Yielding to the Expert Palate

I recently had the fortune of getting an invite from Mr. Jazzfood and his lovely sister Vicky (from Southern Wines & Spirits) to a vertical wine tasting of the often highly touted wines of Cheateau St. Jean’s Cinq Cepages; a wine whose inception came in 1990 and was to get significant notoriety after receiving Wine Spectator’s top wine honors for their 1996 effort.

Although Cinq Cepages is assembled in much the same way as traditional red Bordeaux (known as a “meritage”), using predominantly cabernet sauvignon, merlot, cabernet franc, petit verdot, and malbec, in my mind, the similarities stop right there.

This is my second taste of the 1996 over the last 2 years and each time I thought it pleasant enough but felt that it lacked serious depth or complexity. In fact, I’d go out on a limb and say that after a mere 10 years, it bordered on being over the hill. I felt fortunate to have tried these wines less than one week after a horizontal tasting of 1986 Bordeaux. One could easily see the stark difference in the two sets of wines. Historically, the structure of Medoc wines will often times allow them to age gracefully over long periods of time whereas the Cinq Cepages clearly showed that they don’t have enough body to allow barely a decade of time to pass before they seem to hit their peak.
In addition to the 1996 vintage, we also tried the 1999, 2000, ’01, ’02, and ’03. The two oldest wines tasted more advanced than ANY of the ’86 Bordeaux I sampled. What struck me most, however, was how the 2000 and 2001 Cinq Cepages , being predominantly cabernet sauvignon, were drinking optimally after a mere 6 or 7 years, much like the right bank wines of Bordeaux which are usually made from the quicker maturing merlot grape.

My intent is not to blast Cinq Cepages wines (no doubt, these are enjoyable wines) but to point out that buying wine on a wine journal or expert’s recommendation is often times a fruitless or, worst yet, futile endeavor. How do you to know whether your wine preferences match a critic’s palate? What if you prefer younger, fruitier wine and the expert taster has a bias toward an older, mustier wine?

From my experience, purchasing wine solely on the word of an expert without having any knowledge of that person’s likes and dislikes will inevitably lead you down a road of much disappointment, no matter what the price. I’d go so far as to say that, over the years, my worst purchases were often times based on recommendations by very reputable journals or newsletters.

http://www.wineloverspage.com/wines/wt022200.shtml

Amen.

Pigmon,

I think you are absolutely correct to say that each critic has a different bias towards tasting and it's important for the consumer to understand were the bias is. Of course we all rely on a critic's advise, but to take it as unquestionable faith is to miss out on what the wine debate is all about - discovering what you as an individual like.

That said, there is something underlying in all the rating reports that is never really discussesd nor diclosed. It's the inability to compare ratings between wine groups. I mean, can you really compare a 95 rating for Latour to a 95 rating of Kistler Pinot Noir? No. You have to learn to keep the rating in categories. While a Castano Hecula (Spain) may get a rating of 90, you have to remember that this is a value/budget wine and the purpose of the 90 rating is to let you know were the wine ranks in its own world; not to compare it to a 90 rated wine from a different category.

I've had Cinq Cepage several times in the past, beginning with the 94 vintage. Don't get me wrong, it is a excellent wine, but it will never be in the ranks of the great wines. It simply does not have the nobility in the vineyard to be a legend.

Wine Spectator had a dual purpose when they gave the 96 Cinq the title "Wine of ther Year". It was a beautiful wine and worthy of a top twenty finish, but WS had been accused of snobbery in the past. So they tried to justify elevating an "affordable" wine to the top slot. They thought they had succeeded for a while, but ultimately Cinq Cepage doubled their prices. The experiment failed. They only helped the winery make more money and made it more difficult for the public to find this wine. Back then it cost $35/btl...two months after publishing it was $65. Since that expriment I think WS has never had a Top Wine winner that didn't have nobility.

As the saying goes, you can make good wine from a great grape, but you can never make a great wine from a good grape (you need a great grape). Ultimately, only a raw material of the highest quality will reward you with greatness.

Jim

Don't get me wrong, it is a excellent wine, but it will never be in the ranks of the great wines. It simply does not have the nobility in the vineyard to be a legend.

Call me a romantic, but I believe that with the right conditions and right work in the vineyard and winery, it is possible to make great wine almost any place. Anwyay, I am not buying the idea that there are a certain number of "noble vineyards" and other vineyards can only produce good, but never great, wines.

It's the inability to compare ratings between wine groups.

I agree that each wine is to be compared and rated based on an ideal of its type. The question is what that group and ideal is. In this case, I do not think the point applies - Cinq Cepages is meant to be a Bordeaux blend, and it is meant to be compared with the wines of Bordeaux. Certainly that is how it has been presented.

While a Castano Hecula (Spain) may get a rating of 90, you have to remember that this is a value/budget wine and the purpose of the 90 rating is to let you know were the wine ranks in its own world

The raters all say price point does not enter into defining the ideal for a wine to be compared to, but it does make sense that they would adjust that so as to have more bargain wines rated 90+. I imagine more people buy WS to find great $20 wines than the best wines in the world regardless of price.

Anyway, call me a romantic again, but I do not accept that an inexpensive wine cannot be a great wine. On the other hand, there are places where it is more difficult to find good wines and that under $10 bin can be a mine field.

Happy to continue the discussion on how best to use ratings, though. I suggest it is in a limited way - the rating is a threshold, below a certain score you want to avoid the wine. Then you go with the notes and your experience with the wine, region, or exporter. Even the raters will agree, implicitly at least, that the rating only reflects the quality of that bottle, at that point in time. Scores will be different at different times, with different bottles. So expecting that a score will be completely reflective of your experience is just wrong.

But it is not unrealistic to assume that a 96 rated Bordeaux blend from California at any price point will be in the same league as a 96 rated French Bordeaux. There should be more similarity in the standards used than differences.