I appreciate it that at WS, wines are tasted blind so that in principle, the comments and scores are unbiased by knowledge of the price. But I wonder if there shouldn't be some note of the relative value of the wine, at least in the daily editor's picks. For example the following:

May 08, 2008 ANWILKA Stellenbosch 2006 (89 points, $45)
This is very forward and easygoing, with a polished beam of raspberry and currant fruit backed by notes of cedar, coffee and vanilla on the finish. A shade less concentrated than the debut 2005. Cabernet Sauvignon, Shiraz and Merlot. Drink now. 4,500 cases made.
- James Molesworth

It definitely reads like a wine worth recommending, until you get to the price. I'd be buying this by the case for $10-20 bucks/bottle, but for $45? It sounds like a wine I would recommend only for a more commensurate price.

Think of your favorite QPR: 2005 Tres Picos($12, 90 pts)? 2005 Little Penguin Cabernet ($8, 88 pts. Is that a TYPO?!)? What have you. Would you be so inclined to recommend it if it were $45/bottle. Consider the following statement, and maybe you'll get my point:

"Oh, there's this solid and reasonably diverting Aussie Cab you might like: Little Penguin Cabernet. And you can snag some at the Thriftway for $8/bottle."

Sure, I can see it. Well maybe I lost you with the Little Penguin, but feel free to substitute your favorite $8-12 87-89 pointer, which are reasonably abundant. Now compare that with the following:

"Oh, there's this solid and reasonably diverting Aussie Cab you might like: Little Penguin Cabernet. And you can snag some at Star Wine and Liquors for $45/bottle."

No way! If you were to accept that recommendation, you would be rudely disappointed, and promptly sever all ties to the recommender, even if it was your mom.

I'm just saying.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Spenser,

Value is relative to income. Some people might find an 88 pt wine at $45 a good deal, while others might find a 90 pt wine for $20 a bad value.

Value is also relative to preference. I might find a $20 Cotes du Rhone a great value, but if you hate Cotes du Rhone, you won't think it's a good value regardless of what I try to tell you.

That said, I usually use a value system in my ratings but often include a sentence about who might like/dislike the wine:
OV (outstanding value), VGV (Very Good, GV (good), OKV, PV (poor), and CV (collectible).

Why you wouldn't want to know that a $50 wine is 85 points so you could spend that money elsewhere is beyond me.

Regardless of the rating or price, you decide with your wallet whether or not you're going to buy a wine. WS is just doing their job and presenting the information.

You might want to take a look at Ric Einstein's TORB ratings, which, I think takes price into account. But the QPR issue isn't so straightfoward when you consider that prices materially fluctuate depending on time and location.

Thus I still prefer that ratings are scored independent of price and people can then make their own judgement of whether it's QPR based on prices that they can find at that location at that time.

quote:

Originally posted by Stevey:
You might want to take a look at Ric Einstein's TORB ratings, which, I think takes price into account. But the QPR issue isn't so straightfoward when you consider that prices materially fluctuate depending on time and location.

Thus I still prefer that ratings are scored independent of price and people can then make their own judgement of whether it's QPR based on prices that they can find at that location at that time.

I agree, the ratings should be independent of price. I'm just saying that, at least when you recommend a wine, you should also address the value.

Spenser: We're not 'recommending' the wine - we're giving our (in the case of the Anwilka, my) opinion of its quality. That opinion is derived by tasting it without knowing who made it or what it retails for.

Whether or not you then want to buy it, is up to you, and both your palate and wallet preferences...

This thread got me to take a look again at how WS conducts tastings. I confirmed that tastings are conducted blind, with wines organized into flights by varietal, appellation or region. A benchmark, previously scored wine fitting the category is tasted non-blind prior to the flight. After labels are revealed, tasters can add additional comments about the wine, winery, or value, but not change the score.

Since scoring is peer versus peer on a level playing field (or as level as they can make it) then we can all determine our own QPR based on what that "price" is worth to us.

I agree with most of the comments above. It's not rocket science. When I look into buying a wine I haven't tried before, I look at a lot of things: Reputation, varietal, vintage, notes, score (assuming I trust the reviewer), price, not necc. in that order. All this information is readily available through the published notes, or some quick googling.

I don't need somebody to hold my hand and say "good value: Buy."

i think Tim Fish has been tasting a lot of cali qpr

check some of his notes in WS!
he's done a lot of the zins
an some big names to!!!!!!
must be my spelling!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bez780,

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
Spenser: We're not 'recommending' the wine - we're giving our (in the case of the Anwilka, my) opinion of its quality. That opinion is derived by tasting it without knowing who made it or what it retails for.

Whether or not you then want to buy it, is up to you, and both your palate and wallet preferences...

Yes, I totally agree insofar as the ratings are concerned: just give me your opinion and the price and let me decide if the value is acceptable. I'm a convert in that regard.

BUT, aren't the Daily Editor's Picks intended as recommendations? If I'm wrong there, please correct me. I think I'm just saying that as such, some of them are pretty weak picks.

quote:

Originally posted by sarbuze:
Value is relative to income. Some people might find an 88 pt wine at $45 a good deal, while others might find a 90 pt wine for $20 a bad value.

This sure is a bizarre statement. I guess you're saying that people with more money like to pay more to buy lower quality items. "How do you think I became rich." (?)

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by sarbuze:
Value is relative to income. Some people might find an 88 pt wine at $45 a good deal, while others might find a 90 pt wine for $20 a bad value.

This sure is a bizarre statement. I guess you're saying that people with more money like to pay more to buy lower quality items. "How do you think I became rich." (?)

I think sarbuze is referring to the fact that an individuals preference can have many influences. Personally I have purchased, tasted and returned,$25.95 c.a.d, 95pt wines, I wasn't impressed with. Only to spend hours tracking down and purchasing $50.00+, 91pt. wines that blew me away.
When I first started collecting wine, a mentor of mine sorted things out by expressing "If a wine tastes good to you, It's a good wine".
As your style preferences evolve you spend what you need to.

I'm confused.

I'll admit I don't subscribe to WS, so I genuinely don't know the answer to this question, but did WS have as one of its "highly reccomended" (or similar category) wines of the month a wine that costs $45 and got scored 89? OR is this actually a thread complaining about the fact that there exists a wine that happens to cost $45 and that the WS editors think is worthy of 89 points; and thus reported these findings, because that is their job?

Under the first scenario... that the WS editors decided that a $45/89pt wine was one of the highlights of their tasting month, I can see why someone would be baffled. Irrespective of how much money I personally have to spend on wine, except in cases of unique wines whose virtues cannot easily be found elsewhere, I would not seek out any wine that was both over $30 and that I would award fewer than 90 points to.

From a value perspective, even if I had a 7 or 8 figure income, I would find spending $45 on a non-unique wine that I would rate 89 points to be a waste of money. Personally, if I had that kind of money, I would feel much better spending $450 on a bottle I would rate 96 or 97 points. (And if I made $5m a year, I deffinitely would be buying $450+ bottles of wine in the hopes that some of them would garner upper-90s points from ME.) Obivously, value does have both a relative and personal element to it. But I think most of us would agree that a wine that we pay over $40 should warrant a 90+ score from its drinkers and with probably literally thousands of different $40-$55 wines that are worthy of 88-90 points on the market, I would be *interested* as to why WS would specifically reccomend this one.

On the Other Hand...

If this is just some random assign WS Online "look at this tasting note of the day" or something even more benign... then I really don't see why there is a thread about it at all.

James Molesworth says,

quote:

We're not 'recommending' the wine - we're giving our (in the case of the Anwilka, my) opinion of its quality. That opinion is derived by tasting it without knowing who made it or what it retails for.

However, Spenser is talking about the Editor's Picks specifically in the $30+ category. I've always assumed that the Today's Pick was a recommendation, and that price is certainly a factor. I don't expect under 90 point wines in the under $15 category, and they are an extra bonus in the $15-$30 category. The points are WS points, and the picks are by WS reviewers, so I would expect a minimum of 90 points in the over $30 group. There are plenty of wines that qualify.

On the other hand, if I see a Penfold's Bin 407 at 88 points at $31, I think, "Why not just buy Peter Lehmann at $15, or Thorn-Clarke Shotfire in the low $20s?" I experience the same puzzlement when I see a $100+ wine rated 90 points as an Editor's Pick.

It depends what the definition of the word "recommend" is.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by sarbuze:
Value is relative to income. Some people might find an 88 pt wine at $45 a good deal, while others might find a 90 pt wine for $20 a bad value.

This sure is a bizarre statement. I guess you're saying that people with more money like to pay more to buy lower quality items. "How do you think I became rich." (?)

That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying people who can afford to spend more will spend more. A person who can only spend $45 on a rare, special occasion isn't likely to pursue a wine that is considered "very good". Rather, they would want their "splurge" wine to really rock, that is be "outstanding". On the other hand, a person who can afford $45 for a daily drinker may be more inclined to take a chance on a wine with a "very good" rating.

As others have stated, our budgets and tastes are the number on factor in choosing a wine regardless of how many points a wine gets or doesn't get.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Molesworth:
Spenser: We're not 'recommending' the wine - we're giving our (in the case of the Anwilka, my) opinion of its quality.[QUOTE]

That is an interesting statement! If they were not meant to be recommendations, then why call them "Editor's Picks"?

And don't get me started on the 84 point "Under $15" picks.

Spenser, you need too buy 2 cases of assorted white wines and condition yourself to enjoy it. The bang for the buck is much higher there.

I wouldn't necessarily say a $45 wine shouldn't be an "Editor's Pick" just because it only got 89 points - depending on the region, etc., that might be good value and, more importantly, there's more to why to recommend a wine that the score.

On the other hand, if I only read JM's tasting note, which is not overly enthusiastic, I would have assumed he gave it 86-87 points. Not sure why someone put that up as a Editor's Pick.