Vinfolio.com

This is a thoughtful post. I'd like to respond to two points.

First, I agree that it is important for consumers to calibrate their palates against those of respected critics. A wine rating is based on a subjective response, and critics' palates vary. However, while examples of significant variation can be found, as in the Kistler cited in this post, they are less common than a general consensus regarding what is good and what is not. That's because ratings are not only subjective preferences; they are built on objective bases. Consumers can learn from the experience critics have earned, even if they sometimes disagree with the conclusions.

Second, Wine Spectator delivers much more than wine ratings. Though we rate more than 14,000 wines each year, more than half our pages are devoted to a broad range of editorial material: analyses of vintages in various regions, profiles of winemakers, restaurant reviews, travel stories, etc. Even if your palate doesn't calibrate well with a single Wine Spectator editor, you still might find it worthwhile to subscribe, simply for the educational aspects. We try to cover the whole world and lifestyle of wine.

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator

Nice post and overall very interesting blog.

While I agree with your analysis and it is very well explained, there is one thing that I often wonder about. I find that using Wine Spectator as a tool to "follow" to see if it consistently "works for you", lets say, is not going to work. Wine Spectator is very verticalized (maybe Thomas can correct me if I'm wrong) in their tasting approach. In other words, their tasting is very very deep but narrow. They use regional and varietal experts that have, say, the "Napa Cab" beat and taste many many Cabs. Then they're ratings are calibrated vertically. So if a drinker doesn't have any idea what a Napa Cab tastes like they can grab a 99 point (if they can afford it) Cab and use that as a baseline for what a cab should taste like (because the 99 is done by a professional tasting train-loads of Cabs and therefore probably is pretty accurate, relative to other Cabs).

Now, if you were to grab a 99 point Chilean Cabernet Franc you may not get that same experience because the Cab Franc was 99-points relative to the other wines the person (a different person) drank (likely other Chilean wines). This structure of tasting "beats" verticalizes their ratings and therefore makes a "trust index" hard for the overall magazine. Wine Spectator is good for creating a baseline in wine exploration and a good tool to expand beyond the "comfort zone", but not one you can base the "trust index" you describe on.

Your "trust index" would have to be used with a single source tasting many wines (shallow and broad, not verticalized). Robert Parker could create a trust index. Good news here, there are plenty of bloggers posting wine notes that, if you have the time and money, one could test following them and building trust indexes with.

I agree with you, "trusted source" is the key and that could be characterized by a high "trust index" (something I refer to in writing about a Wine Life Value Chain). Wine Spectator is not ideal for creating a trust index but its really good for wine exploration.

No point system is perfect. I use one that averages the scores. (Including my score) I frequently tell people that if 4 wine professionals rate a wine Very Good to Excellent. Guess what? It is probably pretty good wine and worth the investment. No system is perfect but a consensus of professionals (which is rare) is a good place to start. Ultimately, your own palate will be the judge of whether you deem it Very Good or Excellent. My system just tries to narrow the wines down to those that are most likely going to satisfy my readers. Cheers!

In regards to the article written by San Francisco Chronicle, you have to agree that wine ratings are not pointless, but needed to some extent. If you were to buy a car, you would read about all the ratings and awards each car has received, just as you would spend time when investing $200 on a bottle of wine. Wine is still a luxury item, and with any luxury item, people want to know that when they spend their excess cash that they are getting something worth while. I think a rating system does that for people.... for better or worse.

@Ken: If 4 wine professionals agree on the rating of the wine, is that wine going to be a value pick? Thats a conundrum of wine purchasing - price is set by these ratings. If you waited for a wine to be rated high by WS, RP, WE, and the corner wine guy, this wine's price will likely be quite high. The trick is how to find these wines BEFORE they're "discovered", because once they are, their price will make it hard to justify the purchase...

I am so happy to see that 87% of people trust their own judgement. I use wine tasting notes to see if what is on the back of the bottle matches what someone unaffiliated with the winery tasted. Then I match what the tasting notes say to what I like to drink.
Thanks for the well written blog,
Kathleen Lisson
Albany, NY
Wine and Stories from the Vineyard Blog
http://www.myspace.com/gamay

The rating system is very useful for saving time and providing a general starting point. I have found that my palate generally agrees with Parker, although I have some favorites that didn't impress on the ratings. I am often prompted to try a new wine because of decent ratings. Without ratings, I would likely rely on myself, my social circle and the reputation of the winery; which I speculate would impact the diversity of my choices. Keep the ratings, keep tasting, find what you like and try new wines as well.