this one amazes me. Although Winestate seems to be getting better, there dont seem to be as many 5* $5 reds anymore, when I picked up the latest edition the first two TN's I read almost floored me.
Tatachilla McL Cab Sauv 2001 ****1/2 Well-handled coconut oak with plenty of cassis character underneath. With a smokey bacon nose, it lacks texture and weight. $22
Now how the hell can a wine that "lacks texture and weight" gain 4 1/2 stars? The very next tasting note reads
Saddler's Creek Wines Reserve Langhorne Cab Sauv 2001 **** 1/2 Sweet blackcurrant lift on the nose. Complex and earthy with ripe fruit and classy oak development. Big style but lacks balance. $58
How can a wine that "lacks balance" get 4/12****?
Speaking about journalistic quality....
The 5-star ratings for $5 wines aren't inherently evil, since they are price-sensitive. I wouldn't see it as a problem if a $12 pinot lacked texture and weight (at that price point, it would probably start with *** if it tastes like pinot) and if everything else is good it might well rate 4 1/2 stars.
But 4 1/2 stars for a $58 wine which lacks balance???
Kieran
But 4 1/2 stars for a $58 wine which lacks balance???
Kieran
I had a look at recent Winestates in the State Library of South Australia last night - it made me grin to see they are still giving 5 stars to every day quaffing wines - kind of comforting in this world of relentless change !
By the way the State Library here has a bloody amazing collection of Wine books in a section called the Thomas Hardy Collection - must be a couple of thousand books there I reckon - although you can't borrow 'em.
By the way the State Library here has a bloody amazing collection of Wine books in a section called the Thomas Hardy Collection - must be a couple of thousand books there I reckon - although you can't borrow 'em.
Kieran wrote:The 5-star ratings for $5 wines aren't inherently evil, since they are price-sensitive.
Kieran,
For the life of me I can not work out their methodology in judging and I have been trying for years. The magazine says "The class may be regional or style tastings. .....the judging uses Aust capital city wine show procedures. ....Scores are compiled using the 20 point system: a gold for 18.5 etc. These final 'medals' are then converted into a star rating system, .... a gold means 5 Stars, silver is 4 and bronze is 3 stars.
This may seem simple and straight forward but it raises more questions than it answers. For example, the 2002 Palandri Cab Merlot got 4 1/2* in the $20-25 category but the 2001 Maaella got 4 stars, so in theory the Palandi is better isn't it?
I do not understand for how this is, or is not price adjusted. I once wrote to them to ask for clarification but never received a response.
-
Guest
-
Neville Nessuno
- Posts: 47
- Joined: Wed Sep 01, 2004 2:47 pm
- Location: Byron Bay
There has to be a trade off at some point between the star ratings and the price of a wine.
This also needs to reflect the fact that with the amount of wines around generally, at the 4.5 and 5 star mark making comments on expensive wines that have some clear deficiencies and expecting that rating to be credible can be a tall ask.
The problem is the average drinker, subsumed with choice has little else to guide them than the stars (and price).
This also needs to reflect the fact that with the amount of wines around generally, at the 4.5 and 5 star mark making comments on expensive wines that have some clear deficiencies and expecting that rating to be credible can be a tall ask.
The problem is the average drinker, subsumed with choice has little else to guide them than the stars (and price).
-
Grasshopper