Wine Raconteur

As you will have noticed many professional tasters and critics come up with different scores for the same wine. Some of the reasons for this are that one’s judgment can be influenced by the temperature, shipping time, provenance and most importantly by emotions, commercial factors and the taster’s body alcohol level and tasting fatigue at the time.

Occasionally I have openly challenged a wine critic’s rating. On what do they base their rating? Most confusing to many people, such as wine magazine or newsletter subscribers or readers or pure novices is how can we give credence to these scores without knowing the criteria on which they were based? How can the same wine be rated 90 pts by a highly acclaimed online wine critic while a widely circulated wine magazine says its 94 pts. Even more complicated and inexplicable how can a 92 pt wine sell for $15 while another wine that scores even less than 90 pts fetch $80+? And what about all the wines that don’t get rated at all?

How about a nicely balanced wine with a good level of acidity and refined tannins but shy of showing its fruitiness (which so many of the critics adore almost to the exclusion of everything else) at its young age? Many times a fine wine will fall into what I call a coma during its first three or four or more years after bottling. An Angelus 2001 which I tasted in 2007 was a perfect example. It had a firmly closed nose and massive tannins, but a very solid structure. It took four hours in a decanter to settle down and emerge from its shell.

Should a wine be given higher points because it is so approachable in its youth despite the risk of a precipitous decline later, or a shy wine which is not approachable in its youth be penalized by a low rating when it may well grow to be a beautiful adult? Ironically, this mirrors life! Due to your shyness you may not be the most popular guy in class, passed over by your teachers and by the girls, but you are more likely to be a giant than a drug addict on the streets when you grow up.

So, do wine critics give higher points to fruit forward and easily approachable wines and lower points when its attributes have not developed yet? That would indicate that the scores are only relevant at the moment they award them. If so, will they re judge them say in five years? Do they factor in whether the wine is a style which is currently popular or fashionable; or displays its sense of origin, which the French call ‘terroir’? Maybe they don’t, though if not, why do many critics emphasize that their Romanee Conti’s rating is based on the style of that particular appellation or sense of origin. It seems the wine world critics constantly contradict themselves adding to readers and subscribers confusion.

Finally I started to wonder whether a wine critic’s judgment is solely based on his personal perception and preferences, or his editor’s instructions, as well as other subjective factors that could come into play. Is that the way to judge a wine and give an honest evaluation?

Terrine of tete de veau: green bean salad, Perigord truffle Vinaigrette

Pressed Hudson Valley Foie Gras, sweet romanesco, Calvados tapioca

Sauteed Maine lobster, mised spices, caulifower puree,sherry caramel

Loin of venison, cocoa butter, braised cabbage, quark dumplings

Yes, it was that good. Firstly, I Wasn’t intend to go there lunch. Fortunately, Le Bernardin didn’t allow me in with no Jacket, so I went to Ramsey’s had lunch even though having a reservation at the same nite. It was a short 3 course lunch menu, but beautifully executed. Needless to say, dinner was in heaven ! 1st course : Cassoulet of seafood, 2nd: Hudson Foie Gras tapioca and calvados jelly, 3rd) Ginger poached lobster in herb linguine; 4th) Venison in cocoa butter, quark dumplings, chocolate. Dessert) Pineapple souffle w/ thai curry ice-cream. Wow! I have dined in many great places in NY, this is definitely one of the best ! Better and more professional than Per Se.