Hopefully, I won't stay up too late tonight noodling on this data...but I will.
The red wine stat, 82% was what stuck out to me the most. The second has to be the three main players of Napa, Italy, France, with Australia and Spain barely ever cracking through. I get all the criteria WS lists as cover, fine, whatever.
Third: Points inflation. So many wines now get 90+ points, they could pick a Lodi or Paso wine for that fact with the "X-Factor" wildcard. They could pick any wine, anywhere in the world that has some basic distribution here in the States. But as you rightly point out, Aubert isn't just sitting on a shelf somewhere. Selyem isn't quite has difficult to obtain, unless it was from a specific vineyard. So why can't a Pinot from the Central Otago crack the Top 10? Or a killer Malbec blend from Argentina?
I like the data driven approach to what you're doing.
Thanks David! Totally agree re: the Central Otago thing. It seems like such a missed opportunity to promote more exploration in the world of wine, but clearly that's not the aim of the list.
Wooo, someone had a BEE in their bonnet on this topic! LOOK at those pie charts you whipped up! Putting in the WORK, brothers!
I had to vote "Other" in the poll, because it's "All of the Above", imo. I rarely read anything from major wine publications for this very reason. There are too many conflicts of interest when they're that big, that in need of money and eyeballs and support. And they'll always be behind every actually important curve, jumping on trains, never getting them rolling.
That said, super surprised a 2012 Magnum Indian wine did that well! I adore under-tasted territories like that but even I was like "Good god, are you setting it up to fail?!?" And then it tasted great, thank goodness. Bravo, guys, great post.
I think any wine publication which produces an award should include a supplement of their top advertisers for that same year for full transparency. This should also include any travel paid for by advertisers to magazine staff and freelancers. Without it, such awards are untrustworthy.
Bought a case of the barbaresco a few months ago. Will be claiming that I pre-empted this historic and very accurate rating. Will accept no criticism. Thanks.
Yeah that Aubert thing is wild since it clearly undermines their claims about the criteria they're using in numerous ways, especially when you look at they ranking it was given. A standout also because it's the only white wine they included for the year, but of course it's a producer they've featured relatively frequently over the past decade. Makes it really hard not to be skeptical about ulterior motives.
Hopefully, I won't stay up too late tonight noodling on this data...but I will.
The red wine stat, 82% was what stuck out to me the most. The second has to be the three main players of Napa, Italy, France, with Australia and Spain barely ever cracking through. I get all the criteria WS lists as cover, fine, whatever.
Third: Points inflation. So many wines now get 90+ points, they could pick a Lodi or Paso wine for that fact with the "X-Factor" wildcard. They could pick any wine, anywhere in the world that has some basic distribution here in the States. But as you rightly point out, Aubert isn't just sitting on a shelf somewhere. Selyem isn't quite has difficult to obtain, unless it was from a specific vineyard. So why can't a Pinot from the Central Otago crack the Top 10? Or a killer Malbec blend from Argentina?
I like the data driven approach to what you're doing.
Thanks David! Totally agree re: the Central Otago thing. It seems like such a missed opportunity to promote more exploration in the world of wine, but clearly that's not the aim of the list.
Wooo, someone had a BEE in their bonnet on this topic! LOOK at those pie charts you whipped up! Putting in the WORK, brothers!
I had to vote "Other" in the poll, because it's "All of the Above", imo. I rarely read anything from major wine publications for this very reason. There are too many conflicts of interest when they're that big, that in need of money and eyeballs and support. And they'll always be behind every actually important curve, jumping on trains, never getting them rolling.
That said, super surprised a 2012 Magnum Indian wine did that well! I adore under-tasted territories like that but even I was like "Good god, are you setting it up to fail?!?" And then it tasted great, thank goodness. Bravo, guys, great post.
Appreciate it, Dave. Feeling much better now that my bonnet is bee free.
Yes the type is trendy but not adventurous, boring made wines that sent in a check
I think any wine publication which produces an award should include a supplement of their top advertisers for that same year for full transparency. This should also include any travel paid for by advertisers to magazine staff and freelancers. Without it, such awards are untrustworthy.
💯💯💯 completely agree.
Bought a case of the barbaresco a few months ago. Will be claiming that I pre-empted this historic and very accurate rating. Will accept no criticism. Thanks.
Thank you for your service.
Yeah that Aubert thing is wild since it clearly undermines their claims about the criteria they're using in numerous ways, especially when you look at they ranking it was given. A standout also because it's the only white wine they included for the year, but of course it's a producer they've featured relatively frequently over the past decade. Makes it really hard not to be skeptical about ulterior motives.