[question] Question submitted by Phil Hawken, Australia Jeremy, I am rather intrigued by the fact that eminent wine judges can have major variances in their scoring of wines and why this might occur. For example, the Capel Vale Frederick Chardonnay 2002 you scored it at 77 and James Halliday scored it at 95. I can understand variances of up to five points. Please do not think that I am being critical – I subscribe to your website because I highly value your assessments – my question is more out of curiosity. [/question] [answer] It’s natural that from time to time wine writers will have significantly different views on the same wine. Nobody’s palate is identical, and we all have different strengths and weaknesses. We might also be tasting the wine in different surrounds, different conditions and with different levels of health and enthusiasm on the day. Importantly, we might also be tasting the wine at different stages of its life. To be specific for a moment on the wine you mention, I have tasted it on two occasions, in May 2003 and October 2005. My scores were 15.3/84 and 14.0/77 respectively, and my comments would confirm that in my opinion this wine is falling apart, and fairly quickly. I think it is faulty, unstable and lacking in fruit and structure. James Halliday, for whom I have great respect, might well have tasted the wine prior to the emergence of these issues. Indeed, he might also think that my assessment is simply incorrect. Recently we had a well-publicised incidence when Jancis Robinson and Robert Parker rated a significant Bordeaux red growth at opposite ends of the scoring system. The reason for their disagreement was principally concerned with style. Parker liked the power, concentration and extract of the wine, while Robinson thought it inelegant and lacking freshness and balance. It would surprise few people to learn that in this case I thought Robinson to be correct, and handsomely so. Some wine critics have experienced technical training, while most have not. Those of us with a technical background are usually less forgiving of faultiness, lack of balance and instability in wine than those who have emerged from other sorts of journalism and into the wine media. In my case, while many winemakers would think that I am excessively lenient on wine faults, most of the wine media (and possibly the public) who know me would probably think I am a pretty hard technical marker. It’s all a matter of degree. It all comes down to the choices that can be made by the consumer of wine and wine media. If a consumer does not mind, or is even unaware of the presence of technical imperfections, he or she could possibly be most satisfied by following the recommendations of a less technical wine critic. Those consumers with more finely honed palates might find themselves more aligned with critics who take technical issues into account. It is here that significant differences in the ratings from one critic to another will also emerge. I would also quickly add that not for a moment do I believe that James Halliday is not a technical taster, for he has massive technical and hands-on winemaking experience. It’s perhaps also timely to underline that wine critics do not always taste with the reliability of a pH meter. It’s a lot more complicated than that and being human, they can and do make mistakes. I have never met a perfect taster, and doubt I ever will. Trouble is, like the weather forecasters, when we make mistakes, people tend to jump on them! [/answer]
