Scores, scores, scores… and DRC Romanèe Conti 2002

Posted on | January 12, 2006

Oh dear… this is that terrible business of wine scoring again. Tom Wark over at Fermentations makes a point that perhaps we should draw distinctions between a $1600 wine and one that, well, costs a lot less… See here The Wine Critic’s Responsibility & the $1600 Wine. Of course, this isn’t a new story, far from it - and so what? Well, there are important issues involved with this and I thought I would make my contribution to the debate having held off in the past.

First: it is an absolute nonsense to award wines a universal score - and one should interpret them as such. A score that adheres in any situation, anywhere in the world, at any time, with any other comparisons, on any day of the year? Pshah! One noted commentator in England has tried to get well-known critics to repeat their tastings and scores of the same wine - they declined. There is no such thing as a universal score that works. And, in any case, as a good friend of mine constantly quotes at me ‘ there is no such thing as good wine only a good bottle of wine.’ A lousy 1955 Le Mont S A Huet (Domaine de la Huet) which I had long been anticipating confirmed this only to clearly just before the year end.

Taken out of context it’s not clear if Rovani is rating DRC compared to other Pinot Noir? To Bordeaux? To all the wine in the world? To the wine he tasted that day? To wines valued at under $40? To the wines in his local supermarket? Or, to DRC? The problem is that even a peer-to-peer review gets quoted out of context. Is this an example? Anyway, here is the review for the record:

© Wine Advocate #153 (Jun 2004) by Pierre Rovani

The 2002 Romanèe-Conti (90 points) sports a nose of orange zests, stones, herbs, and violets. Its delicate, light to medium-bodied character opens to reveal silky layers of black cherries, black currants, fresh herbs, and roses.
Firm, unresolved tannin can be detected in its lengthy finish. Projected maturity: 2009-2018. Retail $1,680.00.

I asked Michel Bettane what he thought about this wine:

“I tasted this wine one month ago in Paris (December 2005) : it is a marvel of delicacy and refinement of flavour. As always with the great vintages of this growth the colour is not black but light purple, but, and it is an evolution, the
oakiness is no more assertive which implies:
1 the quality of the oak for the new barrels has improved quite a lot by better choice and a longer drying time.
2 the vinosity and density of the wine is stronger and allows a better balance.
This wine is a masterpiece, by far the greatest expression of Pinot Noir I know and the vintage is one of the most elegant of the last fifty ones. Something between 1962 and 1964 but with better winemaking.”

Michel didn’t give me a score…

But it is clear that he and Rovani disagree somewhat. And at this level, and at that price, one is really compressing those big numbers at the top end to achieve some kind of distinction (even according to the scoring system of Robert Parker). Moreover, Rovani’s note simply doesn’t do it justice (depending on whom you trust). Leaving aside the actual score he allocated, ask yourself this question: ‘Would you have bought the wine if you had read Michel Bettane’s assessment or Pierre Rovani’s?’ On the other hand, if you hadn’t bought the wine as a result of Rovani’s note you would have lost out on a great wine and a substantially good investment. Does that make it clearer?

But I don’t think the price of the bottle has anything to do with it - and in a blind tasting (which is preferred) the taster would not have known what he was drinking. However, one might expect a degree of care in the note that is perhaps absent.

Scores are only meant to summarise a description of a wine and need to be in the context of the occasion. And to be fair, and it’s in bold type, but everyone knows that this emphasis is not reflected in the marketplace, Parker’s website (I only refer to this because this is where Mr Rovani hangs out) makes it clear: ‘Scores, however, do not reveal the important facts about a wine. The written commentary that accompanies the ratings is a better source of information regarding the wine’s style and personality, its relative quality vis-à-vis its peers, and its value and aging potential than any score could ever indicate.’ But where, may I ask, did this review of this wine reveal ‘its relative quality vis-à-vis its peers’, ‘its value and aging potential’? And, just to remind you it costs $1,680*! I think we were all entitled to a little more elucidation.

On the subject of scoring itself (whether 100 points or otherwise) it makes no sense to me to award points for colour, finish, flavour etc a system often used in international competition. Most tasters I know taste on the basis of the ‘whole’ experience. Patrick Macleod’s research into tasting reveals “that the messages which are transmitted when, say, a glass of wine is drunk, are conveyed to the neurons of the conscious brain and that each single neuron therein receives information elements which come from all of the above [olfaction, taste, somatic perceptions]. In other words, it is not possible to break down the elements making up taste as they are not transmitted to the brain separately but together.” [blog au vin 14 Dec 2005] So, why would one try to analyse them separately? I can only think that it pretends to be a scientific approach - when we all know that tasting and score allocation is purely subjective.

So let’s go into more detail into this famous 100-pt scoring…

First off. Parker’s web site: “It is my belief that the various twenty (20) point rating systems do not provide enough flexibility and often result in compressed and inflated wine ratings.” What are we really talking about here? Is this misleading? A 20-point scoring system is usually divided into 40 points - using a common half point system. Parker conceeds that nearly all wines (and most using a 20-point system never rate wine the way he does - e.g. by awarding marks for colour etc) are given 4-5 points for their colour. So, using his ‘flexible’ 50-point system we’re actually talking about a 45-point system. [It's worth mentioning that whilst allocating a potential 5 marks for colour the reality - proved scientifically - is that colour is the most important component in tasting wine. But, I digress...]. So, in reality we’re really comparing a 40- to a 45-point system. I think the margin to be so slight it isn’t worth mentioning. And in any case can you tell the difference between a 94 and a 95? Moreover, it depends how one spreads the scores out in a 20-point system. If the less good wines are grouped at the bottom then one has MORE ‘flexibility’ (not less) and ‘wine ratings are’ NOT ‘inflated’. I have found that our combined 20-pt and 100-pt scoring system are completely compatible.

In the DRC review the wine is awarded 90 points. Would it be fair to assume that at least 8-10 of these would be allocated to ‘the overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement”aging’? So without ‘aging’ we’re talking about an 80-82 point wine? Well, now I am reassured. On erobertparker.com it states: ‘many of the wines that fall into this range ['80-89] often are great value as well. I have many of these wines in my personal collection’. Phew! I was worried that this wine would not be perceived as good value…

Most professional tasters who taste a wine, judging it is an ensemble, include ageing potential as part of their assessment. It is a ‘given’ in a wine of a certain kind and the commentary and ’score’ will reflect this together. So, are we really comparing a scoring system of 35-points (Parker’s 100-pt system: 50 pts minus 5 pts for the ubiquitous colour component and minus 10 pts for ageing) with a 40-point system (the more standard European 20-pt version plus its half points)? If the number of points you can award a wine define the system’s flexibility then there’s something awry here.

The 100-pt scoring system widely used in the USA, Australia and more now in the UK exists (and works to some extent) because that’s what most of you want. It isn’t to be preferred to 20-pts, 10-pts, or 5 stars in my view because the important element is the note - not the score. Michael Broadbent’s five-star system (as used in his book Vintage Wine) is more than adequate to accompany his excellent notes and I have never wished for more (it’s really a five-point system wtih some extra refinements). The important thing is what works for you and to that extent we must all follow. But as yet there is no way to indicate the value of the wine and I don’t feel it is relevant. There are other circumstances about the way the tasting is conducted which are more important. For sure, an indication of whether a wine may be good value is relevant. My facetious remarks above concerning this are nonetheless true - the wine in question was very good value, and probably still is.

Fabian Cobb

PS Of course, I am being completely unfair! Everyone is writing thousands of wine reviews every year. It is not being ‘cricket’ to pick up a reviewer on one of them. Apologies to all concerned.

NB *I have accepted the price of $1680 as being the current price - which seems very low to me (it is a very rare bird). The original release price was £4,200 for x6 75cl bottles with Corney and Barrow, London in February 2005. It is almost completely impossible to find a bottle except perhaps at auction. So, despite Rovani’s rather ambivalent review it has had no impact on either the price or the supply of this wine. By the way, Corney and Barrow have sold out of this wine. I checked.

Comments