It was interesting, some of it is so subjective, but I was pleased to see a few of our wines we brought back in June on the lists.

Jill<BR><BR>Just a question..... I bet you thought the wines you brought back were tasty enough to go to the expense and hassle of carrying back.... right? So if the Spectator had rated them undrinkable, would that have lessened your pleasure?<BR><BR>I taste a lot of wine and I almost enver look at the Spectator or any of the other press. I have personal relationships at several fine wine shops and get a lot of recomendations that way. I used to be int he business and wasw famous as being a major wine buyer who never read the press, and it turns out I got several awards fromt he Wine Spectator without supporting their rating sustem.<BR><BR>

Dean, I think I understand where you're coming from, but I also understand Jill. It's interesting to compare your opinions with those of "experts" and to see where you match and where you differ. I must say that I find Wine Spectator to be one of the best (if not the best) travel magazines available. Their suggestions--and pictures--for places to stay and places to eat, as well as wines and wineries have always been top drawer IMO. We were in Alsace and in Tuscany last year and I used their information about hotels and restaurants more than any other guides or magazine articles. I was very pleased with their recommendations. Although I admit to a greater expertise with hotels and restaurants than with wine, I'm learning. Given Wine Spectator's track record with the former, I feel pretty inclined to pay attention to them on the latter as well. That said, I must also say that I really also appreciate the guidance on wines you've provided on this forum. And Jill, glad both you and Wine Spectator like your wines.

Judy<BR><BR>I too use the Spectator as a traval guide. It can be useful if you can calibrate your tastes to their reviews. The issue I raise again is that you will only see one part of the wine world relying on the Spectator. they have a distinct stylistic bias, especially in their higer rated wines. And in their lower rates wines (say those from 80 to 87), many of these wines are from districts that have never had a wine score any higher. That is an 83 from a small obscure district made from a lesser grape may be supremely good score. And no one will trumpet that wine based on a spectator score of 83. Only certain districts and certain grapes earn 90+ scores with regularity.

Dean, what is the stylistic bias that you refer to?

Dean, what is the stylistic bias that you refer to?

I personally use the WS as a guide to buy wines. I have found that their "best values" usually provide a decent drinkable wine for a good price.<BR><BR>They had a nice Pepperwood Syrah in this issue. We bought it and liked it. To me, drinking wine is finding something that you like and enjoying it. WS helps me do just that.<BR><BR>I would imagine they have their favorites, and their own means of tasting and rating. However, we've been subscribers for a few years now and we also have a local wine shop that we use where opinions are offered as well.<BR><BR>We simply cannot taste or buy wines from everywhere. We have limited our purchases to France (Rhone...Cotes du Rhone and Chateauneuf du Pape), California (Cabs and Syrahs), Italy (Brunellos) and Australia (Syrahs and Cab blends). If WS misses a couple of little areas, it does not bother us as we do not have the $$$ to explore everything out there.<BR><BR>BTW, I pulled my rat out of the race and started my own busienss three months ago. Landed my first large account about three weeks ago and first sizeable check expected today. Am treating myself with a Caberent from Clos Pegas, one of my favorites.<BR><BR>US<BR><BR>PS How do normal folks afford those Super Tuscans&gt; They're priced like CA cult wines!

Wine spectators stylistic bias:<BR><BR>Towards new oak<BR>Towards Super Tuscans over "straight Chianti"<BR>Not enough focus on Piemonte outside of Barolo and Barbaresco.<BR>Marche and Abruzzo need more in depth coverage.<BR>Love of flat and flabby chardonnays like Marcassin, Martinelli etc that will fall apart early.<BR>Love of syrah over petit sirah<BR>Love of overly alcoholic zinfandel over more elegant styles<BR>Not enough attention paid to Santa Cruz Mountains<BR>Love of wines made with Bordeaux technology (2 years in Barrel with a lot of new oak) over more rustic styles.<BR>Over love of incredibly expensive wines<BR>Love of wines that advertize in the spectator (a regular advertiser on average gets about a 5 point boost in ther expected score).<BR>Over playing of vintages (I have myriad wonderful California 1989's and 1979's, both vintages written off by the Spectator)<BR>Just a start. <BR><BR>There are all sorts of quaffing wines out there that the spectator ignores. There are wine regins they ignore.

I agree that Wine Spectator ratings on lessor known wines can be conservative. That is why it is impotant to read the descriptions and not just focus on the numerical ratings assigned. While I don't bother with those with a rating less than 80, I would have missed some very nice wines if I hadn't read the descriptions on those 80+ ratings. <BR>While the WS system isn't perfect, they do bring to our attention far more wines (for most of us) than we could ever discover on our own.

I just thought it was interesting, typically italian wines do not get the same press as say californian wines, and especially not chianti's. Just the fact that this issue was primarily about tuscan wines struck me as interesting. I did say it was subjective, as with anything that involves opinions whether it is wine, food, entertainment, travel etc. I enjoy wine, and certainly am looking forward to uncorking the bottles we brought back. And no, had wine spectator deemed them not as worthy as others it would not deter or change my opinion of them, however I did appreciate the fact that the wines I liked for various reasons were acknowledged .

ttt

Don't know why you topped this one Jody, but I was taken aback because we get WS and this Septs issue isn't about Tuscan wines! HOWEVER it remains one of the most beautiful magazines I've ever seen and I use their suggestions often as well. They tipped me off on a great hotel deal for our Christmas trip to Southern California this year.

Perhaps the September 2002 issue was about Tuscan Wines?

Wine Spectator is an excellent magazine because it manages to capture and combine the beauty of wine, food and travel and present it in a way that is at once both exclusive and attainable. Meaning, most folks know very little about wine. Sure, we drink a glass and we say we like or dislike it. But developing a &quot;taste&quot; for wine --- the nuances, varietals, regions etc --- takes time and experience and therefore choosing can be intimidating as heck. A handy dandy scoring system with a brief description helps make things much easier.

Dean, your assessment is mostly spot on. I too discover &quot;gems&quot; via a dialogue with thoughful wine merchants --- both here and abroad. (This past year in Italy we tried some wines from Puglia and Campagnia and some of them were fantastic. A 'Serpico' we had was hands done better than some well known &quot;Super Tuscans&quot; we've tried.) However, while I'm an avid collector of French claret and fairly up on Italian wines, I know next to diddly about Californian, Australian, German etc and therefore resort to &quot;the rating&quot; when no other source is available. Human nature I suppose.

The bigger problem I have with this whole rating phenom is how its not only driving wine consumption, but production and prices too. Robert Parker is the numero uno &quot;culprit&quot; --- some French producers are being accused of &quot;parkerizing&quot; their wine --- whatever that means. Moreover, I too can be guilty of thinking a rating of less than 90 somehow makes a wine less appealing and I find myself choosing something else. Ridiculous I know!