All the best,
Dan

The producers should do whatever the heck that they want.

And the sheep will follow.

I am sure at one time previously, quality of the wine mattered.

Now, it only matters what the critics think of the wine.

Just see Dr Vino’s expose on 2005 Sierra Carche, a sham of a 96 point wine from Spain.

Surely there is some misunderstanding? The price of a classified Bordeaux wine (or any other product for that matter) is not a question of how good it is.

It is a question of how much a customer is willing to pay for it. (So, how good it is for HIM.)

Why should the producers not charge astronomic prices for the wines if people are willing to pay it?

Selling the wines for far lower prices than what they can, THAT would be a joke.

I have stopped going to Bordeaux, for En Primeurs. What is the point? I should spend my money to travel there for a week, taste a ton of wine and decide what I like? Then, when I want to make a purchase, I am told, “Whoa, hold on, Mr. Retailer, we do not care about your opinion. We need to wait to see what Robert Parker says about our wine, before we price it. Robert Parker is the only Bordeaux opinion that matters, so he decides where we should price our wines.”

You have winemakers making wine for 40 freaking years, and they cannot determine how good their wine is.

It is a joke. I hope Bordeaux chokes on another overpriced vintage.

Are the lines of wine journalism and wine consultation blurring in the en primeur release program?

Also, there is virtually no value added by any critic in offering up Bordeaux barrel scores (or bottle scores, for that matter). Rating Bordeaux is akin to shooting fish in a barrel (no pun intended). If you know the nature and overall quality of a given vintage, the 1855 classification Bordeaux, as updated and augmented by the generally acknowledged modern-day Petruses and other de facto first-growths, along with the Super Seconds, win out every time. (The scores also demonstrate that Mouton is decidedly second-growth, by the way.) If any value is added by critics, it is probably in touting the occasional overachieving low classified or unclassified growth.

They have a product to sell and buyers willing to buy. Who is to say the they “should” not sell in that way. Who is to set up rules on what is the “acceptable” or “correct” way to sell wine?

They have a product. They sell it any way they like.

In the same way – who is to say what and when journalists/critics “should” write about a product? They publish when they want and write what they want. (Except if the source of the information has set up conditions.)

The only reasonable way to react is to choose not to participate.

So in one way Bettane is right.

If he doesn’t like the way it works he shouldn’t participate. But now he WILL participate anyway…

And the reason for the open letter to the UGC is a bit odd, isn’t it?: “James Suckling is allowed in to taste before me so it is not ‘fair’”.

Who has ever said that selling wine, or writing about wine is “fair”? How many journalists have in earlier days been refused entry to tastings or events where Bettane was allowed in? Was that unfair too and a reson to boycott?

He who holds the power sets the rules. And in view of the demand for top level bordeaux it seems that the chateaux hold the power.

I thought we were in an open market economy, not a plan economy where some central power set “fairness” rules and defines “fair” prices.

Thanks for stopping by. I guess it boils down to a normative question: should the Bordeaux trade pre-sell their wines in this way? Champagne doesn’t. There’s no pre-sale tasting of Napa cabs.

The members of the Bordeaux wine trade have constructed a sales program that suits them, giving them money two years before delivery–and they even get to keep their summer holidays intact by setting the tastings so early. The wines are tough and tannic and the final blend has not been done. And as Peter points out above, the weather offers consumers a perspective on the wines of a vintage–as does prevailing wisdom of which producers are turning out good wines–before any critic tastes barrel samples. It’s hard not to see critics as simply fanning the flames of demand or simply burnishing their own self-importance, especially when some (notably Suckling) have rushed to be the first to publish. Hats off to Michel Bettanne who is at least saying he doesn’t want to play by the rules of the trade any more.

In the case of the top Bordeaux chateaus, the wines are so expensive, it’s tempting to say that if a consumer is interested in pre-purchasing the wines en primeur, then he or she might as well just join the fray and go to Bordeaux to taste them.

Tasting Latour at the château alone gives automatically different result than tasting this wine in comparison with Margaux, Mouton LLC and many others, in a blind mode. If you do not trust that, then you have a lot to learn about tasting wines !

Both James Suckling and now James Molesworth make appointments for private tastings at dozens of Chateaux before embarking on the WS Blind Tasting program that takes place at a neutral site (like Caudalie last year). I was at the hotel when Mr. Suckling came back from several such appointments, and as his team was setting up the wines for him to taste in coming days. Molesworth has been tweeting his daily rounds, too. So this is no secret — and these are not blind tasting events. Scores are already published.

When the WS blind tasting program does kick into gear, it is understood that these top Chateaux are invited to participate. Do they? Perhaps some, but there are already scores published so what’s the point? James Molesworth states he will clearly ID when wines are tasted non-blind, and has done so.

No issue either way, but consider this: After tasting 2-3 dozen top wines, non-blind, how can a critic be totally objective when tasting the rest of them blind? “OK I already tasted Lafite and Latour and Ausone, those are all tops so I have my benchmark for the vintage”. Thus are the blind samples given the more difficult task — measuring up against a pre-existing standard for the vintage. It seems only natural, only human.

Finally, even the WS 100pt score system is subject to interpretation. How else to explain the WS database that shows from 1999-2008, Molesworth has rated 14 wines at 99 points with not a single 100 point score, while Suckling awarded 13 perfect marks but only a single 99? Will Mr. Molesworth now find perfection in Bordeaux when it was not obtainable in even the hallowed LaLa vineyards?

Molesworth explained it on Twitter today, “@CityWineJournal I have not given 100 yet. Not sure if perfection in wine is possible, since you can always improve.”

I agree with that, but it is an inherent contradiction in a scoring system with an absolute top limit, and now with a critic who interprets those limits differently than his predecessor.

So is it the WS scoring system or the individual critic’s interpretation that governs?

As to the broader question, the horse has left the barn. Critics compete for reader relevance and attention just as the Bordelaise compete for sales and for scores.

Wine Spectator’s reviews are independent of the trade and done in blind tastings. We consider ourselves advocates for the consumers, giving potential buyers an independent judgment of the quality of the wines they are being asked to purchase “en primeur.”

Perhaps the better solution would be for the producers to wait to offer the wines for sale until they are bottled; then critics could review finished wines, as they do for most of the world of wine. But so long as the wines are sold from barrel, they will be reviewed from barrel.

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator

On the Hold-the-tasing-notes idea: I think it is based both on a “misunderstanding” of the role of journalists & critics, as well as a “misunderstanding” of the way prices are set on these wines.

And who has ever believed that critics are “in the driving seat” of setting prices? What does that mean?