I read a review of an icewine recently and saw that one of the descriptors used was “cloying.” It’s not a positive attribute for anything sweet. It means “excessively sweet” and many icewine reviews explicitly point out that the wine is not cloying. But this icewine got a score of 93 out of 100.
A score of 93 is right up there, and it struck me there was a serious disconnect between the description and the score. Maybe the reviewer didn’t understand what “cloying” meant, but it made me think once again about scoring and describing.
Where there’s an obvious disconnect between words and number, which you should give more weight to? My preference is to follow the words. I assume they are carefully chosen and more useful to me than the numerical score, whether it’s out of 100 or 20 or five stars.
The score should represent an assessment of the wine’s quality, regardless of whether the reviewer likes it. I’m not that keen on icewine, but when I review icewines and rate them (as I do in some publications) I score them for their success as icewines. I regularly score many icewines fairly high, even though I wouldn’t want to drink them. But if I thought the sweetness in one was cloying – meaning it was unbalanced and out of line with the acidity – I would mark it down. A score should tell you how any wine performs within its category: is this good or excellent as an icewine, a pinot noir, or a riesling?
A description, in contrast, gives you a qualitative take on the wine. The reviewer might focus on its style: is the wine light or full bodied, well balanced, tannic, acidic, intensely or lightly flavoured, complex or simple, well structured, refreshing? Many reviewers use flavour descriptors: cherries, strawberries, lemon, apple, wet stone, sweaty horse, forest floor, and so on. Many also add value-words, such as lovely, attractive, and delicious.
It seems to me that the words are more important than the score because you’re probably more interested in buying a wine that sounds as if it’s the sort of wine you like. You can ignore all the fruit, spice, and stone descriptors, because you can apply some of those to just about every wine. But look for style. If you like full-bodied, tannic red wines, look for those words; if you want a light, fresh white, look for that.
You’ll find what you want in the words, not in the numbers. It makes no sense to buy a wine scored 93 points if it’s not a style you like.
Faustino VII Rioja, Sophenia Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon, Villa Maria Private Bin Pinot Noir, Southbrook Triomphe Cabernet Franc
Faustino VII Rioja 2012
Made from tempranillo in Spain’s best-known wine region, this is a well-priced, dry red that shows nicely defined flavours, a well-calibrated seam of refreshing acidity, and drying tannins. Drink it with red meats, pork, and rich poultry dishes. 13-per-cent alcohol; $12.95 (315234)
Sophenia Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 2013
From Tupungato in Argentina’s Mendoza region, this is a high-altitude cabernet that shows concentrated and well-focused ripe fruit supported by fresh, clean acidity. The tannins are moderate and this is an easy choice for grilled red meats. 14.5-per-cent alcohol; $17.95 (350090)
Villa Maria ‘Private Bin’ Pinot Noir 2013
This versatile wine goes well with poultry and pork, grilled salmon, and it will stretch to many red meats too. The attractive, layered flavours are solid right through the palate and the fruit-acid balance is very good. It’s dry with relaxed tannins. 13.5-per-cent alcohol; $19.95 (146548)
Southbrook ‘Triomphe’ Cabernet Franc 2013
From a consistently reliable Niagara producer, this lovely cabernet franc delivers concentrated, defined flavours with good layering and structure. The acidity is clean and fresh and the tannins moderate. Drink it with pork or red meats. 12.6-per-cent alcohol; $21.95 (275958 Vintages)
rod@rodphillipsonwine.com
twitter.com/rodphillipswine
