Trophy Wine Hunter Comments on Wine Spectator's Controversy with Bordeaux First Growths
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 вер 2024
- I recently saw this article in Wine Spectator magazine about the First Growths withholding samples of the 2020 vintage to Wine Spectator for blind tasting because the First Growths wanted Wine Spectator to come to the chateau to taste.
www.winespecta...
I saw the story and thought it would be interesting to comment and open up some discussion on this topic.
The opinions I making are personal opinions and are not meant to be a criticism of Wine Spectator but to open up discussion on this topic. Cheers!
People who have the income to purchase first growths don't care what professional reviewers say. Good or bad vintage, they will sell out without any professional tasting reviews.
arakafafian: you are somewhat correct. 1st growths are still concerned about what the general public thinks as the beginners of today maybe the big buyers of tomorrow. I agree no matter what, buyers will still buy 1st growths but they still don't want no one to review their wines as then they get obscure. Ultimately, Wine Spectator and 1st Growths need each other, which is why I was surprised this story made the light of day. Cheers!
I do care... Try chateau palmer,a 3 growth,but by many considered as a super second growth.
@@user-wp5zk6wq9t agreed. Palmer is exceptional! Cheers!
@arakafafian you'd think that way but I heard the wine business people telling me that all the Bordeaux owners are worrying about the slowdown of wine consumption around the world, and the inventory is piling up. 20-30% price drop for 2023 futures is a clear sign. For these big producers, selling hundreds of thousand bottles/yr is not an easy job.
I haven’t seen the interview so my comments may not be exactly on point but….. I think that WS wanting to rate the first growths is an acknowledgment that wine ratings no longer serve their intended purpose of informing the consumer as to the quality of a particular wine and now its more about how many points did that wine get. Decades ago there wasn’t the amount of information and knowledge that is so readily available now. You might know a bit about a few wineries or a region or two but it was hard to really know enough to walk into a wine store and understand if the price on the label reflected the quality in the bottle. Back in the day you had to read many books and magazines to understand the regions and learn which were the good producers, so a review by WS was handy. But today are we really uncertain if what is in the bottle of a first growth is any good? On top of which, very few consumers can afford these bottles nowadays, so does it really matter what the review was? I think that WS trying to cover the first growths show that it’s really all about viewers/reader’s curiosity to know who got how many points and that very few people are leveraging the reviews for the actual purpose of information. It’s all about points and not actual reviews.
doublewides: I think you are correct. For the hundreds are years, there was no wine point rating system....it was by word of mouth or few people who put together wine encyclopedias on tasting. Now everyone, including me, can rate a wine. I am with you about wine ratings....it is no longer about informing consumers, it is about curiosity and selling wine. Very few people rate or give point scores to old wines...why...because there is no interest in terms of sales. Even if I told you a 1918 Petrus is 100 pts and the best wine ever...no one would care because no one can either buy it or sell it.
So you are quite correct that for most experienced drinkers, wine ratings are more just for interest. They are important for investors as investors have to invest based on high points. They are important to wineries as they have sell wine to consumers and they are important to 80% of the wine drinking world as most people do base their purchase/views on high ratings at the same price level which is why you see so many inflated scores.
Not knocking any of this but just trying to understand like everyone else what wine ratings mean and can be used for. Cheers!
Doublewides, you nailed it.
@@micheal0811 😀😀
I have to disagree. The demands of Wine Spectator are entirely reasonable and it’s a helpful explanation of why WS isn’t rating First Growths. WS is a big enough publication to merit tasting samples so your argument doesn’t stand. If First Growths are afraid of being tasted blind while charging huge premiums they deserve to be called out. I think tasting first growths against the rest of Bordeaux is far more fair than tasting at the estate. This won’t hurt WS because the consumer base for first growths is tiny. So few people can afford these wines and many buy them as an investment rather than to drink them.
tekaldas: your views are noted. I just think there is more to the story than just they won't supply wines for tasting because they are afraid they will be tasted blind. As I said in the video, I am pretty sure the tasters are good enough they could distinguish a first growth from 80% of the wines. If they have been tasting these wines for 20 years, they will have consistent notes of what to look for, especially if the samples are tasted by region (I believe that WS says..they taste by region not just completely random). Would be interesting to know if one person tastes everything or if more than one, do they average the scores, etc. Again, once you open the can, you got to let everything out. Cheers!
I have to say I am with Wine Spectator on this one. If they taste blind that is what they do. Of course totally fair for the Premier Crus to not wanting to send samples but I respect WS to not changing the rules of their method under pressure.
The PR element here is a different story but honestly any press is good press. Especially in a world of declining wine consumption.
🥂
dominic: I just don't think it is good look for either side. If it is matter of blind tasting, I doubt the 1st growths are concerned about scores? I am just saying there is probably more to the story and if WS is going to bring this up, then they have to be totally transparent about the process. Cheers!
There is something to be said for both positions. Although I have a slight preference to taste wines blind. When it comes to an objective assessment. But then that must be done completely transparently, with full insight into the wine tasting procedure! I can imagine that the first growths finds this difficult. Because, understandably, they have no influence on this.
Personally, this has a high entertainment value for me. "Take it all with a grain of salt." To conclude with your words Tony. Wise words!
Suggestion. With some real wine lovers, put in money and look forward to a suitable first growth (or several). And gain your own experiences. You learn more from that than by staring blindly at wine tasting notes and scores. In addition, Tony and his experiences continue to follow. Cheers!
😀😀
Good topic for discussion. You make many good points especially that there are things behind the scene that we do not know about. Last June I was visiting a first growth and was party to a conversation the owner had with some Bordeaux insiders that at the time I was not sure what to make of it. While it was not on this point exactly, I now suspect it was related to this conflict with Wine Spectator.
craig: I thought it was just an interesting topic to discuss so I put out a video just to see how other feel. Judging by the response, it is a good topic of discussion. Cheers!
Hey trophy! I think you're missing the point here. Wine Spectator is not going to "bend the knee" to the first growths because they want to uphold their simple principle of blind tasting.
WIne Spectator still reviews a handful of wines that are non-blind in which case they disclose this to the reader, but First Growths need to play by the same book/rules as all the other producers that submit their wines for tasting.
I don't think Wine Spectator did anything wrong and in fact, this is a huge eyebrow raiser to the consumer as to why First Growths pulled out of submission for blind tasting reviews. It's as if they have either a) something to hide or b) they're afraid their wine really isn't much better than 2nd/3rd/4th growths etc.
As a final note, when you take away the label and judge the wine purely on [human] senses, it allows them to objectify the wine based on look, smell, and taste which I think is incredibly valuable.
daniel: I get what you are saying but as to your reasons: a) I don't think they have something to hide...they have other people who have rated the wines; b) again, I don't think they doubt the quality of their wines. 1st growths have been performing very consistently over the last decade. So that is why this is so strange. It just makes me believe there is more to the story that just 1st growths don't want Wine Spectator to taste blind.
So if WS does review and handful of wines non blind, why wouldn't they just go to the winery, taste the wine and disclose that it is non blind? It seems like a power struggle and I am not convinced I entirely understand what the 1st growths....did they say they won't let WS taste blind or that they won't send samples to NY? I think we need the full story so hopefully we will get more details in the November full interview. Cheers!
@@TrophyWineHunter Very good points! It is interesting that Wine Spectator has chosen not to even do non-blind tastings at the chateau and disclose the scores like they did in the past. I know I've seen reviews in the past from JM and it's a BT review (barrel tasting).
A final point - I think blind tasting reviews are the most powerful type of review. I'm much more inclined to purchase wines if WS gave it a high score than say (and with all due respect) James Suckling or Jeb Dunnuck.
It's very obvious that tasting these wines knowing what they are subconsciously influences the critic to rate it higher because of the label/prestige. This is why WS has been and will continue to be the gold standard for professional wine reviews to savvy consumers.
@@danielhall5322 please see my video on blind tasting. A couple of points: 1/ I am not a great blind tasting so perhaps that is why I don't like to do them that much/ 2/ you do get better at it the more you blind tasting.
Having said that, unless you are there and running it with scientists, even blind tastings are subject to bias.
If you are doing it scientifically, you would actually list exactly how you did it and probably put in a placebo wine. The whole point is if you doing it scientifically, using the same criteria, you should be able to replicate the results. But I think most studies have shown even if you do the same blind tasting with the same wines, you will not get the same results. That is because with wines, so many factors can affect the taste/impression of the wine and most wine magazines/tasters do not go into the detail that a scientist would to objectify the experiment.
So then blind tasting just becomes a glorified parlour game or something for some other purpose (like sales or proving a point).
I think it is great if people are very good a blind tasting but a good blind taster does not equate to me to a knowledgeable drinker or a nice person or even someone I would want to drink with.
I am not in the industry so I don't drink with experts...I drink with regular people who have a lot of knowledge and experience with wines. We never blind taste unless for 10 minutes and just for fun because we have nothing to prove to each other and we just want to enjoy the wine. No issue with those people who like to blind taste and enjoy that process but just saying that just because someone does not blind taste or is not good at it does not mean they know nothing about wine or can't taste wine. It just means they are a lousy blind taster. Cheers!
This is similar to how many ivy league schools are no longer participating in US News college rankings by not submitting the necessary data required. They disagree with the magazine's methodologies and feel like they dont have to succumb to them.
michaels: whw, didn't knwo the ivys are doing this. Cheers!
Love your insight on this topic. I am looking forward to the 1 growth bordeaux 2022!
user: I try to come up with unique videos so I didn't see anyone comment on this. Cheers!
In Norway we have a winemonopoly,that is not marked regulated...(you can really do some good finds here!) I do it all the time!
@@user-wp5zk6wq9t 😀😀
Love your analysis on this!
Wine Spectator should pay for the wines first off. Secondly they should be able to get the wines on their own. Given the tendency of the wine media to punish price, I do not blame the first growths or the high level Saint Emilions from eschewing ratings that go by something as rotten as "media presence".
joseph: to me it is an odd story as both are pretty elitist groups and to complain about not being fair opens themselves up to criticism. But it does shed light on the problem with ratings which I have try to highlight on my channel. But no matter how much we say ratings don't matter, they do to most people. Just like when people say they are passionate about wine....but how come most of the wine that people collect is never drunk and sold at auction? Cheers!
Is WS truly doing blind tasting? WS attends en primeur, and that's done on site at the winery. Is this a carryover from COVID travel restrictions, where wineries were shipping samples to WS (and others) to sample? I think there were stories where the rating staff complains the samples where bad / didn't travel well etc. But like you said, just a power struggle and there's lots of behind the scenes factors (e.g. 1st growth didn't take enough lead to lower en primeur prices, and continues to prop it up)
😀😀
I'm a bit more jaded than you. Reminds me of how the top St Emilion producers pulled out of their local classification. Once you're at the top, there is little incentive to continue to submit to ratings/scores/reviews. The added scrutiny can't help the wineries- positive reviews are expected and will simply maintain the already high reputation whereas negative reviews could hurt. As you say, not submitting to blind tastings won't affect the bottom line for any of the First Growths, though a few negative scores in Wine Spectator might.
noahcap: something tells me there is more to the story. 1st growths are as good as they have ever been. I think a bit of a power struggle. Perhaps 1st growths want to knock WS off its pedestal. It seems to simple to just say, they won't send samples to us and we have to taste at the winery if they have done this every year before. Did they just change this during COVID? I can't imagine 20 years ago, Bordeaux wineries were shipping wine to WS in New York to taste. So they never, ever tasted in Bordeaux? They have never rated wines while at the winery? Just seems like so much more that we as consumers don't know about how these wine raters review wines.
One thing I would know is how many Bordeaux wines send them samples they don't choose to review and on what basis these are excluded. Cheers!
Resting on their laurels... yeah, I get it. Since EVERYTHING these days is about $, why should they take the risk? Makes total sense to me.
niles: to me, it was just odd that 2 heavyweight groups in the wine industry would choose to air the grievances. Cheers!
I'm new to drinking wine after recently opening a bottle of a moderately priced vintage cab sav which took my palate on a journey and changed my perspective. However, 20 years ago, on the advice of my work colleagues of bankers and lawyers, I'd previously been buying top grade wines and storing them as an alternative investment, when they were a lot more affordable back then. I remember even storing a case of 1990 vintages of Penfolds Grange, Yquem and Haut Brion in the bank's underground vault for 2 years! Unfortunately its now a double edged dilemna with the price of 1st growths Bordeaux far exceeding inflation. I am too frightened to open my 1990 Haut Brion and 1988/1989 Y'Quems considering the current value of them! From my experience, the majority of people that are buying these wines usually don't drink them. The relatively low supply and high demand coupled with social media exposure and the flood of new wealth from previously developing countries, will mean these wines will be grossly unobtainable for ordinary people to experience. I am more compelled to find a sibling wine from the same producer or seek out a neighbouring vineyard with a similar expression. I only hope that the 1st growth Bordeaux wineries don't compromise on quality by buying grapes from other outlying regions to increase their volume and profit margins as we have seen in several champagne houses. Greed usually prevails.
oysterman: your dilemma is a common one. Most people take the cash. Some drink half and sell half. I am the stupid one..I will end up drinking most of it!
To me, if you never loved wine and it doesn't mean anything to you, it just becomes an investment so you should sell it. If you bought wine and love it, you should still drink it if it appreciates in value. You bought it because of passion but your passion turned to money. You can make money other ways but you cannot replace passion and once you start replacing money with passion, then you are no longer you. This is when you find out if you are really passionate about wine or just interested in wine.
I would encourage to open at least one bottle of each wine you cellared. You cellared these wines to.....make money? or to drink or to save for future generations? Whatever the original intent, money should change things. It sounds like you original intent was for investment and if that the case, drinking it seems to defeat your long term plans. But you have become a drinker so I would save a bottle of each to drink.
The other thing you have to think about is that even if you buy replacements today for the wines you sell, you have to wait another 20 years for those wines to get to their drinking window.
Good dilemma to have! Worst thing to do is nothing...so you don't get the joy of drinking and you don't get to use the money of the appreciation...your indecision will leave the pleasure/benefit to future generations who won't have an ounce of appreciation for your work/planning, etc. They will either drink or sell it. Cold!.
Cheers!
Well said, Tony.
@@micheal0811 😀😀
@@TrophyWineHunter Thanks for your insight and advice. It's an interesting topic of discussion and debate. I totally agree with what you say. It's a good solution to drink a few and sell the rest. I guess at the time of purchase I wasn't a drinker but more of a collector. I didn't think what would eventuate 20 years into the future. Collecting wines and spirits was no different from collecting stamps or coins. For example I was buying bottles as souvenirs from different regions of countries I'd visited, instead of buying postcards. I can't think of a better souvenir to have than a bottle of wine or spirit which contains the essence of the terroir and the workmanship that defines those places I've visited. Only I never opened the bottles for consumption.
I remember traveling to Japan twice a year and bringing back Japanese whiskey for co-workers as a novelty, which only cost $40 duty free at the time. My colleagues being seasoned single malt Scotch drinkers probably poured it down the sink! Not realizing that today those 17 year old blended whiskies are $2000 per bottle!
@@oysterman962 😀😀
Agreed. I see your points.
😀😀
Of course, i don't have any insights of this saga. But provide my 2 penny analysis.
1. WS doesn't need to review the 1st growth to expand its business whatsoever. And the 1st growths don't need WS to sell their wines.
2. WS usually gives the lowest scores among other major wine medias.
3. I heard the 1st growths like other famed Bordeaux houses are left more inventories in their cellars than they desire - the market is slowing down. The low scores from WS definitely are not helping in that regard.
Per my analysis, the 1st growths are just finding a way to reject WS without saying it, WS won't go away quietly. The severance is acceptable by both parties.
william: respect your point of view...so does that mean WS is just upset and lashing out at 1st growths. Then there is no real reconciliation planned. It just struck me as a strange story as doesn't seem like 1st growths too upset by this. Cheers!
thanks for your report/view. To me, both parties have made their calculated and rational decisions here. Neither party would affect the other's bottomline. Reconciliation in the future? Neve say never, it depends. However, all the 1st growths are owned by rich families, the financials are not big concerns to the owners. I'd say the severance should last a long time, if not permanent.
@@williamhuang2976 😀😀
In answer yo your point 3. The 2023 EP campaign was a catastrophe.The first growths sold as usual but below this ( save for some on trend wines like Carmes etc) it was a total disaster. This years EP was supposed to get the EP system back on track for the Chateaux, the Negociants and the Courtiers. It did not. The system is broken. I suspect that most of the first growths will now do as Latour and cut out the middlemen and release when they want. The whole idea of EP was to help the Chateaux with cashflow. Moueix and chums have no problem in this regard-although in his particular case his vinyards are only about 30 percent of his total business.He is also a wholesaler/negoce and importer, as well as being a thoroughly pleasant and educated individual. The first growths will be OK but below this pain is present. The French government has a massive programme of grants to rip out vines as they figure that there is an over supply in the middle market with consumption dropping.This is surely partially correct.However in the value sector of the wine market other countries are eating their lunch.South Africa is a standout in this respect.The amount of French investment in SA is astounding. Glenelly and Taaibosch being just a couple.
@jonathanhart8046 Thanks for your input!
From this year's EP prices, it's quite clear that the producers are struggling to sell their wines. In recent years, EP discount hasn't been attractive: 10-15%. I heard it used to be around 30% which makes sense that buyers have to pay for the wines 2 years in advance. Hope this year's EP is a good turning point back to the tradition.
Unfortunately, I don't find many high quality SA wines in America. Many from Argentina and Chile with French connections are available.
If you really want to know what you think, you have to taste blind. On the other hand, First Growth Bordeaux is so expensive that I really pay no attention to it at all.
@@marknelson8724 😀😀
I think all wine tasting should be blind.
hermansews8561: I agree but what does "blind" mean? It is not a scientific protocol so when people are doing blind, someone actually know which wines are which. So if that person gives information or tells, then it is not blind. If you tell people what region it is from, then it is not blind.
To be blind, a protocol needs to developed and stated. That would be useful for WS to publish how they actually do their tastings...I would really be interested and also if we could make suggestions, based on how scientific experiments are run, on how to improve the blind process. Cheers!
truly blind would mean, taster at WS would not even know wines were from Bordeaux, let alone first growths and in that context, not sure if scores will be what everyone expects them to be:)
@@Ruirspirul I am pretty sure that is not what happens. If people really did blind tastings, you would not get the same results. Throw in a curveball like two of the same wines or a wine from another region and that will mix things up! Cheers!
@@TrophyWineHunter thats exactly my point though. we agree. thats not really what happens when big publications review wines.
@@Ruirspirul Yup...but it would so interesting to know exactly how it is done! I think many blind tasting are shrouded in secrecy and we only see the end result. Cheers!
1 - I can believe wine people are still reading publications like wine spectator in 2024. 2 - blind tasting is not only about knowing which wine you are tasting, its about influence. its one thing tasting in château and second, tasting in the office, even if you know the bottle. 3 - both Bordeaux and Wine spectator are sinking titanics
ruirspirul: given what you said, I think the more reason why I am surprised why this came out. Sinking ships should probably try to work together. You have to recognize most wine drinkers are fairly basic and Wine Spectator is still the most influential magazine for those getting into wines. For blind tasting you are correct but again, we just get a sound bite and one side of the story. Cheers!
I don't see Bx being any sinking Titanics.
They still rule, the wines are better than ever, almost perfect every vintages bar the very worst and the whites are also amazing, both dry and sweet.
And best, they don't really have alternatives - Cali cabs are just cabs and not remotely the same wine - Super Tuscans are too expensive for the same quality.
Yet to taste 2020, 2022, 2023, will skip all 2021s ofc but 2015, 2016, 2018, 2019s are all amazing vintages, only 2017 is slightly behind and 2014 drinks lovely now.
@@barath4545 I think it is true Bordeaux prices have slumped over the last 10 years. Product of too much success and too many good vintages. But also true that Bordeaux will always rule the auction world. Burgundy can't because not enough produced. It will be a new world order if Italian took over France as top spot in wines sale/wine auction. The French still have the aura when it comes to wines and quality now backs the reputation.
That is why this was, to me, a very strange shot across the bow by WS. Why would you bring this up if you are still trying to negotiate/reconcile? It almost seems they are at an impasse and WS doesn't want people to think 1st growth won't give them wine...no it is more they won't follow WS rules. Normally wine industry want to keep these things under wraps as the danger is once you lift the veil, everything must come to light. Might actually be good for the industry to understand how the whole rating process happens. Do they do it like scientific experiments where there is placebo? Unless they are really scientific, someone must know which samples are which wines and do they give off "tells" as to which wine is which? Cheers!
@@barath4545 big ships sink slow. when i say Bordeaux, I of course mean, luxury Bordeaux…
I think that the power of brand can not be overlooked. Louis Vuitton owns Cheval Blanc, Cloudy Bay etc.The people behind Chanel own Canon. Magazines and digital media have massive implications for brands.Wine lovers drink wine for the taste and the overall experience. The " poseur" market drinks wine to underpin and secure their position in the global pecking order! Sadly wine has become an accessory to this -just like having your Vuitton bag !
L’essentiel est de ne pas être naïve … et c’est l’important… French wine makers are not stupid and want wine spectator to calm down and stay where they should be just a specialized magazine… wine spectator is not important and can’t tell us what is acceptable or not… Again French are not stupid and who is wine spectator? First growth magazine lol… 😂
david: nice to get perspective from someone in France? Cheers!
@@TrophyWineHunter I follow your review on classification and thank you for that… my comment above was sarcastic but actually we need to put everything back to perspective… we, wine lovers, enjoy to make up our mind by simply opening a flacon of those amazing wines from all around the world made with passion and certainly love by those amazing individuals named winemakers. Now Wine spectator will not dictate to the first growths Chateaux what to do like RP has tried to do in the past… it is all about education… lol… thanks again for your input…and research.