What the wine critics don’t tell you (part 1)

"I have a severely depleted nose and palate, ruined by the excesses of fast food, recreational drugs, lager, fags and oral sex while at school and university, followed by 10+ years in the City as a Banker where I regularly frequented establishments characterized by moral laxity (known as ECMLs in City parlance)". (Humphrey Harvester, fictitious wine critic).

Taste is very subjective. Critics’ style preferences have the biggest influence on scores

It always amuses me when critics disclose with great alacrity and seriousness their ‘completely independent reviews and opinions’ (from merchants or anyone else on the ‘sell side’), as though this form of ‘independence’ is the bedrock of their wisdom and the quality of their tasting notes and scores. What about disclosing their style preferences as well? 

You can never be truly independent of your personal style preferences, can you? Surely these are the most important factors a critic should disclose because they will colour every single tasting note and score but the critic never discloses them. Just look at professional tasters’ assessments – they very often differ on their opinions and scores.

Subjective versus objective

I recognize that good tasters can isolate some of their subjective style preferences to facilitate objective wine assessments and that they can generally agree on broad categorizations of wine by quality. Most experienced wine drinkers could spot the large difference in quality between, say, a simple NZ sauvignon blanc v’s Dagueneau’s Silex from Pouilly-Fumé, or a Côtes du Rhône v’s Vincent Avril’s Clos des Papes from Chateauneuf-Du-Pape. But most wines are in the middle range of quality, not at the outer edges like my examples, and agreeing on assessments in this middle range becomes much harder.

In this middle ground, my own experiences (as a 46 year old I have drunk my fair share of fine wines and ‘belly wash’ over the past 25 years of working, living and travelling in the UK, France, Asia, Africa and the Americas) and voracious reading of wine critics and commentators have convinced me that a taster’s subjective style preferences easily trump his or her objective assessments of quality when it comes to scores. Assessments of quality (even some faults) and styles are so subjective and influenced by personal experiences, perceptions, idiosyncrasies and style preferences that these make a very big difference to scores.

For example, what some tasters would call a fault (e.g. brett, the odour which smells like a barnyard in some red wines), others would call a positive. On style preferences, some may see oak, extraction, sweet tannins and fruit as negative attributes while others may see these as positives. Also, people can have differences in sensitivity to odours and flavours (e.g. 30% of the population can’t detect rotundone which creates the peppery aroma in Syrah). If you can’t smell some of the more subtle aromas, you may mark the wine lower. In this middle ground, a taster’s opinion on quality is so subjective and influenced by how he or she perceives a so-called fault or certain characteristics.

Just look at the following examples of descriptors and see how 2 different tasters, each with a different style preference, could use polar opposite adjectives to describe the same wine. One taster’s ‘rich and concentrated’ wine could mean an ‘over-extracted, unbalanced jammy fruit bomb’ for another. Who is right or wrong? Well, that is just a matter of opinion.

Style preference: big, fruity, oaked, alcoholic wines	Style preference: Elegant, mineral, subtle wines
Positive descriptors	Negative descriptors
Concentrated, rich, saturated	Over-extracted, jammy fruit bomb, unbalanced
Toasty, espresso	Over-oaked, bitter
Hedonistic	Unnatural, manipulated
Under ripe	Old style, subtle
Voluptuous	Over ripe, lacking structure
Powerful, viscous	Alcoholic
Intriguing, flawed	Faulty
Negative descriptors	Positive descriptors
Insipid	Elegant, subtle fruit
Light weight	Mineral, silky tannins
Bretty	Earthy, gamey
Oxidative or astringent or light weight or quirky	Natural
Acidic	Fresh

I am not saying that tasting is completely subjective, and I accept that there is some expertise involved in identifying various aromas and flavours which the professional wine critic has developed during the course of his or her career.

However, no matter how hard they try, there is a level beyond ‘being objective’ where professionals will score certain wines down when others rate the same wines up because of personal experiences, perceptions, idiosyncrasies and style preferences. The taste of wine isn’t simply a question of what is in the glass.

Humphrey Harvester, the fictitious wine critic

Let me indulge myself for a minute. I like the idea of a fictitious critic (let’s call him Humphrey Harvester) unpacking his heart and writing an honest introduction of himself on his site. Serious, legal disclaimer: this is a completely made-up character (although you see a number of look-alikes in and around Chelsea, Daylesford Organic farm shop in the Cotswolds, Courchevel 1850 and Rock, North Cornwall) and any similarity to anyone is completely coincidental, blah, blah, blah.

Here is the introduction on his web site humphreyharvester.com (the web site doesn’t exist – I checked):

“I am completely unattached and have no interest in any vineyard, producer, distributor, retailer or any other wine business. I therefore offer up completely independent reviews and opinions.

However I have a severely depleted nose and palate, ruined by the excesses of fast food, recreational drugs, lager, fags and oral sex while at school and university, followed by 10+ years in the City as a Banker where I regularly frequented establishments characterized by moral laxity (known as ECMLs in City parlance).

As a result, I have the olfactory receptors of an amoeba. My nose and palate are not tuned to the acidity, delicacy and nuances of style, fruit, flavor and aroma of old style, authentically made wines. I like vindaloo-style wines – you know, the sorts of wines which taste the same whatever the producer and country in the world, whatever the time of day or night: big, hot, rich, thick, succulent, saturated in sweet ripe fruit, dominated by blackberry paste, braised plum, crushed fig, vanilla and toast.  The sort of wines which bring me out in a warm, comforting flush (like sitting in front of a crackling fire at our house in the Alps) so high is the alcohol level.

As a result, these are the types of wines I always score highly, probably by 5-10 points more than austere, old world wines with that nebulous characteristic of terroir or sense of place. And I can’t possibly score one of those insipid, natural wines (which taste of Chateau de Coq-Rot) higher than 80 points.

I also have the liver and constitution of a bison, as well as a very understanding wife and 7 dysfunctional children (from three different marriages) who don’t mind me spending months away from home whilst tasting and eating at the world’s great vineyards and restaurants”.

I felt I should disclose these personal style preferences because they have a large bearing on how I describe and score wines.

Like Humphrey, why do critics never mention these types of critical attributes and arrangements? I think this would give the reader a far better insight into the critic and the usefulness of their scores, rather than a bland “I am independent”.

Disclosure of preferences would help

I know I am being facetious but there is a serious point here though; as far as tasting notes are concerned, critics could reveal their preferences: “I like big wines with gobs of fruit, vanilla and espresso notes” or “I have a predilection for austere wines which a light in alcohol and fruit but express minerality and complexity” or “I like all styles but it really depends on what I am eating and who I am with because I score context as much as what as is in the glass”.  It is very difficult to claim that ‘this palate is good’ and ‘that palate is bad’ because taste is so subjective but you could describe what types of wines you like which would give an indication of what type of palate you have.

For the consumer, this would be very useful to know in a critic’s preamble because they could then select critics to follow, in the same way they should select a wine merchant – i.e. one who mirrors their own preferences.

For some critics, they wouldn’t want to disclose this of course because it would box them in and force them to admit that tasting is so affected by personal preferences. Critics want you to believe that taste is a product of what is in the glass, that they can review any wine impartially and scientifically, detect a litany of different fruits, tobaccos, compotes and teas, and then distil it down to a definitive tasting note, score and ageing profile. But tasting is predominantly an art not a science and its beauty is in the mouth of the beholder.

Disclosure of personal preferences would create another layer of complexity for some websites branded eponymously (e.g. erobertparker.com or jancisrobinson.com) where they employ multiple reviewers, presumably all with different preferences and therefore opinions and scores. To get the most out of a critic, don’t just choose the website; you need to choose the right critic who matches your own preferences.

Jamie Goode has written an excellent article on the art and science of tasting wines called “Wine tasting: subjective or objective” which I would recommend people read. http://www.wineanorak.com/subjectivity.htm

Read my next posting: What the wine critics don’t tell you (Part 2)

What the wine critics don’t tell you (part 2)

Some critics’ claims of ‘independence’ suggest that only their tasting notes and scores can be trusted

When some critics declare their independence with great alacrity and self-righteousness, it implies to me that he or she believes that they have right on their side, ordained by a higher order to impart their monopoly of vinous wisdom on the world, bringing light where once there was darkness, in search of the sacred and undeniable truth. That it is only by being independent and having no commercial interest in the wines that he or she can be trusted to describe and score them accurately, and that you, the gullible consumer, shouldn’t trust those rapacious merchants who will flog you any old ‘belly wash’ to hit their sales numbers.

Bollocks, say I.

I can hear you say that critics guilty of these antics don’t mean this but this is what I infer (perhaps facetiously, I admit) from their terribly serious declarations of independence, delivered in the style of Thomas Jefferson and his US Declaration of Independence of 1776. It may be ungenerous of spirit but the style of some (only some, as others don’t push this too much) critics’ claims does rankle.

The vast majority of merchants give great advice too. They can’t afford not to

I can understand why critics claim independence from merchants and I don’t doubt they make them in good faith. I understand their argument that it is important for the critic or organization to declare their hand and be transparent with the reader if they are scoring wines. Is he/she incentivized to write about and score the producer? You clearly can’t present a note and score like you are independent when in fact you aren’t. OK, I get that.

But on the other hand, a relationship between a merchant and consumer is also clear – the latter knows the merchant has a vested, commercial interest and this is completely transparent and understood.

Even though a reputable merchant has a commercial interest in marketing and selling the wine, I don’t believe they will stupidly overate a wine and give good scores for poor wines. I think there are three reasons:

1.     Real time information and bad publicity. Unlike the past when information wasn’t easily available, today the world is awash with it on all wines and prices. It is difficult to fool a consumer these days and if an unscrupulous merchant does, it can be named and shamed in real time using any number of social media sites. It isn’t in the interests of a reputable merchant to do that because their livelihood depends on goodwill and repeat business.

2.     Commercial interests. It is precisely their commercial interests and focus on customer loyalty which hold them to account. If they rip you off then you won’t go back. In fact, I would argue that the merchant needs to ‘get it right’ far more than the critic. If a merchant ‘gets it wrong’, they might lose sales.

3.     They rate the wine already. They rated the wine in the first place, hence why they bought it and sell it to customers. Of course they rate their own wines highly. The cause and effect works this way around, not the other way.

They may well be guilty of inflating a score at the margin but no more than any other wine critic could do. Independent critics may also inflate a score because of external factors outside of the glass (the occasion, weather, your mood, temperature, lunar cycles -  apparently - and so on). Robert Joseph recently wrote an excellent article called ‘Wine, critics and science’ which I would recommend people read. (http://thejosephreport.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/wine-critics-and-science-pseudo-junk.html).

(That said, be careful of unscrupulous merchants with no track record and looking to make a quick buck – they do still crop up from time to time, particularly in a booming market like we saw up to 2007).

Independence does not mean zero bias. Everyone is susceptible to bias, even the critics

Even if the critic is independent of merchants and even if there is a ‘learned component of wine tasting’ and that critics can apply this scientific approach meaning they can remove personal style preferences from scores (which are a lot of probabilities and therefore long odds), the critic is still susceptible to some bias, even if unintentional.

External factors such as friendship with and veneration of certain growers are inevitable and this affects sentiment in descriptions and scores. To eliminate this risk, a critic would have to taste every bottle blind which, of course, is just not practical.

Therefore ‘independence’ does not mean ‘no bias’. Bias is all-pervasive in our lives, whether intentional or not.

Independence doesn’t mean the critics’ notes and their industry insight are better than merchants’

Just because a critic is ‘independent’, it doesn’t mean that he or she writes better notes or has a better palate than a merchant who isn’t ‘independent’. Check out Alun Griffiths (20 years at Berry Brothers and Rudd, and now at the Chinese company Vats Liquor), Jasper Morris MW (Field, Morris and Verdin) and Doug Wregg (Les Caves de Pyrene) who all work on the ‘sell side’. They all write superbly and I trust their opinions, even though they may have different style preferences.

I digress slightly but I would also say that just because a site is a paying subscriber one, it doesn’t mean the tasting notes, scores and other opinions are better. Check out Jamie Goode (all content is FOC) and Tim Aitkin (some content is FOC) who offer non-subscriber sites and excellent tasting notes, scores and commentary.

Read my next posting: What the wine critics don’t tell you (Part 3)

What the wine critics don’t tell you (part 3)

Technology and the ubiquity of real-time information has virtually destroyed the relevance of a critic’s ‘independence’, the quality which many critics hold dearest

When he set out in 1978, Robert Parker strengthened the voice of the customer significantly at time when he believed there was a paucity of reliable information on wine quality, and some critics had conflicts of interests by selling wine, thereby taking advantage of the consumer.

However, that was in the pre-internet era, a period of minimal and slow information, print hand outs, analogue telephone lines and large ‘spreads’ where any party in a transaction (buyers, sellers, brokers) could take advantage of limited pricing information and make very good margins, long before the customer realised.

But that world has disappeared. Most information is available electronically in real-time and at any time, whatever the wine and wherever the country. Real time, nearly perfect information is one of the abundant fruits of the internet age thanks to the proliferation of professional and amateur wine critics, commentators and writers sites and blogs who can expose any individual or business where a customer is being ripped off, sending it around the world using any number of social media sites.

Then there are merchants and brokers’ online trading platforms which pull in critics’ comments and scores, plus sites like wine-searcher.com which has truly revolutionised the buying and selling of wine because it provides such clear information on pricing and availability which creates competitive tension, much to the buyer’s advantage. The market operates very efficiently now.

As I said in my last posting, in today’s world of real-time information and transparency, I just don’t see how or why any reputable merchant would try and exploit a customer and risk its reputation. It is precisely the merchants’ commercial interests and focus on customer loyalty which hold them to account. The merchants need to ‘get it right’ far more than the critic.

And is it really realistic for a critic to pretend to be independent and then sell wine on the side, as was the case when Parker started? Why not just be a wine merchant and admit you sell great wines which you really like, and that is why you recommend them in the first place.

On the whole (although I accept that a few will always try it on), the Internet exposes very quickly those merchants and brokers who try to kid the consumer and this transparency means the market polices abusers pretty effectively. I just don’t think the original raison d’etre for Parker’s creation exists anymore.

That isn’t to say that wine critics don’t play an important role. My point is that this ubiquity of real-time information means that their ‘independence’ isn’t the reason I read critics’ opinions. I read them for the reasons I outlined in an earlier post – for breadth of knowledge, entertainment, notes and some benchmark scores (even if I take the latter with a pinch of salt and ignore the staggeringly boring ones).

Critics’ opinions are interesting but don’t take their tasting notes or scores too seriously

Experience has taught us not to believe unquestionably what we read, especially in something as subjective as taste. You need to check it out for yourself and validate what someone tells you. This is why I don’t take any critic’s tasting notes too seriously.

The intelligent consumer (I like to think that I am one, but some friends might disagree) who reads wine scores will read many different ones, not just take one as the single version of the truth. Taste is so subjective and bottle dependent. Don’t think somehow that the critic is right and you a wrong if your palate is giving you different flavours and aromas to theirs. Read a few to establish a consensus score, drink the wine yourself if you can and then make your own mind up.

Whatever the critics say and however they present their notes as science, it is still predominantly an art. One critic’s 82 points (unbalanced, over-extracted wine) could be another one’s 98 points (concentrated, rich wine). I do enjoy reading tasting notes and scores from different critics but I don’t take them too seriously.

Sommeliers are undervalued. They are an excellent source of information

Possibly more than merchants and critics, the people I really listen to are sommeliers. They taste a lot of wines and live the consumer experience every day in real time - unlike a merchant where you buy your wine and might lay it down for 10 years, or a critic who has tasted in an office with no food or context.

Sommeliers get instant feedback on what the consumer likes and what works with what food. They aren’t truly ‘independent’ because they have a commercial interest in the wine they help sell but I don’t care - they influence me greatly, and I am very interested in their opinions and insight. It is precisely because of commercial interests that they have a vested interest in serving me something delicious and good value which makes me come back. It is the money which keeps them honest. Like a merchant. I would argue that they need to ‘get it right’ far more than a critic because they will be judged on the spot.