Both got the same score … how? Part 2

In another blow to the wine industry is the nonsense of scores based on nothing other than the taste. Yes, that’s what I wrote, based on taste.

Before you start let me explain. Wine is all about taste, however there are a number of fundamental points to a wine, so let me name just a few: type; region; variety; age; price point; heritage.

Of the most important is price. Why price? Simple, it’s the single most determining factor when someone purchases a bottle. Try as hard as you like to argue this point, you know it’s true. There are those who are just snobs and won’t spend under x amount because they think it will be rubbish, and of course there is the high end who are buying wine that comes AT a price, not at a price. So the price determines which bottle goes home to dinner than night.

So, and to the biggest question on most peoples lips – which has never been answered honestly – is how can a $100 bottle of wine (or a $1000 bottle) get a score of 95 and a $18 bottle can get the same score.

Let’s not confuse types and varieties and age just yet. A straight and this is hypothetical, shot-out between let’s say two Barossa 08 Shiraz’s. Let’s establish the ground rules:

1. Both are in the same region (demographically)

2. Both had the same conditions – wind, rain, sun, storms, fire, etc. I will accept that one could have been a little more prone to, say wind, or on more of a slope yet this is argument for the sake of argument.

3. Both are well known wineries with, equally good wine makers who have been established for some time and have a history of producing good wine.

4. Both make the same type of wine, that is: a Shiraz

Now there are other considerations yet these are some of the basics. The grape is picked, and the wine – the end result – is made pretty much the same way, apart from (of course) the wine makers little bag of tricks to make his/her wine.

The bottle is packaged and off it goes to all the obligatory wine shows and door-steps of those in the business to get the final ingredient: a score, a ranking, a bit of text for publication, the medals to stick all over the bottle – these are important after all, and depending on what is said it can mean the difference between selling out in a month, or being lucky to sell a case or two.

So, you walk into your local wine shop and there are two bottles of wine. A well respected wine critic has given his seal of approval to both drops with a (in the wine makers mind) richly rewarded 95 points!

Now one is price at $18 and the other is $180. Remember both are a Shiraz, from the same region, same age, same score etc., and you ask yourself “how, what, umm, I don’t understand”.

You, the buyer are no more confused than the ‘respected’ critic who gave a score of 95 to both wines. This sort of score cannot possibly convey any information to you (the buyer) that could be deemed useful. The only thing you can take from this is, the wine – both – must be good. That’s it! Yet you have no idea as to the wines potential (cellaring), its characteristic’s, volume (how much is made) or what makes one worth $162 more than the other.

This is bullshit. There is no other way to look at it. The points system doesn’t allow for any movement in the wine and what it is. What I mean by this is that some wines need to be taken in context. Now, not all wine prices are known when tasted and scored, yet this is an acceptation not a rule, so we can discount this argument. Wines are generally tasted against its peers, so we can discount this argument – that wine tasting is done in a vacuum and is only rated on the merits of the wine at the time. Wines are generally known when tasted, so we can discount this argument, that wines are all blind tasted and there is no idea as to the history or potential of a particular wine.

So, and while it would be a nightmare to administer and more so to use when purchasing wine, there should be a significantly better mechanism for judging wine by scores, and making that score fit a relevant and MEANINGFUL description to those who purchase that wine. While there is this difficultly there cannot possibly be any serious argument that the current scoring is better than nothing, as it actually provides nothing of any use to anyone, other than giving the winery and some marketing groups the impetus to try and sell their wine based on some sort of arbitrary mickey mouse scoring system: “roll-up, roll-up, come buy my wine it got 97 from Mr X”, whereas in fact it should read: “roll-up, roll-up, buy my wine if you like, it got 97 yet so did 15 other wines ranging from $20 cheaper than mine to $450 dearer”.

I can think of a number of ways to make this fairer – that is, to wineries, yet some won’t agree and those who buy wine – yet I won’t bore you with how this could be done, it’s more a case of you thinking a little harder next time you say you brought a 97 scored bottle of wine for $250, because guess what, so did I and mine was only $20.

Ohhh sh!t - there's a critic in the corner!

I often wonder what resulting panic ensues when a critic - of some note lets say - is found to be lurking in the corners of a restaurant. You hear stories that there are pictures of certain critics on kitchen walls and staff are trained to recognise when one of these feared critics enters a room, yet, is all this true? Yep, it sure is!

It must be a double edge sword in some ways, say you are a critic, a renowned critic of some repute and you go out for dinner. Now this is just a causal dinner with friends (mmm, do critics have friends?) or family yet the restaurant is one that has a half-way decent reputation and hence keeps an eye out for critics. In walks the critic, obviously it wasn't booked under his name and while not "judging" or there to "make official comment" the staff's eyes light up, hell! its Mr X, as they casually yet nervously seat the table, run through some basics before rushing off to get the drinks list and menu they make a B-line for the kitchen. "Chef! Chef! Mr X is here. Table 9"

• Now let's be honest for a moment, its not like the critic is about to say: "wait, wait, wait, I'm not here in an official capacity, I'm just out for a nice meal with friends, so don't worry about trying to go over the top, just relax"

Now this changes the whole dynamic of the evening, and this is where the 'job' of a critic walks a very fine balance and must, or should have a very good bullshit detector. Why? Lets be honest, my custom or the average persons in the street is a case of: yes, lets make sure they leave happy and satisfied yet we aren't going to roll out the red carpet for them, so you and I get the real world treatment, this may be good or bad, yet it's the everyday service without bells and whistles and the over the top tarting up of all things "my restaurant is".

Now a great restaurant doesn't need to worry about this because it is a great restaurant for a reason, however they still succumb to this flurry and sweaty brow sphincter clenching evening of making sure service is not just A1, yet AAA111+, drinks are always topped up - sadly often to the point of being annoying and/or intrusive - yet this is where brilliant floor staff come into there own, water is chilled and topped up, plates cleared in a timely fashion - yet not to quick, and of course the kitchen must be a nightmare. Cooked to better than perfection (if that's possible?), presentation that is good enough to hang in a gallery and on it goes.

Now Mr X (or Ms Y) - we are back to them in their role as 'working' critic - will expect to be recognised, and will expect things might be a little over the top, yet they should be able to detect this and see past the "kiss-arse" repartee of staff and kitchen. However, their experience will always be tarnished, that is it is not the real world experience that you and I experience.

Sure there are 'hidden' and 'secret' proxy critics who dine on behalf of more recognisable or known critics and report back, yet I doubt very much that - or at least I would be shocked beyond belief if it was true - for example Pat Nourse or John Lethlean put their name to an article for which they had no direct experience of. Shit, call me naive yet hopefully there is still some professional integrity left in the world.

So when you or I read Gourmet Traveller or The Australian we are reading something that might not quite reflect what we will actually get, as they say: on the night. This applies across the board whether you are considered the best of the best, or just some average 'cafe', the experience I get is not what they get, and so, does the review reflect reality or a warped version of it?

As I say I expect Mr X to see past the staff BS, yet they can't know if the food has been plated better than any other night, or if "special" attention was paid to the plates by Chef, or if all other meals were on hold for 10 mins while they beavered away for Mr X and his table, these are just unknown answers. And thus, given who they are its not like they can compare last night with next week as the treatment will always be the same, always! It might change slightly depending on what staff are on, or if Chef is in the kitchen that night, yet its always the same.

The another side of this is the feared "face" of critics. In my world a critic is someone, especially when in a business where your face is a disadvantage - and not just because you are ugly - then it somehow flies in the face to be a "critic" and everyone knows you. A prime example (sadly) of this is Matt Preston. A man who personally I think can't tell McDonald's from fine dining yet all the same his opinion at some point mattered, got a gig on TV, now he appears on some godforsaken load of "reality TV" - revealing the one asset (in his case a very ugly liability), his face, to the nation and now can you seriously be taken as a 'proper critic'?

Yep! He is taken more seriously than ever because he has been on TV, and unfortunately more 'power' than ever. So, because of TV and radio, his comments carry more weight, as does he, than they should, and importantly he is absolutely recognisable and the service, food and full experience cannot begin to reflect what you or I will received.

This also applies to the English critics Jay Rayner and A.A Gill, to name a few.

So while being a wine critic is relatively easy - you can't just make a super-duper bottle of wine and give it just to the critic, your wine faces the same level of scrutiny as any other bottle you offer to anyone else. So knowing the critic, in the sense of who a critic is, matters not a tot when it comes down to whether or not your product is good. However, a food critic is rating/passing critical comment on actions and events which can be controlled. Thus, the more awareness of a critic etc., means more control can be influenced to (hopefully) ensure that the end result is more in your favour than had it been not known.

I guess the one aspect that annoys me the most is that the continued survival of a restaurant is the "average" person in the street coming along each night. Sure, if a critic such as any of those listed was to completely trash a Chef's food and restaurant then there might not be a tomorrow, yet given this doesn't happen all that often then you would think that its my ass they want to kiss as I will be the one to come back more often than the critic ever will!

While I might not be the "average" diner I refer to, the same still applies.