Marking Within Context
I receive letters from time to time from subscribers puzzled by my habit of marking wines “within their context”. Wouldn’t it be simpler, some ask, to mark wines on an absolute scale? Does this mean, demand others, that an 18 out of 20 in a 14 out of 20 vintage is equivalent to a 14 in an 18 out of 20 vintage? I will come back to this second question later.
Let me first explain what persuades me that marking within the context is the only logical way. Simply put, it is the way we all instinctively assess things. Mankind has a natural inclination to put things in an order. We are not equal. And neither are things we discuss. Let us imagine two friends who meet in the street and talk about neighbourhood restaurants they regularly patronise. This pizza joint is better than that: this Italian bistro is superior to the one down the road; this Chinese is better value than the other. The value judgements are within their context. At no juncture are comparisons taken with Taillevent, Gordon Ramsey, or the French Laundry.
To take another example. You went to a concert at your children’s school last week. The orchestra of 15 and 16 year olds gave a spirited rendition of the Overture to Carmen. One of the more talented pianists played a movement from a Mozart concerto. Do you compare the performance with a professional orchestra, or with Murray Pereiha? Of course you don’t. You assess within context.
So do we, or so should we, with wine. As I have said in the pre-amble to The Vine, there is (or could be) a 20 out of 20 Beaujolais or House Claret. If I am reading a review of, say, Vin de Pays Chardonnays from the south of France, I expect the wine writer to highlight the best by giving them 18 out of 20 (or a 90 plus if they are marking out of 100). That, given the price context and the aspiration of French Midi Chardonnays is what I am entitled to expect, together with marks down to 15 (good), and less. But quite obviously these Chardonnays are not being compared to Le Montrachet.
What would happen if they were? Logically the notes would be in the low 70s (out of 100) or 13s (out of 20). What would that indicate? Only that the wines were barely drinkable, which they are not, by any means. They can be fine, good or indifferent, within their context, and the marking system must accommodate this.
In fact, as I had noticed, all wine journalists assess, even if they think they are not doing so, within context. It is implicit in the words they use, if not always consistently in the marks. This is a brilliant wine given an overall rather poor vintage, go the comments. That is a major disappointment for such a normally over-achieving property. And so on. The only marking system which can reflect this is a marking within-context one.
And, as I say, we all do it. Robert Parker is one of those who marks, so he says, absolutely. But how do we reconcile his marks for Margaux 1980 (88/100), Margaux 1981 (91/100) and Margaux 1982 (98 plus/100)? All these three wines are spectacular successes within the context of their vintages. But in absolute terms surely the 1982 is rather more than a mere 7 plus percent better than the 1981, and the 1981 rather superior than 3 percent over than the 1980? Like myself, Parker and others - and I cite him not out of any personal animosity but merely because his journal is very influential - are trying to make room in their marking systems for highlighting the best and where necessary being severe on the disappointing. I just think I am being more logical in admitting it.
The difficulty for the consumer, obviously, when top Bordeaux, Burgundy or whatever is under consideration, is to know what exactly is the context. Here those who have the foresight to read the background have the advantage over those who blithely rush towards the marks themselves. Read the preamble. This will tell you whether the vintage under consideration is an average one (14/20), a good one (15.0), a very good one (16.0), a fine one (17.5), or a grande année. The marks, or the value judgement in words, for those like me who refuse to give a definite mark until the wines can be judged as finished articles in bottle against each other, can then be taken in context. This is the only way to judge wine.
And yes, an 18/20 in a 14/20 vintage should be the same as a 14/20 in an 18/20 vintage. I’d personally probably go for the former because what is implicit is the elegance of the terroir in a minor vintage – I write this with a glass of Clos de Vougeot 1992 from Grivot beside me. But which you, dear reader, will prefer, will depend on your personal taste, on your mood that particular day, and on the food that goes with it. Wine tasting and wine assessment is not an exact science.