Best places on the internet for (free) wine information.

Here are some of my favorite online wine resources- from videos to forums to wine blogs and more. I’m compiling a list of my favorite “Lesser Known” wine blogs and websites as well and hope to publish these in the next week. I have no competing interests in any of the sites, except for www.wineinterview.com, where my blog is also published. That said, my only compensation is link-backs, so there is no financial motive for me to put them here! If you have suggestions on other great websites, let me know! (image from dreamstime.com) Read more

Wine ratings: Just to clear something up: 85 pts is a very good wine

A recent conversation at a wine store has me a bit worked up. I asked someones opinion on a wine and they responded “it’s an OK wine for the price ($13) but I wouldn’t give it more than 88 pts.” I responded “I thought 88 pts was a pretty good score” to be almost interupted with “yeah it’s OK but there are a lot of 90 pt wines at this price”. I had to hold myself back from shaking my head and walking out. At what point did an 88 point wine become “OK” and at $13 become an “OK value.” Wines that I rate 88 pts (Very Good) and are $13 I would buy by the case!

This isn’t an isolated incident, either. Lately I’ve been noticing a lot of tasting notes on both CellarTracker and other websites that contradict traditional wine ratings. Many people will score a wine between 85-89 points, but just trash the wine. They call it hot, undrinkable, etc…but still give it a “good to very good” rating. Therefore, I’d like to clear something up:

95-100	Classic: a great wine
90-94	Outstanding: wine with superior character & style
85-89	Very good: wine with special qualities
80-84	Good: a solid, well-made wine
70-79	Average: drinkable wine that may have minor flaws
60-69	Below average: drinkable wine but not recommended
50-59	Poor: undrinkable wine, not recommended

An 80 point wine is still a good, well made wine. An 85 point wine is very good. Many people are in the mindset that only 90 pt wines are good and anything less isn’t worth it. By limiting ourselves to the upper 20% of the scale, we’re missing out on a lot of quality wines and wines that are actually pretty good are being overlooked.

Another reminder that ratings are only useful if you understand the reviewers palate. If a critic constantly gives wines 90+ points (ie Jay Miller of the Wine Advocate) they are skewing scale which reduces the power of having a rating system with 50 points of variability. Before considering someones rating, or posting your own, keep in mind what the scores are supposed to reflect and ask yourself whether or not the wine actually merits that value.

A few hours after putting this post up, WineLibraryTV addressed this very issue.  For Gary Vaynerchuk’s perspective on this issue and his evaluation of some “89″ point wines, check out “89 Point Wines, What Is The Deal?”

Why again do we follow wine ratings?

James Suckling recently wrote a blog about a tasting he attended in March ‘08. The idea behind the tasting was to compare a couple Cult wines from California to the top wines of Bordeaux, all from the 2003 vintage. The lineup of wines was more than amazing and in the end Suckling and most of the group had a tough time distinguishing French from California in the blind format.

The top two wines of the night were from the US: the Colgin 2003 Cabernet Sauvignon Herb Lamb Vineyard and a 2003 Harlan Estate Cabernet. Suckling wrote of the 2003 Colgin, “…five tasters gave it 100 points, including Gabriel. It was easily the most popular wine of the tasting.” His unofficial tasting note: Read more

New: Restaurant Rating System

Also posted on the “ratings” page. - Thanks to Kim for the great idea of this new system and putting it into play!

Our Overall Ratings are based on a 5 star, 3 tier system. We feel that restaurants should be judged against others of similar price and purpose. For example, a TGI Friday’s is not in the same league as a Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse, nor does it attempt to be. For this reason, we don’t feel it would be accurate to use the same scale to review them. The price ranges included below are generalized estimates and reflect the cost of food only. Here is our description of the tier system including a few restaurants as examples:

Tier 1: The finer dining establishments in Baltimore. These menus are often designed by top chefs in the area and should offer unique or complex dishes created with the highest quality ingredients. Expect to spend $50 and up per person; examples include Charleston, The Prime Rib, Flemmings.

Tier 2: This tier offers the most variability in terms of what to expect, themes range from upscale ethnic cuisine to creative, unpretentious American dishes. These menus range from simple to moderately complex plates, and typically use higher quality ingredients. Expect to spend $15-$50 per person for 1-3 courses; examples include The Wine Market, Phillips Seafood, Blue Agave.

Tier 3: The menus here are usually predictable, offering simple dishes that reflect the theme of the restaurant. This tier would include your local sandwich shop, Pizzaria or Chinese restaurant. Expect to spend $10-$25 per person for 1-3 courses; examples include Holy Frijoles, Thirsty Dog Pub.

This system is copyrighted by Foodandwineblog.com. 

Wine Spectator’s Top 100 Wines of the Year - What I thought!

This month The Wine Spectator released it’s top 100 wines of the year. Without getting into what I thought of their selections, and with 2008 a few days away, I thought I’d recap my tasting notes on the wines that made Wine Spectator’s top 100 that I was lucky enough to try. Unfortunately, the high prices of those wines in the top 50 were too much for me to taste more than a few! Maybe next year we’ll see more value wines making the top 50! NOTE - I’ve listed Wine Spectator’s ratings (WS Rating) and rank. For information on my Value Rating System, check out my ratings page.

Without further ado:

8. Mollydooker Shiraz McLaren Vale Carnival of Love 2006 ($80): Opened and tasted immediately: Mushroom, plum, cherry, big fruits, big yet soft tannins. Decanted. 2 hour decant: Great color. Still tight on the nose. The initial mushroom note is gone with the appearance of a musty-forest floor with a touch of pepper and bacon. On the palette it’s toasted cedar, vanilla, plum, pretty solid through the middle with a long, complex finish that goes on and on. At this point I’m definitely seeing 96 pts or more. 3 hour decant: Again showing better, more buttery now with a bit more spice. The fruits in this wine just don’t stop. Quite pleasing and still 96+ points. 4 hour decant: Just as elegant as before. I’m quite impressed with the structure of this wine and overall quality. Very good. A very solid 96 points. My rating: 96 pts, GV. WS Rating: 95 pts

12. Valdicava Brunello di Montalcino Madonna del Piano Riserva 2001 ($175): I have yet to try this wine, but it’s in the cellar and will be opened in 10 years or so!

16. Schild Shiraz Barossa 2005 ($25): Decanted - big dark fruits, spice, tobacco on the nose. On the palate the wine is explosive with big, dark fruit, leather, plum, tar. Smooth tannins, long finish - pretty straight forward big Aussie Shiraz if that’s your style, you’ll like this wine (the 2004 was a better wine overall). We had this twice and it was consistently good. My rating: 90 pts, GV. WS Rating: 93 pts

37. Navarro Zinfandel Mendocino 2004 ($19): Blueberry, blackberry, cherry and some spice notes on the nose, as well as a small petrol component. Very good balance given the amount of alcohol, smooth tannins and a medium-long finish. A good Zin and great value. Tasted 3 times with consistent notes and evaluation. My rating: : 93 pts, VGV. WS Rating: 92 pts

62. Louis Jadot Moulin-à-Vent Château des Jacques 2005 ($22): Decanted 1 hour. Earthy tones, cherry, raspberry and other bright fruits. On the palate the wine was very well balanced, with dusty tannins and a earthy, medium-length finish. Should get better with a couple years, drinking nice now with a long decant. My rating: 93 pts, VGV. WS Rating: 91 pts

71. Columbia Crest Merlot Columbia Valley Grand Estates ($11): Deep reddish plum in color with notes of plum, raspberry, vanilla and blueberry on the nose. The body is surprisingly creamy with soft tannins layered with good fruit and tar flavors. Long finish accented by a subtle chocolate note - well made bargain Merlot. Buy a case and enjoy one of the best values out there. My rating: 89 pts, OV. WS Rating: 90 pts

72. Yellow Tail Shiraz South Eastern Australia The Reserve 2005 ($11): With all the hype about the Yellowtail reserve Shiraz, I felt it would be fun to grab a bottle and see for myself whether it was warranted. I did not taste this blind, but I wish I had, it was very good. The wine was filled with dark fruits and spice with surprising balance and really smooth tannins. The finish fell apart a bit, but overall the wine is a great value and highly recommended as a daily drinker. My rating: 88 pts, OV. WS Rating: 90pts

77. Heidsieck Monopole Brut Champagne Blu Top NV ($35). Tasted from 375 mL bottle. Pale yellow color with plenty of tiny bubbles. Apple, pear, buttered toast with good balance. Light, crisp, and very refreshing. My rating: 90 pts, VGV. WS Rating: 91 pts.

92. Mulderbosch Chenin Blanc Stellenbosch 2006($14): Pale yellow color. On the nose is wet stone, pear, honey and a touch of lemon rind with citrus, pear and some more honey on the palate. This wine has some wild acidity but it’s not overwhelming and makes it a great spring/summer wine served with spicy cuisine. The finish is crisp and very refreshing. A great value wine from an outstanding producer. My rating: 91 pts, OV. WS Rating: 90pts

100. Caymus Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley 2004 ($70): Tasted twice. August 2007 - Filled with dark fruits, berry, currant, chocolate, touch of oak. Firm tannins, long finish. Another great wine from a great producer with good aging potential. My rating: 93 pts, CV. WS Rating: 92 pts

Caymus tasted again 12/26/07: Decanted 30 minutes at a wine bar. Real tight nose, blackberry, black currant, leather. On the palate the wine was a bit off from the other time I’ve had this and rated it 93 pts…the tannins were rough with a medium-long finish. Not corked, but maybe an off bottle. My rating: 87 pts (PV, poor value as it showed this time around).

Is Ignorance Bliss? The evolving palate.

Although wine ratings are subjective and only useful when you have an understanding of the background and palate of the person that is scoring the wine, I support their use and post ratings on this website (see My Ratings page for my system). Lately I’ve been thinking about my ratings and thinking of ways to improve my reporting of the quality and value of the wines I taste (see my new “Value” rating system). I’ve also noticed that in all of the reviews I have written, I have yet to give a wine a rating of 100 points (perfect score). While I have had 100 point wines (per other critics ratings) I do not feel that I have had a “perfect” wine. This leaves me asking myself, am I stubborn? Is there even a difference between 99 and 100 points? Maybe not from a bystander’s perspective, but from my perspective there is. Read more

New Rating System in Use

Along with the numeric rating system, I’ve decided to add whether or not the wine is a good value based on the following system:

• OV

  - Outstanding value, purchase as much as you can!
  

• VGV

  - Very good value, splurge a bit and buy two bottles

• GV

  - Good value - worth buying a bottle
  

• OKV

  - OK value - buy it if you really like the variety, producer, or can’t find anything else on the list

• PV

  - Poor value - maybe a good wine, maybe a bad wine, either way, not worth the money.

• DNB

  - Do Not Buy! Pretty self explanatory. Reserved for bad wines at bad prices.