How wines should be reviewed

In reading wine reviews from the major reviewers, it seems like the goal is to pull out at least 6 unique "flavors" (or notes) with bonus points for hyper-specificity. Compare "red fruit and mineral" with the much more definitive and regal "sweet rainer cherry with ticonderoga #2 graphite and lime and chalk mineral, blah blah.... 91 points". Yes, I made some of this up, but you get the point.

Other reviewers go to the opposite end and just describe broad impressions but don't give points but give summaries like "bright red fruit in a light frame". The problem with not giving points is I (in the role of a reader, not the writer of this blog) can't tell the bottom line. Do you love it or just like it? So give me the points!



In drinking a delightful Bastide Saint Dominique 2005 Chateauneuf des Papes (CdP) which I will rate below as a running examle, I realized (not for the first time) that the dimensions of describing a wine could (or should) be something like:

1. flavor notes. (Sweet red fruit with obvious mineral) Very subjective, as different reviewers come up with different descriptions... it is almost amusing to compare different reviews of the same wine.
   
2. intensity or concentration (3 out of 4, 4=very intense) A broad generalization: old world = low scores, new world = higher scores.
   
3. acidity or crispness or "racy" or "juicy" (3 out of 4, 4=very acidic) Whites tend to be more acidic than reds, which is why they pair well with more foods (not the same foods though) than reds. Some wines should be acidic (sauvignon blanc, riesling) and others should not (cab sauvignon, zinfandel).
   
4. tannnins (2 out of 4, 4=too tannic to drink) Very subjective, as there are many types of tannins and sensitivities vary dramatically to different kinds.
5. body or richness (2 out of 4, 4=super rich)
6. finish or length (3 out of 4, 4=can taste it for a long time afterwards)
7. complexity (3 out of 4) this is a catch all coverting intangibles about the nose and palate
8. balance (3 out of 4, 4=everything feels impeccably right) Even a 2 here can be fine, depending on the wine.
9. score (91 out of 100). This is crucial as it summarizes how much you liked the wine.
   

I decided a 4 point scale (1-4) was better than a 5 point scale (1-5) as too often the middle value would be used in the latter, whereas in the 4 point scale, the reviewer is forced to choose between above or below the average in every case.

Here's the WS review of the La Bastide Saint-Dominque 2005 CdP (90 point $30 wine):

Bright and racy, with lots of red and black cherry fruit, graphite, licorice and sweet spice flavors. The long, lingering finish shows sweet fruit and mineral notes. Best from 2008 through 2022. 2,800 cases made.

I agree with this writeup quite well. But more importantly this wine hits the right notes for me. This wine is better than other wines from the same region with a similar style reviewed by the same reviewer that got higher scores (Domaine Mourchon I'm looking at you). The flavors are vivid and the balance work wonderfully for me, and while there is a slight tannic pucker at the very end, I almost like this type of juicy tannin. I'm looking forward pairing this wine with the steak, mushrooms and carmelized onions I'm about to cook up. My score: 91, perhaps 92.