.png)
What's a great wine? (Qu'est-ce qu'un grand vin?) by and for @ledomduvin 2025
What's a great wine?
And don't let anyone or anything — like wine critics' scores, ratings, tasting notes, medals, or quotes— influence your own taste, decisions, and judgment!!!
What's a great wine? (*)
We can argue on the subject for hours, but first and foremost, a great wine is a wine YOU love.
A wine that is satisfying to you for its aspect, robe, color, intensity, aromas, bouquet, freshness, ripeness, richness, depth, complexity, balance, harmony, structure, texture, layers, taste, aftertaste, finish, and whatever else you can think of that is pleasing to you in it.
A wine so exciting and delicious to your palate that it makes you shiver, or pause, or reflect, or smile right after the first sip. A wine from which the first glass immediately calls for another one. A wine you will never forget for that blissful moment. A wine triggering only one reaction from you: "Wow! What a great wine!"
Wine tasting is so subjective and can be influenced by so many factors that you can only count on yourself to really define what a great wine is for you. You might be the only one in the room who loves the wine, yet who cares, as long as you are satisfied with it. And don't let anyone or anything influence your own taste, decision, and judgment!!!
Don't let anyone or anything influence your own taste, decision, and judgment!!!
Label design, wine critics' scores, ratings, medals, quotes, tasting notes, and wine descriptions are all fine to read and pay attention to, and might, to a certain extent, guide and influence your decision and even help you to make up your mind on whether to buy a wine without having tasted it before (or not).
However, do not let these factors dictate your decision; take control of your mind and influence your palate. Although some of them may be used as guidance (those from the critic(s) you like and follow, who are usually meaningful and reliable, 'cause not all of them are), none of these factors should determine whether you will enjoy or even love the wine, especially before tasting it.
Don't fall into the trick of believing that because a wine critic you follow, like, and have a similar palate and taste, scored a wine highly, that you will automatically love this wine. Of course, there is a strong potential you might like it too, but it is not always the case.
So, don't let anyone or anything — like wine critics' scores, ratings, tasting notes, medals, or quotes — influence your own taste, decisions, or judgment!!!
Do your research and browse the internet, as the scores, ratings, and tasting notes might be outdated and reflect how the wine was at a specific time —maybe a few years ago —while the wine may have evolved (for good or for worse—you never know). Diversify your sources and check what people have to say about it.
Look at the various given scores on Wine-Searcher.com, for example, and only take into consideration the most recent ones. And if not recent enough, have a look at CellarTracker.com to read the most recent wine reviews, scores, and tasting notes (if available for the wine you're looking for).
In any case, please, please, please do not define a wine's quality and taste by just reading scores, ratings, or critics' reviews and quotes, either (especially if outdated). Do not say: "..oh, look, this wine got between 95-100 points, it must be excellent...", as you do not know!
That's true, isn't it? You have no idea if this high-scoring wine will be good for you and your taste, your palate, and overall personal preferences, just by trusting a few high scores and reading a few often vague and meaningless sentences that claim to describe it—sent your way with appealing words and adjectives meant to cloud your judgment and make it harder to decide based on your own tastes.
When I was less experienced, I often bought wines solely based on high scores, only to be disappointed because the scores were outdated, inflated compared to the wine's actual quality, the wine evolved differently than expected, or because the high score came from a critic I don't usually follow but decided to trust for that particular wine. It's the surest way to make a mistake.
Think about it. Unless you've already determined that your palate, taste in wine, and appreciation for tasting are similar to those of a particular wine critic you've been following closely for years, and as a result, you've established that you both favor the same wines and rate them similarly (and they receive good scores and are on par with your preferences based on the descriptions), then you really don't know.
And to be able to tell if that 95-100-point wine will suit your palate (or not), there is only one way: You have to taste it! There is no other way.
Granted, unless it is inexpensive and widely available, tasting a 95-100-point wine is not always easy because they tend to be costly and produced in limited quantities, making them difficult to access. Most wines rated 95 or above are. So, unless you purchase and try it yourself, you'll never know if that 95-100-point wine is as good for you as the rating or score implies.
In fact, you are facing 3 situations that will influence your decision whether to buy it (or not):
1. The 95-100 points have been given fairly recently by a wine critic (in a magazine, a guide, or a website) you follow and like, as you have a similar palate and usually like the wines he or she likes, and in that case, there is a high probability that the taste corresponds to your palate and that you may agree with the score too, and consequently have no problem to buy it and enjoy it.
2. The 95-100 points is an aggregated average score calculated by taking as many critic scores as possible for this specific wine and vintage, adjusted to the 100-point scale. Since the final score is a consensus of various critics' scores (some old and some newer), and recent reviews on CellarTracker.com corroborate these scores, there is a high probability you'll buy and like the wine, even if you would have rated it differently based on your taste.
3. The 95-100 points have been given by one (or several) wine critic(s) (in a magazine, a guide, or a website) long ago and/or by a critic you dislike, or that has a palate totally different than yours, and you usually disagree with his or her scores. Obviously, you probably won't buy the wine, even if it received high scores. However, it would still be interesting to taste it if you have the chance one day, to see whether you like the wine and agree with the score.
That said, even if I ask you not to judge a wine's quality solely based on scores, a 95-100 point rating will always influence your opinion, directly or indirectly (even if it's from a critic you dislike). It would be dishonest to claim otherwise. But what I mean is: don't assume anything about a high score or take it for granted until you've tasted the wine yourself.
The more you taste, the more you refine and sharpen your palate's skills, knowledge, and taste.
Nowadays, there are many ways to taste a wine before buying it and/or to be informed about a wine's quality, and to make your own judgment of wines rated by critics, while refining your palate, sharpening your skills, and growing your knowledge at the same time.
- Visiting your "Caviste" (or boutique-wine store) to ask for their opinions and comments can be helpful. If the "caviste" is friendly and customer-focused (like I used to be and like I was during my New York years), they might be willing to open a bottle in the store so you can taste the wine, judge it for yourself, and help you decide whether to buy it.
And trust me, from experience, a "caviste" usually has no problem opening a bottle because he/she knows the bottle isn't lost. Most customers who visit the store always appreciate a free "impromptu" tasting with the chance to get a free glass of wine. Therefore, opening a bottle to win over one customer usually attracts others and significantly increases the chances of selling more bottles of that specific wine than initially planned.
Personally, when I worked as a store manager and wine buyer at two boutique wine stores in NYC, I had no problem opening bottles for customers. This often led to enjoyable impromptu tasting sessions that many other wine shoppers also appreciated. It was fun, and I sold many cases of wine this way, rather than just individual bottles.
NB: Between you and me, fakely arguing about a wine or criticizing a producer or a specific wine label, especially when facing a skeptic, is always a good trick for a caviste to open a bottle in the store. It usually works quite well, and the skeptical customer usually ends up buying the bottle. (😊)
Other ways to taste a wine before buying it and/or to be informed about a wine's quality, and to make your own judgment of wines rated by critics, consist of:
- Subscribing to the newsletters of your local wine merchants and/or wine stores, to be informed of their up-and-coming wines, promotions, tastings, dinners, and other wine events
- Going to wine dinners, wine fairs, as well as forums, expositions, and any other events promoting wines.
- Being invited as often as possible by friends who have a substantial private wine cellar at home (😊)
- Traveling and visiting wine regions and wineries, to get facts, stories, and other details directly at the source. There is no better way to understand a wine, the producer who made it and his/her philosophy, as well as the vineyard and terroir it comes from (types of grapes and vines, age of the vines, vineyard management, history, geography, geology, topography, climate, microclimate, weather patterns, etc.)
NB: This list is not exhaustive; there may be other ways to taste and evaluate wines.
You may have noticed that I didn't mention or suggest going to your local supermarket, as most supermarkets store their wines in less-than-ideal conditions (not to use the word "bad"). This is especially true when visiting "over-the-top" supermarkets with aisles upon aisles of nondescript bottles of wine, gathering dust while standing upright for months under harsh neon lights. Yes, these wines might look appealing in pictures on that supermarket's wine flyer, pamphlet, brochure, or even website, with all sorts of flashy scores, ratings, quotes, stars, medals, and whatever else they've squeezed into that image to persuade you to buy the wine, but the reality is often quite different...
You may have noticed that I didn't mention or suggest going to your local supermarket, as most supermarkets store their wines in less-than-ideal conditions (not to use the word "bad"). This is especially true when visiting "over-the-top" supermarkets with aisles upon aisles of nondescript bottles of wine, gathering dust while standing upright for months under harsh neon lights. Yes, these wines might look appealing in pictures on that supermarket's wine flyer, pamphlet, brochure, or even website, with all sorts of flashy scores, ratings, quotes, stars, medals, and whatever else they've squeezed into that image to persuade you to buy the wine, but the reality is often quite different...
Obviously, they do it to draw your attention and influence your mind, taste, judgment, and overall buying decision and experience. Deceiving you into buying wines based on scores, ratings, quotes, and medals rather than taste and intrinsic qualities. And the result is often annoying (as you feel that you've wasted your money) and disappointing (as even if you try to convince yourself that there is something good about it, because this or that wine critic said it was good and scored it highly, you don't even like the wine after all).
Marketing savvies have perfected many ways to lure you into their trap to make you buy wines that are not good taste-wise and/or not worth it money-wise, or even fake and/or counterfeit wines without you noticing it, who knows.... (my previous post is a perfect example of it, read it here).
In fact, many unaware and uninformed wine drinkers surely buy some of these marketing gimmicks (or even fake wines) with blind eyes and without asking questions, sometimes, simply because the "mise-en-scene" is too good not to be true.
Either the label looks completely genuine, or the scores, ratings, quotes, and/or descriptions on the flyer, pamphlet, or brochure sound so attractive that one or the others ultimately catch your interest, and you can't resist the temptation of buying at least a bottle.
My point is that you should never decide or convince yourself that a wine should be good or even great, solely based on:
- the look and overall design of a label, or
- the wine critics' scores and other rewards (medals, stars, etc...) on flyers, pamphlets, brochures, websites, or in specialized wine buying guides, or
- the discounted price or other promotional packages
You'll be surprised by how many people do that on a weekly basis. They check the scores, read the descriptions, and buy the wines without further research (or having previously tasted them in most cases), and, roughly 7 out of 10 times, end up disappointed as the wine is not to their liking after all.
Yet, still, the week after, again, they find themselves in front of the same shelves at their local supermarket, and they do it again... Sounds familiar? While there are now numerous free applications and websites available to assist them in their choices, such as Wine-Searcher.com, Vivino.com, and CellarTracker.com, for example, and these tools can help them make more informed decisions when purchasing wine.
Ok, granted, these sites and apps also have scores and ratings, such as 100 points and stars. Yet, these are average combined scores and ratings from various sources, including both professionals and regular people, indicating a consensus. Therefore, the scores and ratings are likely to be more accurate and credible than those from only one or two wine critics, whose palates may not align with yours.
So, let's start with an example of the look and overall design of a wine label.
For the purpose of this post, I created the following fake wine label (and the accompanying wine flyer, which is featured a little further down in this post). I posted them on social media (Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn) before finishing this post to gauge the reactions and comments they would elicit from the public.
And surprisingly, many people viewed and liked it, which is great. Yet, I'm sure that many of them fell into the trap and probably did not even realize that it was a fake wine label (especially those who do not understand French or are not familiar with French slang). The devil is in the details. Look at this label carefully!
 |
| Chateau Picrate Label by © LeDomduVin 2018 |
Did you fall for it? Yes? No? Let's have a closer look at it.
At first glance, it "almost" looks like a genuine wine label. Frankly, some of the modern-style wine labels on bottles I've seen on the market look even faker than this one (if I may say so...😊). Yet, looking at it closely, some of you will realize the obvious "supercherie".
1. The wine name, "Chateau Picrate", is a joke, but some of you may have fallen for it as being a true Chateau name (or not). You may not know it, but "Picrate" is an old French slang word designating a low, generic, and often tasteless wine in French (thus, if you did not know, it is normal if you fell for it, as you have to be French or master the French slang to know that). (*)
2. The producer's names, "Cedella Vinasse et Vincent Goût", two of the various fake names and protagonists I use in my wine stories and illustrations, are made-up names for which you may have also fallen for (and there again it is normal for the same reasons as the wine name above), as these are French slang play-of-words.
- "Cedella Vinasse" is a French-made-up play-of-words for "C'est de la vinasse", which could literally be translated in English by "This wine is crap" (*)
- "Vincent Goût" is also a French-made-up play-of-words for "Vin sans goût", which could literally be translated in English by "Wine without a taste"
3. The appellation, "Appellation Ajeterdanslevier Recommandée" (AAR), is also a made-up word instead of the usual "Appellation d'Origine Controlée" (AOC) or nowadays "Appellation d'Origine Protégée" (AOP).
- "Ajeterdanslevier" is a French made-up play-of-words for "A jeter dans l'évier", which could literally be translated in English by "to throw in the sink"
4. The village name, "jenveuxplus", is the same thing, a completely made-up French play-of-words for "j'en veux plus", literally meaning in English "I don't want any more"
5. The zip code (or "Code Postal" in French) 33333 does not even exist in Gironde, France.
6. "Bordeleau" instead of "Bordeaux" (that was obvious..). Bordeaux (the town and the wine region) and Borddeleau (the play of words, I replaced it with), both literally mean "at the water's edge" in French.
7. And the logo or drawing in the middle?... Now that is an interesting-looking design, related to the Appellation "Ajeterdanslevier" Recommandée... Remember "l'évier"(in French) is a sink... Can you see what I'm getting at? Yes? No? Look at it again... what does it remind you of? Any idea? Look again... do you have it? Yes, of course, it is a kitchen sink hole... get it? Clever, isn't it?
And even as obvious as all these details may have been (for a person speaking or having a good understanding of French or French slang and play-of-words), you may still have fallen for it and believed it was a genuine label, did you?
Now, you can see how easy it is to be deceived by a label when you have no clue it is fake. Therefore, never judge the quality of a wine by its label. I'm sure that from now on, you will have a closer look at labels at your local wine stores... (😊)
Let's take a look at an example of the wine flyer now.
As I mentioned earlier, after creating the fake wine label, I also made a wine flyer to promote it, for the purpose of this post. Also, I posted it on social media (Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn) to, again, see the reactions and comments it will trigger from the public eye.
Surprisingly, it was even more successful than the fake wine label, probably because I used English words this time (instead of French) to capture the attention of a wider audience. And it worked well, as even if I stated (on my post with these 2 illustrations posted on the social media) that it was a joke, at least one person made a comment saying: "Where is the joke?" (and if one person wrote it as a comment, either he did not get it or thought it was genuine at first, then you can be sure many others at least thought the same way too 😂😂😂)
Let's take a closer look at it, and please tell me that you didn't fall for it...
It is way too obvious, isn't it?.....
It is way too obvious, isn't it?.....
 |
| Chateau Picrate Critic's ratings/scores by © LeDomduVin 2018 |
Pretty good and quite funny in my opinion, isn't it? I liked it a lot and even laughed at my own jokes while doing it (and afterward, when revisiting it...), and if nobody else did, then at least I'm glad I had a good laugh for my own pleasure (nothing better than self-satisfaction from time to time).
At first glance, I'm sure that some of you, who are not attached to details and never read between the lines or read too hastily without paying close attention, probably thought it was a genuine wine flyer (badly hand-made... I admit... but genuine maybe...) and only looked at the scores and the 5 stars quotes... Am I right?
Unfortunately, when it comes to buying wines they do not know, most people, in general, are way too often falling into the trap of marketing geniuses exhibiting enticing wine critics scores, ratings, quotes and medals on over-the-top wine retailer's websites and/or on supermarket's flyers, pamphlets, and brochures. They should learn how to pay more attention to details in order to save both money and time.
However, let's dissect it, like we did for the fake label above, to discover the hidden gems of humor contained in this fake wine flyer (and to provide answers to those who might still wonder where are the jokes.. and did not get them 😊 ... I admit that it might be a little difficult if you don't know anything about wine or are not part of the wine industry or not a wine magazine reader).
1. The scores and distorted names above them are all inspired and based on the scoring systems and names of some of the most well-known and respected wine critics in the world (some of whom I know quite well, therefore my apologies in advance to all of you for ridiculing your fist and/or last names)
- "Robber Parker" instead of "Robert Parker Jr."
- "Wine Stalker" instead of "The Wine Spectator"
- "Genesis Robinson" instead of "Jancis Robinson"
- "LRDVDF" instead of "La RVF - La Revue du Vin de France"
- "Jeannie sur Lie" instead of "Jeannie Cho Lee"
- "Wine Cellar in Cider" instead of "The Wine Cellar Insider"
2. The "Triple Gold" Medal at Jakarta International Wine Challenge... I don't think there has ever been an International Wine Challenge at Jakarta... (but I thought it was a good idea 😊)
3. "The Daily Booze" instead of "The Daily News" (why not...)
4. "Carafe" instead of... (you surely guessed this one)... "Decanter" of course (pretty funny, no? )
5. "Red Prawn" instead of "Gambero Rosso" (the famous Italian food and wine magazine with its "Tre Bicchieri")... (this one may not have been obvious for everybody... but funny still in my opinion)
6. "Painin Guide" instead of "Peñín Guide" or "Guía Peñín" in Spanish (the famous guide to Spanish Wines)
If after revealing all these details, you are still falling for it, I'm not so sure what to do for you.... as you are a hopeless, desperate case... (😊)
Don't let yourself be influenced by the wine critic's scores or ratings
 |
| Wine critics scoring a wine by © LeDomduVin 2018 |
Don't let yourself be influenced by the critic's scores or ratings as they can be "meaningfully meaningless" (as I like to say) and greatly vary in between wine critics. As said previously, get to know the various wine critics palates and scoring patterns, and only follow with assiduity the one (or the few) that have a similar palate and tasting appreciation as you, and score wines with scores similar to the ones you could have given to the wines yourself.
Over my 27 years career in the wine business, my palate and taste have changed and evolved as I was (and still) getting older and to a certain extent wiser. And it is the same for the wine critics. Therefore you should always keep track of these changes, the wine critic ones as well as yours too, prior finalizing your decision, more especially if you haven't tasted the wine yourself previously and only base your decision on scores.
If out of 10 wine critics scores for a wine (let's say between the range of 89 to 96), 6-7 are similar and the other ones are not far behind, then it means that fairly unanimously, most critics liked the wine and that there is a good chance for the wine to be good for your palate and even more chance for the wine to please a wide range of diverse palates. It might, or not, be to your liking, but it does not mean that it is bad either. It just means that your palate is different and the wine not suitable for your taste, even if it will please others.
In general, the more homogeneous the scores from various critics are the more mass appeal the wine will have due to its intrinsic quality and not only because a handful of the most famous critics give it a high or top scores. This is what happens to the top 250 best wines in the world. At this level, they are rarely "not good" and even less often "bad", they are just "not as good as" due to an off vintage, yet their scores usually still remain high.
If, on the opposite, there are too many variations in between the wine critics scores, for example, respectively 89, 92 and 96 (like in the illustration above), then you will have to go with the wine critics you follow the most to be sure that the wine corresponds to your taste. But you may have a comprehensible hesitation and ask yourself why the wine critic you follow rate it lower or higher than the other critics. The tasting notes might give you a hint of why he/she scored it that way. But in the end, the choice is yours, and there again it does not necessarily mean that the wine is bad, just that it did not correspond to the taste and palate of this or that wine critic, that's it. In that case, you know what to do, find a way to try it and judge it for yourself.
On top of that, depending on the wine critic you follow, some being more consistent than others, scores can be quite tricky to understand and may not even reflect the tasting notes, supposedly written to give you an incentive on the reason why the wine received such a score.
I remember, once back in NYC a few weeks after attending the En Primeur 2003 vintage in Bordeaux, reading the tasting notes of a few wine critics, for the Chateaux of the Appellation Margaux for example, to compare them and define what I will buy for the store back then. I was startled and doubtful by what I was reading. They all looked nearly the same. It was absolutely bewildering.
Imagine, you read 15 or 20 tasting notes from the same wine critic on the various wines from one appellation and in the same vintage. And you realize that not only all the tasting notes are approximately the same (despite some rare changes of a few words and sentence styles) and thus "astonishingly indistinguishable" from one another without looking at the names of the Chateaux, but, surprisingly enough and for some unexplained reasons their scores (or ratings) greatly varied. Go figure!
Over my 27 years career in the wine business, my palate and taste have changed and evolved as I was (and still) getting older and to a certain extent wiser. And it is the same for the wine critics. Therefore you should always keep track of these changes, the wine critic ones as well as yours too, prior finalizing your decision, more especially if you haven't tasted the wine yourself previously and only base your decision on scores.
If out of 10 wine critics scores for a wine (let's say between the range of 89 to 96), 6-7 are similar and the other ones are not far behind, then it means that fairly unanimously, most critics liked the wine and that there is a good chance for the wine to be good for your palate and even more chance for the wine to please a wide range of diverse palates. It might, or not, be to your liking, but it does not mean that it is bad either. It just means that your palate is different and the wine not suitable for your taste, even if it will please others.
In general, the more homogeneous the scores from various critics are the more mass appeal the wine will have due to its intrinsic quality and not only because a handful of the most famous critics give it a high or top scores. This is what happens to the top 250 best wines in the world. At this level, they are rarely "not good" and even less often "bad", they are just "not as good as" due to an off vintage, yet their scores usually still remain high.
If, on the opposite, there are too many variations in between the wine critics scores, for example, respectively 89, 92 and 96 (like in the illustration above), then you will have to go with the wine critics you follow the most to be sure that the wine corresponds to your taste. But you may have a comprehensible hesitation and ask yourself why the wine critic you follow rate it lower or higher than the other critics. The tasting notes might give you a hint of why he/she scored it that way. But in the end, the choice is yours, and there again it does not necessarily mean that the wine is bad, just that it did not correspond to the taste and palate of this or that wine critic, that's it. In that case, you know what to do, find a way to try it and judge it for yourself.
On top of that, depending on the wine critic you follow, some being more consistent than others, scores can be quite tricky to understand and may not even reflect the tasting notes, supposedly written to give you an incentive on the reason why the wine received such a score.
I remember, once back in NYC a few weeks after attending the En Primeur 2003 vintage in Bordeaux, reading the tasting notes of a few wine critics, for the Chateaux of the Appellation Margaux for example, to compare them and define what I will buy for the store back then. I was startled and doubtful by what I was reading. They all looked nearly the same. It was absolutely bewildering.
Imagine, you read 15 or 20 tasting notes from the same wine critic on the various wines from one appellation and in the same vintage. And you realize that not only all the tasting notes are approximately the same (despite some rare changes of a few words and sentence styles) and thus "astonishingly indistinguishable" from one another without looking at the names of the Chateaux, but, surprisingly enough and for some unexplained reasons their scores (or ratings) greatly varied. Go figure!
For example, it was like reading, about 2 different Chateaux from the same appellation and same vintage, something like:
- Chateau Y 2003 Margaux
"Black fruit, good acidity, polished texture, good structure and balance, long persistent finish" 89pts
- Chateau Z 2003 Margaux
 |
| The blind tasting wine critic's paradox by ©LeDomduVin 2018 |
Well... what?!? What really differentiates these two tasting notes? They are roughly the same and say the same thing for both wines... So, why are the scores so different? What makes the first one only worth an acceptable 89pts and the second one a staggering 96pts? How meaningful is that? I wonder... what is the word I'm looking for? Ah, yes... "meaningfully meaningless" that is... 😊 ...as these tasting notes are in no way indicative of the superior quality of the second wine compared to the first. This kind of tasting notes are incredibly confusing and meaningless at best.
If someone has the answer, please let me know, as I'm very interested to know why there is such a big difference in between these 2 scores while the descriptions are nearly identical.
These are just examples that I created for this post. But seriously it is not even exaggerated, as for the tasting notes I read from these few wine critics for the Bordeaux En Primeur 2003 back in the days, they were to that extreme, meaningless, as nearly literally identical but showing huge differences in scores. It was mind-boggling.
Now, if we go back to the situation at the wine critics' table in the illustration above, the huge gap in between critics scores (the lowest being 89pts and the highest being 96pts) proves once again that tasting is very subjective and that you should really know the taste and palate of the critic(s) you follow and the pattern he/she/they follow to rate the wines he/she/they have tasted (I'm repeating it as it is an extremely important point).
Let's take again an example from the Bordeaux 2003 Vintage. 2003 was such a controversial vintage in Bordeaux as it was a very hot vintage, which scared and startled and took aback many producers (to say the least) as the heat wave was not planned, anticipated and/or expected to be that hot and that sudden. It was an unprecedented type of vintage, which produced some really weird wines, yet most wine critics first raved about it during the "En Primeur" campaign. Let me explain.
Unprecedented hot vintage, yes, as neither the winemakers and their team of vignerons, neither the vines were prepared for such hot weather. As a result, facing an unprecedented situation, some got scared and harvested too early to try to keep some acidity and prevent over-ripeness (surely fearing their grapes will cook and/or the rain might come at some point diluting the early ripening grapes). While others, probably over-confident, harvested much later trying to take advantage of the sun to have riper grapes and tannins, to obtain fuller and stronger wines. And some hesitated, they harvested part of their crop too early, then stopped and waited, then harvested the rest of their crop later (way too late for quite a few of them), and ended up blending both harvests together, spawning unbalanced wines with weird characteristics.
In fact, some of the resulting wines from the early harvest were totally unripe, acidic, astringent, green and tannic. While some of the later harvest were strongly overripe, or obviously cooked, showing everything upfront with no structure and no harmony and a finish unpleasantly high in alcohol. And the rest of the wines were a strange combination of both characteristics (early and later harvest blended together).
In my true and honest opinion, the resulting wines across the whole region of Bordeaux in general, for this hot 2003 vintage, to say the least, were frankly inhomogeneous and unbalanced.
In the position of Wine Buyer and Wine Director for one of the most successful wine and spirits retail stores in Manhattan (NYC) at the time (PJ Wine), I remember when we traveled to Bordeaux for the En Primeur 2003 and being there, in my home region, with our team, tasting hundreds of Chateaux, some 2 or 3 times as they were presented in various tastings and events.
After tasting so many wines every day for about 8 days straight (at the wineries, at wine tasting events, with the négociants, and even during wine dinners), my mind was set on buying as little as possible, as I was irrevocably skeptical about the quality altogether of this rather strange "millésime" (vintage in English), resulting in "Bordeaux 2003 En Primeur tasting" being one of the worst and less homogeneous vintages I have ever tasted (En Primeur) in my 27 years career as a Sommelier and Wine Buyer for restaurant and boutique wine stores.
Unprecedented hot vintage, yes, as neither the winemakers and their team of vignerons, neither the vines were prepared for such hot weather. As a result, facing an unprecedented situation, some got scared and harvested too early to try to keep some acidity and prevent over-ripeness (surely fearing their grapes will cook and/or the rain might come at some point diluting the early ripening grapes). While others, probably over-confident, harvested much later trying to take advantage of the sun to have riper grapes and tannins, to obtain fuller and stronger wines. And some hesitated, they harvested part of their crop too early, then stopped and waited, then harvested the rest of their crop later (way too late for quite a few of them), and ended up blending both harvests together, spawning unbalanced wines with weird characteristics.
In fact, some of the resulting wines from the early harvest were totally unripe, acidic, astringent, green and tannic. While some of the later harvest were strongly overripe, or obviously cooked, showing everything upfront with no structure and no harmony and a finish unpleasantly high in alcohol. And the rest of the wines were a strange combination of both characteristics (early and later harvest blended together).
In my true and honest opinion, the resulting wines across the whole region of Bordeaux in general, for this hot 2003 vintage, to say the least, were frankly inhomogeneous and unbalanced.
In the position of Wine Buyer and Wine Director for one of the most successful wine and spirits retail stores in Manhattan (NYC) at the time (PJ Wine), I remember when we traveled to Bordeaux for the En Primeur 2003 and being there, in my home region, with our team, tasting hundreds of Chateaux, some 2 or 3 times as they were presented in various tastings and events.
After tasting so many wines every day for about 8 days straight (at the wineries, at wine tasting events, with the négociants, and even during wine dinners), my mind was set on buying as little as possible, as I was irrevocably skeptical about the quality altogether of this rather strange "millésime" (vintage in English), resulting in "Bordeaux 2003 En Primeur tasting" being one of the worst and less homogeneous vintages I have ever tasted (En Primeur) in my 27 years career as a Sommelier and Wine Buyer for restaurant and boutique wine stores.
My boss and some of the rest of the team, at the time, (like the press and most wine critics) were also quite ecstatic, raving about this 2003 vintage. They said it was great, fruity, strong, lot of structure, etc, etc.... Yet, I thought utterly differently.
- Whenever they tasted concentration and ripe jammy fruit, I tasted over-ripeness and cooked fruit.
- Whenever they tasted some sort of freshness or crispiness, I tasted weird, sour and unpleasant acidity for some and total lack of acidity for others.
- Whenever they tasted solid grip of tannins that added texture and structure, I tasted unpleasant, unintegrated, astringent and green tannins contributing to the bitterness of the wine, or, on the other end, "overripe" tannins adding almost like a burnt sensation.
- Whenever they tasted concentration and strength, I tasted over-extraction and the high alcohol level.
In fact, and time proved me right, rare were the Chateaux which succeeded in making a good wine in this particularly unprecedented hot 2003 vintage. Moreover, none of them improved with age in the bottle. Of course, there are some rare exceptions to that rule. Pontet Canet in Pauillac and Montrose and Calon Segur in Saint-Estephe come to mind (there were definitely 3 of my favorites when we tasted them at the Chateaux, and the critics raved about them as being the best of this particular vintage, for that I had to agree with them, for the rest no).
Pauillac and more especially Saint-Estephe on the left bank were mostly preserved due to their proximity with the Gironde estuary creating a micro-climate preserving the vines from the heat by colling down the air, and the presence of sand, and patches of clay in the soils, which tend to stay cooler and also retain water, an essential key factor to produce good wines during a hot year like 2003.
NB: note that I did not mention gravel, which is one of the main component of the Haut-Médoc soils, as gravels absorb the heat during the day to restitute it at night to the vines, which usually helps the ripeness of the grapes in regular years, but in very hot year it increases it too rapidly and does not help to cool down the vines, therefore no point to mention it.
The wines crafted from vineyards of the right bank planted on calcareous and clay soils also did well for the most part, as both if these soil's components retain humidity and release it, allowing the vines to cool down, get the water and nutrients they need, and be more resistant when facing strong heat like in 2003.
But overall, it is just the harvesting time decision and the quality of the grapes at harvest time that define the quality of the resulting wines for the 2003 vintage (and most wines were not good for all the reasons cited above, but more particularly due to wrong vineyard's management decisions and harvest timing).
Pauillac and more especially Saint-Estephe on the left bank were mostly preserved due to their proximity with the Gironde estuary creating a micro-climate preserving the vines from the heat by colling down the air, and the presence of sand, and patches of clay in the soils, which tend to stay cooler and also retain water, an essential key factor to produce good wines during a hot year like 2003.
NB: note that I did not mention gravel, which is one of the main component of the Haut-Médoc soils, as gravels absorb the heat during the day to restitute it at night to the vines, which usually helps the ripeness of the grapes in regular years, but in very hot year it increases it too rapidly and does not help to cool down the vines, therefore no point to mention it.
The wines crafted from vineyards of the right bank planted on calcareous and clay soils also did well for the most part, as both if these soil's components retain humidity and release it, allowing the vines to cool down, get the water and nutrients they need, and be more resistant when facing strong heat like in 2003.
But overall, it is just the harvesting time decision and the quality of the grapes at harvest time that define the quality of the resulting wines for the 2003 vintage (and most wines were not good for all the reasons cited above, but more particularly due to wrong vineyard's management decisions and harvest timing).
However, to my despair and despite my advice not to, my boss ended up buying loads of 2003 Bordeaux. At first, the "Bordeaux En Primeur 2003 vintage" sales were promising, as the wine critics notes and their incomprehensible enthusiasm for this peculiar vintage paid off. But then, about 6 months to a year later, while the wines were still in barrel, not even bottled and therefore not even shipped to us, some critics started to downgrade the wines and lower their scores.
My first intuition was right and my fear of having difficulty selling that vintage became a reality.
The wines were still in barrel, not even bottled, but clients were already calling to cancel their orders and get their money back. My boss was both upset and desperate, not sure of what he could do anymore to turn the situation around.
Moreover, after the vintage 2000 when Bordeaux wine prices started to go haywire, 2003 came at a high price too and speculation that was quite high right after the En Primeur 2003 tasting week came rapidly to a low point as revised scores started to appear.
2003 came at a high price, as 2001 and 2002 were just average to bad vintages (not great, not good, but just OK... mediocre if you want my opinion - yet, some wines from these two vintages surprisingly ended up being quite good with a bit of age in the bottle; that is what we call "Classique Bordeaux" in Bordeaux, as an excuse of being austere and mediocre in their youth, but somewhat better a few years down the road).
Then again, some lower their scores after tasting the 2003 wines again after bottling, 2 years later, realizing that they had been partially or completely wrong in the first place. Then, once again, lower their scores again a few years later as the wine did not even improve and, in some case, even got worst. That said, I cannot generalize, as not all critics downgraded the wines. Some critics (a few, but still...) slightly elevated their score after bottling.... yet, it did not reassured our clients and did not help for the sale....
My boss had gambled on the success of this Bordeaux 2003 vintage, not on his own taste, but on critics scores, and the critics were changing their mind rapidly. At that time in the US, Bordeaux wines were products of huge speculations on both the regular and the grey markets. Lower ratings meant lower investment returns over time for most of our clients. About 3/4 of the stocks we bought went canceled or unsold, and he took us more than 2 years after receiving the stocks in our warehouse to liquidate them, most of them with a huge discount, just to get rid of them. It was a sad experience that had been driven by scores rather than taste and reason.
I'm sorry, once again and as usual, I'm slightly deviating from the subject to tell you my stories from the past. So, let's go back to the huge gap in between critics scores.
My first intuition was right and my fear of having difficulty selling that vintage became a reality.
The wines were still in barrel, not even bottled, but clients were already calling to cancel their orders and get their money back. My boss was both upset and desperate, not sure of what he could do anymore to turn the situation around.
Moreover, after the vintage 2000 when Bordeaux wine prices started to go haywire, 2003 came at a high price too and speculation that was quite high right after the En Primeur 2003 tasting week came rapidly to a low point as revised scores started to appear.
2003 came at a high price, as 2001 and 2002 were just average to bad vintages (not great, not good, but just OK... mediocre if you want my opinion - yet, some wines from these two vintages surprisingly ended up being quite good with a bit of age in the bottle; that is what we call "Classique Bordeaux" in Bordeaux, as an excuse of being austere and mediocre in their youth, but somewhat better a few years down the road).
Then again, some lower their scores after tasting the 2003 wines again after bottling, 2 years later, realizing that they had been partially or completely wrong in the first place. Then, once again, lower their scores again a few years later as the wine did not even improve and, in some case, even got worst. That said, I cannot generalize, as not all critics downgraded the wines. Some critics (a few, but still...) slightly elevated their score after bottling.... yet, it did not reassured our clients and did not help for the sale....
My boss had gambled on the success of this Bordeaux 2003 vintage, not on his own taste, but on critics scores, and the critics were changing their mind rapidly. At that time in the US, Bordeaux wines were products of huge speculations on both the regular and the grey markets. Lower ratings meant lower investment returns over time for most of our clients. About 3/4 of the stocks we bought went canceled or unsold, and he took us more than 2 years after receiving the stocks in our warehouse to liquidate them, most of them with a huge discount, just to get rid of them. It was a sad experience that had been driven by scores rather than taste and reason.
I'm sorry, once again and as usual, I'm slightly deviating from the subject to tell you my stories from the past. So, let's go back to the huge gap in between critics scores.
Let's take, for example, the scores of Chateau Palmer 2003, which was one of the Chateaux that made a decent yet not extraordinary wine in this peculiar vintage (yet much better than some for sure... and because I like Palmer for many reasons, one day I will tell you why.... in another post).
As unbelievable as it may seem, in the table below, the gap between the Wine Critic's scores received by Palmer 2003, varies from a low 87pts to an astonishing 96pts on 100 point scale, and from 15.5 to 18 on 20 points scale. As for the critic's overall view, 4 are between 85-89 and 5 between 90-94. Personally, my score will be somewhere between the middle and the lower camp. (looks like the same situation as my illustration above at the wine critic's table 😊)
In any case, as already stated earlier above, (and it makes even more sense when looking at the table below), the huge gap in between critics scores proves once again that tasting is very subjective and that you should really know the taste and palate of the critic(s) you follow and the pattern they follow to rate the wine they have tasted.
That is the reason why you cannot let yourself be influenced by the scores (or ratings) without knowing the palate, taste and rating pattern not only of the critic(s) you follow, but the others too.
That is the reason why you cannot let yourself be influenced by the scores (or ratings) without knowing the palate, taste and rating pattern not only of the critic(s) you follow, but the others too.
 |
| Chateau Palmer 2003 Wine Critic's Scores © LeDomduVin 2018 |
I did a colorful graph as visual graphs usually speak louder than words. 😊
 |
| Chateau Palmer 2003 Wine Critic's Scores Graph by © LeDomduVin 2018 |
For the ratings on the 20 points scale, it is important to understand that they cannot be converted into the 100 points scale via mathematical % conversion (right column in table below - as some of you might logically think so and do so), as the results do not equal or match the corresponding 20 points rating scale used by the wine critics and wine press.
To better explain what I'm trying to say, here is another table I created, which should help you understand (I hope it helps).
To better explain what I'm trying to say, here is another table I created, which should help you understand (I hope it helps).
 |
| Wine Critics 100pts scores vs 20pts scores scale by © LeDomduVin 2018 |
As you can see, wine critic's scores and descriptions can be biased and greatly vary due to various factors and therefore could influence you wrongly if you do not know or have at least an idea of the palate, taste and rating pattern of the critic(s) you want to follow. So unless you have similar palate and taste, do not let yourself be influenced by scores that are at both extremes of the scale's spectrum.
If you are a kind of new to wine and want to know which wine critic to follow (that is if you think that you should follow critics to better buy your wines, then follow these steps:
1. Buy some wines from one region and one vintage (if possible) scored by at least 3-4 wine critics without reading their tasting notes (ask your local store and/or caviste and/or Sommelier to advise you on which ones you should taste if you do not know)
2. Taste, assess, evaluate and score the wines yourself with your own palate and own rating system (if you can that is....) at home, at a restaurant, alone or with friends and/or family
3. Now, read the various critic's tasting notes and scores, and compare them to yours to determinate, which critic(s) is (are) the closest to your descriptions and scores (the ones you have given to these wines yourself).
4. Repeat the process with various wines from different countries, regions, appellations, and vintage in order to confirm which critic(s) you want to follow.
You will see, it will definitely ease the pain when buying wines that you don't know and never really got the chance to taste before.
1. Buy some wines from one region and one vintage (if possible) scored by at least 3-4 wine critics without reading their tasting notes (ask your local store and/or caviste and/or Sommelier to advise you on which ones you should taste if you do not know)
2. Taste, assess, evaluate and score the wines yourself with your own palate and own rating system (if you can that is....) at home, at a restaurant, alone or with friends and/or family
3. Now, read the various critic's tasting notes and scores, and compare them to yours to determinate, which critic(s) is (are) the closest to your descriptions and scores (the ones you have given to these wines yourself).
4. Repeat the process with various wines from different countries, regions, appellations, and vintage in order to confirm which critic(s) you want to follow.
You will see, it will definitely ease the pain when buying wines that you don't know and never really got the chance to taste before.
Don't let yourself be influenced by the critic's tasting notes,
Don't let yourself be influenced by the critic's tasting notes, and don't take them for granted either unless you have similar taste or palate. Learn about the palate and taste of the critics you follow to get better guidance on the wine you want to taste and buy (as said and repeated many times in this post...I will never say it enough...).
For example, it used to be a time when Robert Parker Jr. was King, and whatever he said went. For most people with a similar palate, he was right-on, and defined what was good or bad for decades. I have much respect for the man (that I have met a few times long ago) and his palate. I have also a lot of respect for what he has done for many regions and wines and producers all around the world over the last 4 decades, and more especially Bordeaux (where I'm from).
However, for people (like me) who are more inclined to lighter, fresher, more balanced, less extracted, less woody and less alcoholic wines, Robert Parker Jr. taste was probably too bold, too strong, too jammy, too woody, basically too much for their palate.
NB: Note that I said "was" and not "is" as, and although he and WA remain strong references in terms of scores and tasting notes, I believe he (and/or WA altogether) is not making the weather in the wine world anymore.. (for quite a few years now I believe, but you probably knew that already...).
For example, it used to be a time when Robert Parker Jr. was King, and whatever he said went. For most people with a similar palate, he was right-on, and defined what was good or bad for decades. I have much respect for the man (that I have met a few times long ago) and his palate. I have also a lot of respect for what he has done for many regions and wines and producers all around the world over the last 4 decades, and more especially Bordeaux (where I'm from).
However, for people (like me) who are more inclined to lighter, fresher, more balanced, less extracted, less woody and less alcoholic wines, Robert Parker Jr. taste was probably too bold, too strong, too jammy, too woody, basically too much for their palate.
NB: Note that I said "was" and not "is" as, and although he and WA remain strong references in terms of scores and tasting notes, I believe he (and/or WA altogether) is not making the weather in the wine world anymore.. (for quite a few years now I believe, but you probably knew that already...).
As a Sommelier and Wine Buyer for restaurants and boutique wine stores, I had no other choice but to pay close attention to RP tasting notes, and more especially his ratings (in order to satisfy some of the clients I sold the wines to in both places).
Yet, I have always preferred and expressed more enthusiasm to read and follow the tasting notes from more classic and less "new world" critic's palates such as Michael Broadbent, Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, Stephen Tanzer, Clive Coates and Allan Meadows and buyer/importer such as Kermit Lynch and Neal Rosenthal (just to name a few) for my personal cellar and consumption, but also for some of my clients.
Nowadays, I also follow newer critics like Neal Martin, Jeannie Cho Lee (with whom I've worked for a little while) and a few others, as their palate and taste seem to better correspond to mine (... it is not always true though), yet my taste has evolved and changed over the last 30 years, as well as the wines have changed.
Yet, I have always preferred and expressed more enthusiasm to read and follow the tasting notes from more classic and less "new world" critic's palates such as Michael Broadbent, Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, Stephen Tanzer, Clive Coates and Allan Meadows and buyer/importer such as Kermit Lynch and Neal Rosenthal (just to name a few) for my personal cellar and consumption, but also for some of my clients.
Nowadays, I also follow newer critics like Neal Martin, Jeannie Cho Lee (with whom I've worked for a little while) and a few others, as their palate and taste seem to better correspond to mine (... it is not always true though), yet my taste has evolved and changed over the last 30 years, as well as the wines have changed.
Yet, in the end, I usually prefer my tasting notes as they are more detailed and express more emotions and sensations towards the tasted wines (nothing wrong with unabashed self-promotion here, hey?... Read some examples on my last post here and let me know what you think).
On that note, I found that some critic's tasting notes are really "meaningfully meaningless" (these 2 words together again 😊... I love saying them...) to the point of being bad sometimes.
I remember reading the tasting notes of a famous critic (no name here, as with time I learned how to respect him somewhat, even if I still don't like his writing style) for the 2003 vintage Bordeaux En Primeur, and frankly, for Margaux (same example as above again and I want to insist on that), they all had similar tasting notes resumed in 2-3 short sentences maximum for each wine and were "astonishingly indistinguishable" from one another without looking at the names of the Chateaux.
And yet, some received scores way below 90 points, while others were well above 90 points, but by reading the tasting notes it was impossible to define or comprehend what was the reason behind the scores. Doesn't it sound ridiculous and confusing to you? It was meaningless to me, to say the least. (as said previously, but there again, it is important to repeat it as it happens more often than you think)
I remember reading the tasting notes of a famous critic (no name here, as with time I learned how to respect him somewhat, even if I still don't like his writing style) for the 2003 vintage Bordeaux En Primeur, and frankly, for Margaux (same example as above again and I want to insist on that), they all had similar tasting notes resumed in 2-3 short sentences maximum for each wine and were "astonishingly indistinguishable" from one another without looking at the names of the Chateaux.
And yet, some received scores way below 90 points, while others were well above 90 points, but by reading the tasting notes it was impossible to define or comprehend what was the reason behind the scores. Doesn't it sound ridiculous and confusing to you? It was meaningless to me, to say the least. (as said previously, but there again, it is important to repeat it as it happens more often than you think)
In my opinion, the problems with wine critic's tasting notes is that either
1. some are too short, too vague and/or not detailed enough to really describe the wine and reflect or justify the score, or
2. some are way too long with metaphors and made-up words supposed to trigger an image of something peculiar, often unknown to most common people.
It is true, I'm telling you. Some wine critics and other wannabes think that throwing around "meaningful" words such as "rocky mineral", "old saddle leather", "tingling salty tide", and so on, makes tasting notes sound more important, more imposing, more interesting... or something.
Of course, big words and metaphors can be fine when used correctly. They can even be built into a very good writing style, but I'm referring to tasting notes that use bad metaphors, rather odd terminology and so many supposedly "meaningful" words that it reduces them to be unintelligible in the context or even hard to imagine, and therefore become "meaningless".
1. some are too short, too vague and/or not detailed enough to really describe the wine and reflect or justify the score, or
2. some are way too long with metaphors and made-up words supposed to trigger an image of something peculiar, often unknown to most common people.
It is true, I'm telling you. Some wine critics and other wannabes think that throwing around "meaningful" words such as "rocky mineral", "old saddle leather", "tingling salty tide", and so on, makes tasting notes sound more important, more imposing, more interesting... or something.
Of course, big words and metaphors can be fine when used correctly. They can even be built into a very good writing style, but I'm referring to tasting notes that use bad metaphors, rather odd terminology and so many supposedly "meaningful" words that it reduces them to be unintelligible in the context or even hard to imagine, and therefore become "meaningless".
For example, it is like if I was writing this as a tasting note:
Chateau Picrate 2018 Appellation Ajeterdanslevier Recommandée
"Exuberant nose of ripe Durian fruit with notes of mildew, underbrush forest floor, just unearthed mushrooms, long vacated birds nest, undertones of flooded tarmac, moldy saddle leather, buried Alpine Ibex horns, crushed pencil shavings in coriander, cloud of attic dust, over moisturized cigars box, waterfall's rocky minerals, wet pebble stones, and overtones of wet animal fur, old mope, mothball, sponged chalkboard, dried Uhu stick and just opened black indelible marker pen. A slipper of the vintage. Highly recommended" 62pts
- LeDomduVin 26/08/2018
|
Chateau Picrate Label by © LeDomduVin 2018
|
Chateau Picrate 2018 Appellation Ajeterdanslevier Recommandée
"Exuberant nose of ripe Durian fruit with notes of mildew, underbrush forest floor, just unearthed mushrooms, long vacated birds nest, undertones of flooded tarmac, moldy saddle leather, buried Alpine Ibex horns, crushed pencil shavings in coriander, cloud of attic dust, over moisturized cigars box, waterfall's rocky minerals, wet pebble stones, and overtones of wet animal fur, old mope, mothball, sponged chalkboard, dried Uhu stick and just opened black indelible marker pen. A slipper of the vintage. Highly recommended" 62pts
- LeDomduVin 26/08/2018
OK, this is an extreme and slightly exaggerated example... yet, I have read similar laughable tasting notes and at that point, in my perplexed opinion, it's bad, over-killed and at best meaningless.
Unfortunately, some wine writing people just did not get it yet. And when this type of writing leaves the minds of melodramatic wine critics, wine bloggers, and other wine-writer wannabes and enters mainstream wine TV shows, wine press, wine guides and books on the subject, we all suffer from lack of understanding and for good reasons.
On that note, and now that I have wasted 2 hours of your precious time with a very lengthy post (once again.... 😊), I wish you the best, thanks for reading this post and stay tuned for more posts like this one (I mean shorter than this one I hope.....)
Cheers! Santé!
LeDomduVin (a.k.a. Dominique Noël)
(*) I made the header illustration in 2025 for this blog post, which I wrote in 2018 (with the same title). I like to use my protagonists in illustrations as headers for my posts, and this post was missing one.
All these names/words are slang and old popular French synonyms for "bad wine" from various regions, eras, and uses.
I thought it would be funny to see my two protagonists, Bordeaux and Burgundy, insulting each other with these old-fashioned French words.😁👍🍷
Also, forget about the definitions of "Picrate" and "Vinasse" in English, as they have nothing to do with the English words, which both respectively correspond to something totally different. In French, "Picrate" and "vinasse" are just old French slang for "bad wine".
@ledomduvin #ledomduvin #wine #vin #vino #wein #whatsagreatwine #questcequungrandvin #greatwine #grandvin #definition #pointofview #perspective #subjective #sommelier #sommelierlife #sommlife #lovewine #wineyearly #tasting #winetasting #critics #fivestars #ratings #notes #scores #medals #scoring #competition
