A server selects a bottle of wine at Alameda, where the wine list includes bottles from 120 local wineries, in Fuenmayor, La Rioja, Spain, in July.EMILIO PARRA DOIZTUA/The New York Times News Service
Last week’s column about scoring wine for review prompted readers to question whether the bottle price influences the numerical rating. Like most wine reviewers, I don’t factor the price of a wine or its perceived value into its score.
You cannot taste dollar signs so there aren’t marks awarded for being “pretty good for the price.” When I’m tasting for review, I assess the quality of the sample. I don’t know the retail price until I look it up to complete the review. Writing for a national audience, a wine’s price can vary substantially from province to province. It would be confusing to say this cabernet would rate 87 in Saskatchewan, but 90 in Ontario.
A 90-point cabernet could sell for $20 or $200-plus per bottle. Readers can factor in the added value for money offered by lower priced bottles.
More expensive wines don’t always earn the highest ratings. That said, there might be something mentioned in the review of an expensive bottle that suggests its ability to improve with cellaring: A young $60 cabernet might score a 90 upon release but could improve with five to 10 years of bottle age. With more complexity, improved texture and length, that cabernet might rate higher as an older wine. Its added cost might be seen as a reward of patience.
I can only accurately assess a wine’s character at that moment of tasting; my wine glass isn’t a crystal ball. In my trained opinion, that restrained red wine, which has potential to develop into a more complex and compelling red worthy of 93 points or higher, is scored on its merits right now. But I can use my knowledge of the region, producer or grape variety to predict how it might develop, which is why I wrote about the importance of factoring all of the elements in a review – rating, retail price and review – to help you shop smarter.