February 2012 Editorial
by Tom Cannavan
The Wine Gang is not generally a fretful bunch. And yet since we started four years ago a couple of issues have kept resurfacing and causing us sleepless nights. The first of these is the business of scoring wines on a numerical scale. The second is just what price range you want us to concentrate on in our reports.
It is exactly two years since I wrote at length about scoring wines in my Wine Gang editorial. At the time I said: "Points are just one useful component of a wine review. Every wine featured by The Wine Gang carries a full, committed review that tells you exactly what we think of it. I'm pretty certain that even without a score you would still be able to read any one of our notes and discern whether the wine was bad, good or indifferent. Our scores just make this task so much easier."
We still believe scores are useful, but also know they can present lurking dangers for critics like us. American publications The Wine Spectator and The Wine Advocate popularised the 100-point scoring system, which is now the most widely accepted around the world. But confusingly, the system starts from a base of 50 so is really only a 50-point scale. Further, The Wine Advocate declares that "Below 70 is a sign of an imbalanced, flawed, or terribly dull or diluted product," and Wine Spectator dismisses wines scoring as many as 79 points as "Mediocre: a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws."
As most wines we review are good wines, it could be argued that in practice the scale covers only 21 points, from 80 to 100. And as the vast majority of those are neither outstandingly good nor outstandingly bad, inevitably scores cluster around the middle. There is no doubt scores between 85 and 95 are by far the most frequently awarded.
So in effect does our range really only span 11 points? Well, it sometimes feels that way to us. We met recently to discuss this, and have decided that if there are 21 points to play with, all the way from 80 to 100, then we really should try to use them. By teasing out the points we should reduce this clustering effect, and the progression from an acceptable but dull 80/100 to a 'perfect' 100/100 should be a little more obvious.
One problem will be how you, our members, perceive this. Regulars will be used to seeing so many wines within that that 85-95 point cluster that if we now score a wine 82/100 and say it is a perfectly pleasant £4.99 bottle, will you mentally write it off as below standard? We hope not, since we will be using those points from 80-84 a little more regularly for some perfectly good wines.
In fact, the interpretation of points is having to change all the time: like the arms race of the Cold War era, a points race has seen some of the world's most prominent critics pushing scores upward - each wants to be the one quoted by the wine trade (since that is seen as a measure of their influence and it helps publicise their brand), but to be quoted you need to give the highest score...
It's a funny - some would say pointless - business this scoring of wines. We hope you will continue to read our words first and foremost, but we will continue to award our points honestly and thoughtfully, as a useful adjunct to our notes.
The other thing we've been discussing – prompted by an email from a member who thought we'd been reviewing too many expensive wines recently – is just what price range the Gang should focus on. I think all of us in the Gang perceive the sweet spot for wines to be somewhere between £7 and £20 pounds. Given the proportion that is duty and VAT, wines priced below £6 struggle to do more than offer a pleasant drink, whilst we recognise that north of £20 is a fairly esoteric land that many wine lovers cannot or will not venture into.
Here's the breakdown of wines we have reviewed in the past 12 months:
- £7.00 and under = 321 (13%)
- £7.01 - £13.00 = 1,095 (44%)
- £13.01 - £20.00 = 543 (22%)
- £20.01 and over = 515 (21%)
We definitely won't abandon sub-£7 wines as there's plenty of good drinking to be found, and neither will we give up on the more expensive end, because often that's where the most interesting, age-worthy wines exist. But how does this balance strike you? Would you like to see it changed? Let us have your feedback using the contacts page and we'll return to this issue in a future editorial.
This month's roving Bunch of Fives category is: Five of the Best Wines for Leap Year Proposals
Top Scoring Wines for February 2012
No fewer than seven wines tied for top scorer in February with a score of 94/100. Prices ranged from £27 to over £100 per bottle, so we've chosen the cheapest to highlight here. But we also found 93-point wines for less than £15, including the scintillating new vintage of Kevin Judd's Greywacke Sauvignon Blanc.
Montirius Gigondas Confidentiel 2009
Splendid Gigondas that manages to be luscious, powerful and yet somehow elegant all at the same time. Terrific concentration of pure, ripe fruit, savoury pepper and suave tannins. It's a blend of 80% Grenache and 20% Mourvèdre, entirely oak-free, and comes from a 1.5 hectare 'micro-terroir' in a ten-hectare parcel that this impeccable organic and biodynamic domaine has owned for five generations. £27.45 at Berry Bros & Rudd. Find on wine-searcher.com
Greywacke Sauvignon Blanc 2011
Massively pungent nose, the passionfruit and elderflower matched by a searing core of minerality. The palate has such concentration too: it is naturally juicy, fat and textured, but the grip of the acidity and freshness of the grapefruit finish gives wonderful savour and lip-smacking appeal. Case of 12 for £175 (£14.59 per bottle equivalent) at WoodWinters. Find on wine-searcher.com
Free content
Members Only
May's report now online:
The Wine Society, Marks & Spencer - Part II, Dudley & de Fleury, Aldi, Bibendum part II, SITT, Jascots, Bordeaux Index Piedmont, Ten vintage Champagnes. Read more
