The world is not as it appears. It's made up; it's code, numerals, digits, numbers like those used in computer coding actually make up our world. The sensory world of wine is otherwise a myth, a fabrication.
Agents in suits, older white guys mostly, make sure that these numbers are put into place and that they stay in place. We cannot escape the 100 Point Matrix...
I say all this because of something I came across on the
Hedges Family Estate Facebook page. It was reference to a
blog post by
Steve Heimoff, a wine writer of some repute who's authored both books and written for the Wine Enthusiast with a focus on California wine. As a writer for one of the three major wine publications (all with Wine as the first part of the title, which isn't the most creative naming strategy, but it certainly gets the point across), Steve is in many ways a large part of the 100 pt institution. Steve is also a "blogger," though how up to to date he is about "blogging" is in some doubt as he refers to individual posts as "blogs," as in "
check out my new blog about..." Anyway the folks at Hedges had linked to a recent "blog" of Steve's where he took them to task for their movement; the Score Revolution. From there, Steve defended the 100 point system. He used the efforts of the folks at Hedges with their
ScoreRevolution movement as a means to assert his heroism in the relation to maintaining the dignity of the 100pt scale. You think I use the term "heroism" lightly, but Steve included the graphic of a little superhero guy and refers to himself as Super Scoreman.
The ScoreRevolution piece is an effort on the part of Hedges Estate, driven by Christophe Hedges, to get away from scores altogether and get back to tasting wines that reflect the place that they're grown, the terroir. As a part of this effort (and really as a brilliant marketing strategy) Hedges has also created a "manifesto" or pledge for folks to sign in support of moving away from 100pt wine scores, or in the case of publications, that they're committed to not scoring wines by assigning them a number. (In the interest of full disclosure we have signed this manifesto. Ironically, there's a
blog that signed it that also continues to use point scores when they review wines.) I am not a fan of the 100 point wine scale but I also recognize the reality that it currently occupies. It has become an enormous part of the wine lexicon, and unfortunately so in my opinion. I also recognize that winemakers and wineries know the importance of these score in selling wines to the general public.
I don't like the 100 point scores for the same reason I don't like books on tape, or these days, mp3 (I suppose books are now on mp3). I think the rating, which I understand to be an attempt to categorize wine based on overall quality, steals from the experience the way a book on tape steals from the experience of reading a book. It encapsulates all that a wine is or can be to the drinker in a number. ( I also think this is very much the point that the folks at Hedges are trying to make.) I do know that people are inherently lazy and prefer to have things encapsulated for them, often the way they prefer books on tape, or these days, mp3.
I don't rate wines as a wine blogger. I talk about wines, winemakers, wine events and ways I've enjoyed wine. I'll even recommend wines based on the price point in the Friday Find series. Not a rating to be found. I don't rate wines because I'm not really an authority as far as I'm concerned. I know what I like but I don't know what you like.
So this piece is not about scores, but rather about a philosophical stance. This stance is summarized in a tanget that Steve Heimoff went down, though he might not be aware. In his post he begins by addressing and, unfortunately, deriding, the people who have signed the manifesto. It's done in such a way that it comes across as juvenile and petty. He names some of the people he knows and either insults them or dismisses them. What most leapt out at me however was his handling of Kermit Lynch, the wine importer of some repute. This is where he constructs the Matrix.
Heimoff wrote (read the whole
post or "blog" here): Kermit Lynch. He’s the famous Berkeley wine merchant and importer. Kermit doesn’t use scores, but his newsletter–one of the most entertaining in the English language–certainly doesn’t shy away from hype. Here’s a made-up typical one: “I’ve tasted a lot of Sancerres in my 30 years, but this is the greatest ever.” That’s kind of like a 100 point score, don’t you think? And then sometimes Kermit’s newsletter will say something like, “Won’t set the world on fire, but it’s great on typicité and price,” which is more or less an 86. So the emperor’s house is made of glass, I’m afraid." Heimoff makes an extraordinary leap without seeming to bat an eye. What he's concluded is that one cannot talk about wine in a descriptive, hyperbolic or romantic way without
really just referring to scores. And that's just not correct.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the aspect of Heimoff's stance that I most take issue with. While I don't care for the point system, I acknowledge it. I get daily emails hyping a "93 point Syrah for a song" because it's an easy marketing tool for wineries and retailers, it's a "standard" that folks can use to rate quality. Regrettably, it's ubiquitous and for its shorthand purposes, it does the job and I get that. What Heimoff did in the above quote is either piss poor argumentative writing or he just went and made a religion out of the 100pt score. He built the Matrix.
This is crazy, it's bullshit and he's gone too far. In fact, I would imagine in a moment of clarity he would have to admit that. To assert that you cannot talk about wine without really talking about the 100pt scale that Parker created is poor logic, particularly when you don't go on to give any reason for that assertion. A sound logical argument requires two things, a premise which gives reasons, grounds or evidence for accepting that second thing: the conclusion. The conclusion in well structured argument is established on that premise, or premises. A standard example given in logic is "A bachelor is an unmarried male of marrying age. Bob is an unmarried male of marrying age. Therefore Bob is a bachelor." Steve's argumentation is "Kermit Lynch uses adjectives when he talks about wine. Therefore he's really talking about 100pt scores and he's being disingenuous about it."
We
don't have to agree on the place 100pt scores do or should hold with the wine drinking public. We are free to disagree with the folks at Hedges or call them romantic idealists. We can assert, and convincingly so in some cases, that the 100pt scale is the
best possible shorthand wine rating system that currently exists. (Despite his title which declares that I'm full of crap he makes good points. I do think Josh is way off here in asserting that it's human nature to
rate things. He simply asserts it, never proves that point, rather just gives examples of how he does it.) We can disagree with Steve Heimoff and the guardians of the 100pt Matrix. We can hold onto the dream that people will look beyond the shelf talker and read the tasting notes, or ask the wine steward to find a wine that reflects a certain place, whether that's the Mosel, Burgundy or Red Mountain. (We can similarly hope that public library use will go up and television watching will go down.) What we cannot do, however, is just make shit up to defend our stance or style of writing and take ourselves seriously when we do. Nor can we expect anyone else to.
As our basically non-existent and fitful Summer turns to Autumn we get to start picking out wines that comfort us through the other ten wet, dark months of the year. What we're looking for during the wet, rainy season is a comfortable sweater, some comfort food and a comfortable wine. If wine were comfort food, it would be the Three Legged Red from Dunham Cellars. One of the few wines with dogs on them that we'll even consider. The image of the Port the long time companion of winemaker Eric Dunham graces this comfortable table wine. Port passed a way a couple years ago, but his image lives on in this wallet friendly blend of Syrah, Cabernet and Merlot which varies from year to year. The wine is a demonstration in dark fruit, cherries and violet aromatics. The Three Legged Red is just one example of Washington wine being so good that even this table wine will outclass and impress against many expensive red blends from that one state that starts with a C.
As our basically non-existent and fitful Summer turns to Autumn we get to start picking out wines that comfort us through the other ten wet, dark months of the year. What we're looking for during the wet, rainy season is a comfortable sweater, some comfort food and a comfortable wine. If wine were comfort food, it would be the Three Legged Red from Dunham Cellars. One of the few wines with dogs on them that we'll even consider. The image of the Port the long time companion of winemaker Eric Dunham graces this comfortable table wine. Port passed a way a couple years ago, but his image lives on in this wallet friendly blend of Syrah, Cabernet and Merlot which varies from year to year. The wine is a demonstration in dark fruit, cherries and violet aromatics. The Three Legged Red is just one example of Washington wine being so good that even this table wine will outclass and impress against many expensive red blends from that one state that starts with a C.
