoring wines ranked lower than lower scoring wines - they do silly things like giving 100 points to the 2000 vintage in Piedmont and their list of best wines has zero bottles of 2000 Barolo/Barbaresco.

I'm absolutely certain that when anyone makes a list of things they like there will be a long line of people waiting to rant about how stupid the list is, the Spectator just makes it really easy for people to bitch.

And as far as your question about what beginners should be looking for/doing, go to local tastings, go to wine bars and befrend a bartender and get samples of everything they are serving by the glass - try as many wines as you can and you'll form you'll learn what you like and dislike. One thing that may be helpful is to find wines that different reviewers have rated vastly differently, try them and see who you agree with - odds are you'll find a reviewer who your tastes agree with, then you can make purchases based on that persons/publications reviews. I happen to be a big fan of new world wines, Craig I think would rather drink draino than a bottle of Turley, it's all a matter of personal preference and to pretend that one view is the correct one is as laughable - but I suspect we can all agree that this is crap.

[Craig Camp]

I happen to be a big fan of new world wines, Craig I think would rather drink draino than a bottle of Turley

This is not true! I would much rather drink Turley than Draino.

However, if it comes to my own money, I would rather buy the Draino which can be perhaps used on a more regular basis than Turley.

... oh and Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon sparkling wine. Just what the world needed.

[melkor]

I tried the sparkling napa cab over the weekend at a tasting - it's a strange mixture of oak, yeast, and bell peppers. Really frightening.

[Bill Klapp]

Melkor, you are right about making versus criticizing the lists, but only to a point. As a novice drinker many years ago, and having some time on my hands, I created a spreadsheet that tracked the Wine Advocate (Parker), International Wine Cellar (Tanzer) and Wine Spectator scores for some 10,000 wines, just to find out what the consensus best wines (and vintages) on earth were. That list is now down to 1,670, with more wines being deleted than added over time. It was an enormous amount of work (but once done, updating is easy), but the learning could not have been accomplished as accurately any other way. I have since used the data base to determine the all-time best wines of many types, and I use it to guide my purchasing decisions. As you drink wine and learn what you like (scores and quality being irrelevant if you cannot stand, say, Gewurztraminer), the information becomes even more valuable. One of the perceived problems with "greatest" lists is the potential for bias, be it economic (as the Wine Spectator is so often accused of), geopolitical or merely palate (i.e., Robert Parker loves those huge, oaky fruit bombs, etc.). Broader research such as I have done reveals, among other things, the biases of each of the raters, but at the same time, highlights excellence that even bias cannot taint. For example, my analysis suggests that the 1961 Petrus and the 2000 Margaux are arguably tied for the best Bordeaux of all time (both rated 100 by Parker and Wine Spectator, and 98 by Tanzer (who has rated only one other wine, the 1947 Petrus (itself a viable candidate for the top honor), any higher)). That information is definitely useless if you cannot abide Bordeaux (or Pomerol or Margaux in particular), and perhaps useless because a bottle of 1961 Petrus costs thousands of dollars, and the 2000 Margaux $400-500 a bottle by now. Robert Parker might tell you that he has rated a few dozen Bordeaux "100", and that neither of those is really his personal favorite. Others may find fault on other grounds. However, I could put both at the top of a list of all-time great Bordeaux, and nobody could deny the greatness of the wines or my selection process. The problem is that most "greatest" lists are motivated by something a good deal less empirical...

[LOS]

My biggest problem with the 'greatest' lists is that diversity is rarely well represented. You'll never see a traditional Chinon in any of those lists -- with a certain degree of reason. Chinon is not generally a crowd-pleasing type of wine. There are large segments of the population it simply doesn't appeal to. But for exactly that reason, it is generally underpriced vis-a-vis its quality level -- and it can be a great bargain for those it does appeal to.

It is precisely in this area that I feel that newcomers to wine are ill-served by relying on the WS or Parker as purchasing filters. These filters are quite biased, and will tend to guide the consumer to mainstream wines. This keeps the newcomer from exploring some of the lesser-known regions which they might love if they tried. And many of the lesser known regions offer great QPR.

So I think these 'greatest' lists are OK, if used properly -- ie, if used as a list of suggestions. But to limit one's purchases to only what is on the list is to limit one's horizons -- and I have seen this done many times. Not only have I seen it done, I have, many times, seen it used as the reason why Parker and/or the WS are useful to wine beginners.

The best thing a beginner in wine can do is to get advice from a knowledge local aficionado -- not advice about what wine to buy, but advice about what store to go to for honest advice. A dedicated and honest local wine merchant is far and away the best advisor a wine newbie can have. IMO, the most important single bit of advice he can get from those more experienced than he, is where to shop.

That's what we need for a 'greatest' list -- a list of the most honest and knowledgable wine salesmen. I'll nominate:

Roger Clark Surdyk's/Minneapolis Germans and Rhone Cheapies

David Lillie Chambers St/NYC French offbeat wines

Lee

[Squeat Mungry]

... oh and Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon sparkling wine. Just what the world needed.

Not sure I would trust a list that includes the heading "Cabernet Zauvignon"!

And, um, sparkling cab? You guys are frightening me! I have missed this on the list, I guess (entirely possible -- I'm home sick with a fever and desperately trying to entertain myself here on eGullet). Can someone point me directly to this, so my suffering can be complete?

Thanks,

Squeat

[docsconz]

There is no way to avoid making some mistakes (unless you are very lucky) when purchasing wines and developing a sense of your palate. Whether you go by Parker or a local wine merchant, you'll need to calibrate your palate to theirs. While a lot of people bash Robert Parker because of the influence of his ratings, he is generally consistent with how he rates wines and therefore is useful whether you like what he likes or don't. My problem with WS is as posted above its inconsistency. I have no idea whether I will like a wine recommended by them or not.

[badthings]

As a novice wine drinker I have little to no idea of where to start in selecting wines aside from sources like this and what I read here on eGullet. I want to do more than say - "Oh that's a pretty looking bottle, and its not too cheap or too expensive - let's go with that one."

Bill, there is an interesting John Thorne article that attempts to defend the usefulness of these ratings, as opposed to the dissemblings of the wine merchant. Interesting but wrong. Part of his problem is having to shop in Northampton Mass. (I went to school there, so I am very familiar with the local liquor stores, even if I spent my time in the malt liquour section).

The other part of his problem is that he is fixated on the idea that there is a miniscule amount of great wine, and everything else is a rip-off, some kind of scam people are perpetrating on him. Hey, I love great wine as much as anyone else, but I don't stay up at night worrying about it, because I know I can't really afford it unless I get lucky. And, contra Thorne, there is a lot of good wine out there that is pleasurable to drink, goes well with food, and represents different terroirs/winemaking styles faithfully enough to be intellectually stimulating as well. And costs less than $15/bottle. To me, the secret of wine is to get over the pervasive insecurity that you're being duped and the experts are hiding something from you, so you can enjoy this diversity. The easiest way to do that is to find a good merchant, as others have suggested.

And drink a lot.

Other Bill (Klapp): said article refers to a spreadsheet that sounds susiciously like yours.

[melkor]

Melkor, you are right about making versus criticizing the lists, but only to a point. As a novice drinker many years ago, and having some time on my hands, I created a spreadsheet that tracked the Wine Advocate (Parker), International Wine Cellar (Tanzer) and Wine Spectator scores for some 10,000 wines, just to find out what the consensus best wines (and vintages) on earth were. That list is now down to 1,670, with more wines being deleted than added over time. It was an enormous amount of work (but once done, updating is easy), but the learning could not have been accomplished as accurately any other way. I have since used the data base to determine the all-time best wines of many types, and I use it to guide my purchasing decisions.

I think it's hard to argue that a novice can benefit from an ordered list of best wines. It's all a matter of context, if your drinking wine with food the number one wine from whatever list is rarely at best going to be the ideal match. If your drinking it by itself it's equally unlikely that the number one wine will be drinking well when the list is printed. So I'm not entirely clear on the value of these lists, if your taste matches Parker or Tanzer or Laube or whoever then you should consider their reviews in your purchasing decisions, otherwise your more or less stuck tasting your way through your education. I'm not entirely clear what the value is in aggregating the major wine publications ratings, you've left out burghound, jancis robinson, and several others and the obvious output from the database is a push towards the center, blurring the ratings from whichever publication more closely matches your taste. Not to say that there is no value in having the data you've collected, it seems like it would be ideal to have it available if your reselling older bottles.

I'm comfortable with my taste, I agree with Parker, Tanzer, and the Spectator from time to time but my tastes don't generally run with any of them. German, Austrian, Alsatian, Oregon, and Kiwi whites. Prosecco and Grower Champagne for sparkers. Cali Cab&Zin, Australian Shiraz, Argentine Malbec for reds. And I don't think I've met a dessert wine region I don't like . Based on that list, who should I follow? How would I get there without trying hundreds of different bottles? I think it's impossible to use a magazine (or several magazines) in place of personal tasting experience.

I'll stand by my advice to try as many different wines as you have access to and you'll soon know what you like and don't like.

[melkor]

... oh and Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon sparkling wine. Just what the world needed.

Not sure I would trust a list that includes the heading "Cabernet Zauvignon"!

And, um, sparkling cab? You guys are frightening me! I have missed this on the list, I guess (entirely possible -- I'm home sick with a fever and desperately trying to entertain myself here on eGullet). Can someone point me directly to this, so my suffering can be complete?

It's not on any list, the spectator rated it a very generous 78 points.

[Craig Camp]

... oh and Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon sparkling wine. Just what the world needed.

Not sure I would trust a list that includes the heading "Cabernet Zauvignon"!

And, um, sparkling cab? You guys are frightening me! I have missed this on the list, I guess (entirely possible -- I'm home sick with a fever and desperately trying to entertain myself here on eGullet). Can someone point me directly to this, so my suffering can be complete?

Thanks,

Squeat

Melkor found it HERE

[Squeat Mungry]

And, um, sparkling cab? You guys are frightening me!

Melkor found it HERE

Thanks. I think. Ugh. First "Zauvignon", now "Chauvignon". I'm going to bed.

[Carema]

These kind of top lists are oh so very male in their quest to quantify. best tits, best tannins best acid, best ass- its all the same. People always come in and ask what is the best bottle of wine you ever had and I can never answer that question because I have had many great bottles in different circumstances and environment can make all the difference. Give me the best bottle of wine is another request- how the f***k do you do that? Like children, you love the ones you love equally. I love a certain Fiano, is it the best bottle of wine I have ever had- no but I gaze at it with love every day and refuse to be out of stock even though it is a less than stellar seller. It is like the poor Paloma Merlot which languished in a small distributor's book for years before finding national acclaim this week. Now all these guys are calling with hard edges in their voices because they cannot find #1 in Chicago and no other Merlot will do. I say put an end to the lists. But they never will.

[Echezeaux]

Carema's correct in that there's sort of a "macho" thing in being able to taunt your friends with the fact that you own a particular bottle and they don't.

A friend of mine is a home-winemaker and has a good palate. He buys nice wines but nothing extravagant. A buddy of his is absolutely wed to the notion of following slavishly the various reviews of wines. He used to buy wine at the same wine shop as my friend, but they don't cater to folks who insist upon buying "by the numbers." (And they have great wines, but they try to engage customers in conversations which can allow them to find wines which will suit the palate of the purchaser...)

So, the home winemaker buys a nice bottle of a $15 Rhone...while the Slave brings a highly-rated $40 bottle to an event. The Slave opens his bottle, telling one and all about how this is a rare bottle and how it was awarded a certain high numerical score. The home winemaker opens his bottle, not saying a word. Everyone in attendance, even the Slave, says they prefer the Rhone. It really pissed off the Slave to be one-upped with a wine which costs about one-third the price of his and which has NO CRITICAL ACCLAIM.

The home-winemaker returned to the wine place to buy a few more bottles of the Rhone, one as a gift for the Slave. He even asked them to leave the price tag on the bottle, just to rub it in.

The point is: good wine doesn't have to cost a fortune. It doesn't have to have a high numerical score. It doesn't have to be famous.

[Craig Camp]

The point is: good wine doesn't have to cost a fortune. It doesn't have to have a high numerical score. It doesn't have to be famous.

There are too many good wines being made today for all of them to be famous - maybe too many for even 25% to be famous. There are deals and discoveries everywhere for those that want to have fun with wine instead of making it into some kind of competition.

I would also echo the insightful comments of Carema and Echezeaux above.

[ctgm]

... oh and Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon sparkling wine. Just what the world needed.

Never had the "pleasure" of having had a Napa CS sparkler. Are they on par with Australias "wonderful" sparkling shiraz?

[bilrus]

I knew I could count on everybody to make me see the error in my thoughts. I guess the bottom line for me is that I need to drink more wines and experiment and learn what I really like.

I've heard of worse ideas.

[Craig Camp]

... oh and Napa Valley cabernet sauvignon sparkling wine. Just what the world needed.

Never had the "pleasure" of having had a Napa CS sparkler. Are they on par with Australias "wonderful" sparkling shiraz?

Neither have I. My guess is pleasure is indeed the wrong word.