Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate Vintage Guide has recently been updated to show how vintages fared from country to country and region to region, from as far back as 1970. For most of us, vintages don’t affect our buying decisions in any way, and I’m not sure they really should unless you’re thinking of cellaring, or it’s just something that really excites you.

Click on the graph below to view the report in its entirety. The key at the bottom of the chart will help you to better understand the ratings. If nothing else, it is interesting to glance through and see where and when the supposedly poor, average and exceptional vintages lie.

Click on the above chart to view report in its entirety.

From what I can gather from those who do at least consider vintage as somewhat important, it is Bordeaux that seems to be of most concern to people. Perhaps because it is steeped in such tradition and carries the reputation it does, there is always great anticipation within the trade and among consumers as the freshly bottled wines from each new vintage are treacled through to market.

What this guide shows is that it is not only Bordeaux that is subjected to vintage variations. Every region is affected. However, bare in mind that even in poor vintages, exceptional wines can be produced, and likewise, poor wines from exceptional vintages. Also, when you’re talking about wines from the massive brands you’ll see available in the supermarkets, you’re not really going to find considerable differences between vintages. From these wines you’ll get reliability and consistency, but no real character. The price we pay for cheap, high volume wine is boredom.

As a wine consumer, it’s useful to have a basic grasp of the different wine scoring systems. As wine is so subjective, I don’t think every buying decision should ever be based purely on a score. Critics reviews can conflict and they are often looking for something different to what the everyday wine drinker is after. It should, however, be the case that a wine is scored based on its merits. For what it is, not for how it suits the taste of that particular person.

We’ve been working hard recently to get our wines up to date with Parker scores. The Langmeil Three Gardens is a nice example. Type “Robert Parker” into the search bar on the homepage and you’ll get the idea.

Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate (100-point scale)

This is the most prolific wine scoring scale. American wine critic Robert Parker based it on the American high school system of marking. It is the bases for most scoring systems used today. Parker’s influence is so big, he can help a winery sell thousands of extra cases when he reviews with a high score.

96-100: An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. I think wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase and consume.

90-95: An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. I consider these terrific wines.

80-89: A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavour, as well as character with no noticeable flaws.

70-79: An average wine with little distinction except that it is soundly made. In short a straightforward, innocuous wine.

60-69: A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavour, or possibly dirty aromas or flavours.

50-59: A wine I deem unacceptable.

James Halliday’s Wine Companion (100-point scale)

94-100: Outstanding. Wines of the highest quality, usually with a distinguished pedigree.

90-93: Highly recommended. Wines of great quality, style and character, worthy of a place in any cellar.

87-89: Recommended. Wines of above-average quality, fault-free and with clear varietal expression.

84-86: Fair to good. Wines with plenty of flavour (usually varietal) and good balance; free of technical faults.

80-83: Everyday wines. Price is particularly relevant; represent good value.

75-79: Also tasted. Usually wines with some deficiency, technical or otherwise

Wine Spectator’s 100-point scale

95-100: Classic, a great wine.
90-94: Outstanding, a wine of superior character and style.
80-89: Good to very good, a wine with special qualities.
70-79: Average, a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws.
60-69: Below average, drinkable but not recommended.
50-59: Poor, undrinkable, not recommended.

Decanter’s 5 star rating system

5 stars: Outstanding quality, virtually perfect example
4 stars: Highly recommended
3 stars: Recommended
2 stars: Quite good
1 star: Acceptable

Jancis Robinson’s 20-point scoring system

20 – Truly exceptional
19 – A humdinger
18 – A cut above superior
17 – Superior
16 – Distinguished
15 – Average, a perfectly nice drink with no faults but not much excitement
14 – Deadly dull
13 – Borderline faulty or unbalanced
12 – Faulty or unbalanced

An interesting article by Tim Atkins (Master of Wine and wine writer for UK newspaper, The Guardian), raises a debate which I imagine has been going on for some time. He was responding to some questioning on the relevance of wine critics. “Misguided elitists” who talk among themselves rather than being concerned about guiding consumers is how he describes the taunts.

The most reputable wine critics, Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson to name a few, make a very good living from scoring wines and releasing comprehensive buyer guides. This is one end of the scale. So many wine drinkers take their every word as gospel. They are almost celebrities. The other end of the scale is the multitude of wine lovers, myself included, who just like writing about wine and sharing their experiences. Whether people really take notice of us is another matter.

Critical scores are great for some. For others, they just drink what they like. I thought this was a good paragraph from Atkins.

One of my favourite cartoons shows a punter tasting a sample in a wine shop. “This is disgusting,” he tells the manager. “The Wine Speculator gave it 96 points out of 100,” replies the manager. “OK, I’ll take 10 cases,” says the punter. People who buy wines they don’t like because someone else tells them to are fools.

Many wineries rely heavily on awards and accolades to sell wine because so many consumers rely on them to buy wine. My slight concern with the likes of the Decanter Awards and the International Wine Challenge is the cost to enter them. Many of the wineries who don’t have the marketing spend, or who decide to use it elsewhere, will not enter these competitions and will not be recognised, even though they possibly have a wine better than those partaking in their category.

So many excellent wines, for whatever reason, may be escaping the limelight. Despite this, accolades and awards may very well help to provide a better buying decision. I think wine critics and awards are a great thing. Many of our wines have received superb recognition, and rightfully so, but remember to take them with a pinch of salt. After all, nobody can tell you what the best wine in the world is. Only you know that.

Tim Atkins article is well worth a read.

It’s the last thing we want, and it’s something that has alarmed many wine consumers and critics alike. The growing international standardisation of wine styles is a threat to the wine drinker who appreciates wine with distinction and character.

There is an obsession with technology these days that allows mass production on a consistent level. This, of course, isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Some of these conglomerates are producing massive volumes of inoffensive and affordable plonk that serves as an entry point for those who’ll eventually seek something different and more exciting.

The concern is that this practice will spread further, to the point that it will be difficult for consumers, including you and I here in Ireland, to find wines that are true to their terroir, varietal and skill of truly talented winemakers. Robert Parker (The Wine Advocate) compares the worst scenario to that of brands of whiskey or vodka.

Ultimately, there’s a section of the market that demands low priced wine that’s drinkable, which is absolutely understandable and fair enough, but some winemakers need to learn to take a few risks, even at the expense of offending some consumers. It’s getting more and more difficult to tell an Italian Chardonnay from one made in France or California for example.

In late 2005, the EU voted through a total of six wine making practices until now associated much more readily with the New than the Old World. One of these included the use of oak chips, a cheaper alternative to oak ageing with barrels. So is this another sign of standardisation? There was a bit of a kick up at the time, but each country can manage these as they wish. You’re not going to find oak chips being used in the top appellations of France any time soon, for example.

I can’t see the wine industry ever turning into something like that of whiskey and vodka. One of the great attributes of wine is how the style can change so dramatically between country and varietal, but I also believe it’s good to have inexpensive and accessible wine. The important message is simply for vintners to never lose sight of the art and craft of producing wines that are unique to their own land and wine making techniques. And for consumers to stay curious and adventure beyond Generic Brand Vin de Plonk.