Some Thoughts on Wine Critics

“Critics are like eunuchs in a harem; they know how it's done, they've seen it done every day, but they're unable to do it themselves.”- Brendan Behan

Vintners and retailers rely heavily on, but also curse the existence of wine critics.  A ninety or better rating from a well-regarded critic all but guarantees sales.  Though people keep saying his influence is on the wane, Robert Parker remains the go to for many people.  He revolutionized the business of wine criticism by introducing the hundred point scale.  He also changed the nature of wine criticism with his focus on what is in the glass rather than the reputation and history of the producer.
For all of his contributions, Parker has his detractors.  He favors a bold, full bodied style of wine.  His realm is that of hearty Cabernet Sauvignon and oaked Chardonnay.  I don’t know the man, but I suspect that the delicate nuance of a Chablis or a Chambolle Musigny would be lost on him.  At least that is what his rating history would indicate. 

Particularly passionate derision of Parker came a few years ago when Figeac, a house long known for producing Bordeaux in an austere, classic style, hired a wine consultant known for “Parkerizing” the Bordeaux wines he worked on.  The fact that Figeac or any other house that deemed the classic style more appropriate could switch back at any time seemed utterly lost on those who were upset by the development. 

Still, the concern of wine producers pandering to the taste of one critic is a valid one. Parker loves California Cabernet.  I love it, too.  But I don’t want everything to taste like Cali Cab.  Another issue is what the producers do to get their ratings.  Wines are seldom tasted blind for wine rating.  No matter how much a critic claims to focus on what is in the glass, the critic is aware of where the wine is from, who made it, and roughly what it will retail for.  One of the first wines I ever really liked was 90 point rated Merlot from Chile that sold for about $13 a bottle.  There are $100 bottles that have received the same rating from the same critic.  Either I got the deal of a lifetime or there is something funny with the numbers.

Most critics only rate wines that are submitted to them for rating.  (If any producer reading this wants to send me a mixed case of wine for review then by all means let me know.)  A critic who consistently rates a wine poorly will find himself running short of samples rather quickly.  And samples are by no means the extent of it.  It is not at all uncommon for wineries to host critics.  That means that a well-known critic can expect to be routinely sent on all expense paid vacations to wineries all over the world.  Guess what happens to those vacations when a critic fails to deliver a good rating?

Sometimes the influence is less direct.  At my first wine seminar the instructor told us to look at the advertising in wine magazines.  It is a shocking statistical anomaly that, of the many thousands of wineries in existence, the ones that get the best ratings in a given magazine tend to be the ones advertising in the same magazine.
Adding to the confusion in the fact that though most critics use a hundred point scale, there seems to be little agreement on what that actually means.  Many critics seem to rate on a 90-100 point scale.  It’s like they have never met a wine they did not like.  Others, especially critics who focus on Burgundy, give much more conservative ratings.  A 92 from Burghound is high praise while the same rating from Wine Advocate is unremarkable.

If I’m honest, it is hard to blame the critics for behaving the way they do.  If anyone wanted to fund this blog through advertisement and kick in some free wine in the deal it would be a hard offer to say no to.  Honesty is a luxury of obscurity, or of having a day job, depending on perspective.

So are wine critics really useless?

Yes.  Yes they are.  Unless you know how to read their reviews. There are two crucial cheats to making sense of it.  One is actually reading a review and not just looking at the score.  Many critics will include subtle digs at whatever they are reviewing, trusting that whoever has bought them or their editor off will be satisfied with the score and less concerned with the actual content of the review.  This is a good idea anyway.  If a wine is meant to age for thirty years then you would want to know that before you buy it to have with tonight’s dinner. 

It is also helpful to realize that, even for a professional, taste is personal.  Each critic has his or her own preferences and concept of what wine should taste like.   If you are going to follow the ratings then try to find someone whose tastes resemble yours.  There is a reason there so many different kinds of wine and so many critics with conflicting views.  As with finding a good bottle, finding a good critic is all about ignoring the crowd and finding what works for you.  And there is no shame in it if your tastes happen to follow the crowd.  But do keep an eye on who their advertisers are.