Portuguese Red in Wine Spectator July 2012 Issue

[Stewart T.]

Was please to pick up a copy of the Wine Spectator (July 31, 2012) this weekend in Oregon Wine Country and read Kim Marcus' reviews of Portuguese Reds. Included nice photos of our friend Sandra Tavaras, Jorge Serôdio Borges, and Dirk Niepoort.

Wines rated, with scores and prices, are free on WS website:

http://www.winespectator.com/wines/list?id=46875

[David Spriggs]

Thanks for the link Stewart! It's nice to see Churchill get some love. They have been trying hard to "step it up". I liked "Herdade do Esporão" overall better than they did. Also nice was a good score for Quinta do Vale Meão (one of my favorites). Some other reviewers that I saw recently disliked the wine. Wow.. Big score for Vallado Touriga Nacional! Kind of disappointing scores for Crasto. I like the wines better than that.

[Andy Velebil]

Thanks for the link.

Dave, I agree...and Crasto, strange scores for sure, all 90.
Quinta do Crasto Douro 2009 90
Quinta do Crasto Douro Superior 2009 90
Quinta do Crasto Douro Reserva Old Vines 2009 90

[Mahmoud Ali]

Interesting. On a separate thread people were surprised/upset with Parker scoring the '63 Fonseca 100 points; too high they said. Here it's a wonder why a few Crasto wines scored only 90 points.

Myself I'm surprised that the '09 Vallado Touriga Nacional scored 95 points.

Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

Interesting. On a separate thread people were surprised/upset with Parker scoring the '63 Fonseca 100 points; too high they said. Here it's a wonder why a few Crasto wines scored only 90 points.

Myself I'm surprised that the '09 Vallado Touriga Nacional scored 95 points.

Mahmoud.

The basic Crasto Douro is a good wine, one that has improved a lot in the past couple vintages. But 90 points...no way in heck! And 90 for the Reserva? They either had a bad bottle, an off day, or were out of their minds.

Now while I am not a Robert Parker fan when it comes to Port. I do think that Mark Squires (who reviews Portuguese wines for Robert Parker/Wine Advocate) generally does a very good job. Simply because he tries to taste the wines 2 or 3 times before writting a TN on them. Often trying them over the course of 2 days to see how they hold up.

I've been less impressed with some other publications when it comes to Douro wines as they are literally doing snap-shot tastings that last all of a few minutes, which often doesn't do a Douro wine (and many others) proper justice.

[Mahmoud Ali]

Andy, I've become quite jaded, if not cynical, about wine points. The thrust of my post, which in hindsight I see isn't clear, is that the scoring of wine is extremely subjective.

If someone, like Parker and his '63 Fonseca, really likes and enjoys a wine they're going to give it a high mark and that score will appear too high to someone who liked it less. Similarly, if a person like yourself really liked the Crasto Reserva you'd be disappointed that Squires felt it was of similar quality to the regular Crasto.

Personally, I've stopped thinking about wines in terms of points. It's far too subjective and as relevant as giving points to wallpaper patterns, or points to mountain vistas. How many points would one give to an Everest view while drinking tea in a Nepalese chai shop vs a Matterhorn view sipping white wine on an outdoor patio.

Basically, wines. like other things in life, can be decribed as poor, okay, good, very good, and excellent, about five levels, six if you add outstanding. It's a step up from Sergio Leone's "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" but going any further becomes dicey. The way the point system is structured and how it's used these days we're really looking at anywhere from 15-20 points, anywhere from 80 to 100 points. So that's 3-4 points between quality levels.

When Parker gives the '63 Fonseca 100 points and others think it's 95 or 96 what we're really talking about is an outstanding wine and debating how good an outstanding it is. Not far from counting the number of angels dancing on a pin.

I've had the '09 Vallado Touriga Nacional and while I think the wine was "very good", I see Squire's 95 points to mean he thought it was 'excellent", very much within the realm of subjectivity, taste preference, and context. He liked the wine more than I did but nothing to fuss about.

Cheers....................Mahmoud.

[Andy Velebil]

Mahmoud,

Personally I look at the actual review most importantly. For me that really tells a lot about what the wine reviewer really thought about it. It takes some experience reading between the lines, but when a reviews says something like "This is a phenomenal wine that will last many many years and has great structure" then gives it something like 88 points you really have to sit back and scratch your head. Regardless, whether we like it or not scores are what sell for the vast majority of people. Few people take the time to read a full review, they look at a score and go "oh, that must be good I'll get one" or they go "uh, XX points, I'll pass." It's just a sad fact of life that will never change.

In the case of something like Crasto's recent crop of wines, ones that have generally been getting very good praise from a wide swatch of reviewers and consumers, you really have to sit back and wonder what effected their reviews/scores to upgrade one so high and downgrade others. But it often goes back to how some places do wine reviews. IMO, quick snap shot tastings are just not long enough to get a good bead on how some upper end wines truly are.

Not picking on Wine Spectator, but to use them as an example as I some years ago I saw a video on how they taste wines. I was appalled. It literally was someone setting out wrapped bottles on a table for them, then a few minutes of swirl, smell, taste once (maybe twice), spit, write tasting note and move on to the next wine. It was, at best, all of a few minutes of actually tasting any one wine.

[David Spriggs]

...It literally was someone setting out wrapped bottles on a table for them...

But at least they taste blind. I give them a lot of respect for that. Parker doesn't taste blind. He's free to "correct" his scores for a poor showing, future aging, reputation, or whatever if he knows the producer or wine's history. If I look at the big tastings I've been to, I'm lucky to have a couple of minutes with a wine. And I still score it the way I see it, but I realize it's just a snapshot. In fact, that's all I expect from a taster is a snapshot review. Roy in particular goes far beyond that and tastes some wines over several days. But still, I do think that Spectator is one of the better ones - they taste blind and give their honest opinion regardless of the label. If it is a particulaly poor showing for a highly respected wine, they will taste it a second time just to make sure. But they do note that a second bottle was opened in the review and they publish reviews with low scores - something that Parker does not generally do.

[Andy Velebil]

...It literally was someone setting out wrapped bottles on a table for them...

But at least they taste blind. I give them a lot of respect for that. Parker doesn't taste blind. He's free to "correct" his scores for a poor showing, future aging, reputation, or whatever if he knows the producer or wine's history. If I look at the big tastings I've been to, I'm lucky to have a couple of minutes with a wine. And I still score it the way I see it, but I realize it's just a snapshot. In fact, that's all I expect from a taster is a snapshot review. Roy in particular goes far beyond that and tastes some wines over several days. But still, I do think that Spectator is one of the better ones - they taste blind and give their honest opinion regardless of the label. If it is a particulaly poor showing for a highly respected wine, they will taste it a second time just to make sure. But they do note that a second bottle was opened in the review and they publish reviews with low scores - something that Parker does not generally do.

I agree, I was simply pointing out the entire process. But the question still goes back to how can one who is writing a review that will impact many things (sells, price, etc) only spend a couple minutes with it. Now from experience that's a lot easier with lower end wines simply because they generally don't change a whole lot with "air time." But most young upper end wines can and often do change dramatically over the course of several hours or even the next day.

[Roy Hersh]

Agreed. That being said, I enjoyed the WS take on things and more so, think it is a huge net positive to have the WS focus on the region!

[Andy Velebil]

Agreed. That being said, I enjoyed the WS take on things and more so, think it is a huge net positive to have the WS focus on the region!

So do I. Having seen a video on how they taste, it made a good example, that's all. If only we can take the good parts from all of them, put them together, and have all review companies follow these new ways of doing things we'd be set.

[David Spriggs]

Let me just add that Mark Squires (Parker's Wine Advocate) reviews some Portuguese wines over several days as well.

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

I'd give the '09 Crasto Reserva Old Vines a gut impression score of about "90."

Of course, my impression is based off only a pour or two, so perhaps additional time with a bottle would change my mind.


and, for anyone who thinks the '09 Vallado TN score is high ... just you wait 'till the score for the 2010 comes out!

[Andy Velebil]

and, for anyone who thinks the '09 Vallado TN score is high ... just you wait 'till the score for the 2010 comes out!

Do you know something we don't? Do share!

[Brian G r a f s t r o m]

and, for anyone who thinks the '09 Vallado TN score is high ... just you wait 'till the score for the 2010 comes out!

Do you know something we don't? Do share!

About the score, No. About the wine, Yes; it is very very good! I would be astonished to see a sub-95 score for that wine, and, on the high end, only a 99 or 100 would surprise me.