Is it me, or has the standard for wine rating and scoring shifted over the past few years? It seems that the magazines and online reviews have become much more stingy about handing out 90+ scores.
In the long term, this is no doubt a good thing for both wine makers and consumers. The 90 point plateau has in some ways become the consumers excepted criteria to identify a very good wine, when the critics have been telling us all along that an 85 point wine was "very good".
Consumers must realize that 80 point wines are almost always drinkable and enjoyable, even if they don't display the depth or individuality of a 90 point wine. Depending on the price of the wine, an 83 point score could very well represent a fantastic value!
That being said, I wish the critics would just get their heads out of their asses and give my wines the 95+ points that they all deserve (right!).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Montes Folly Syrah
(2003, not 2005)
1 comment:
95+ Gobs of fruit. Effusive tar and burnt rubber.
This critque of Wagner by Nietzsche seems appropriate sometimes (heard this on NPR yesterday AM, couldn't wait to make use of it!)
Hmmm... Wagnerians = Parkerians??
"But apparently you think all music must leap out of the wall and shake the listener to his very intestines. Only then do you consider music effective, but on whom are such effects achieved? On the mass, on the immature, on the blase, on the sick, on the idiots, on Wagnerians." -- Friedrich Nietzsche on Richard Wagner
Post a Comment