Michel Bettane threatens to boycott en primeur over 'early tasting'

It is my first time at these tastings and, as an English journalist, I agree with Michel Bettane that it makes more sense to have a level playing field or surely, certain critics will want to push the date back further and further gaining special access. A fixed date for the start of open analysis seems to me best for the buyer who can see the over-view rather than just judging notes from a select few noses!

The shift away from serious, considered evaluation to scoring wines by awarding points -- along with the broader commodification of the wine business -- appears to have led to significant score inflation, most apparently among First Growth releases. Wines that should probably score in the high-80s due to inclement vintages or average execution receive 97- or 98-point scores. Blame whomever you like, but among the outcomes, top producers benefit from higher prices, the major distributors reap inflated revenue and wine commentators burnish their credentials -- all at the expense of the consumer. The time for reevaluating the wine scoring system -- widely acknowledged as more than a bit arbitrary -- arrived some time ago. As consumers rely increasingly on one another more than the "experts," many mid-range labels could be significantly impacted as conventional scoring is questioned or ignored.

Harriet Lembeck draws attention to an occasion when Gerald Asher was asked to give talk on "The Purpose of Wine Writers". Gosh, that must have been a short speech.

To those who think scores don't matter, imagine Parker's being known early in the '08 campaign.
I rest my case.

Hamishwm :

Mr Bettane does not need at all any kind of publicity.
But you are right on the next point : we are all sheep and satisfied with the point of view of one taster, RP. As if it was only one official taste to be followed.
But we are lucky enough to do not have this problem in Burgundy : ouf !

We are living in the world of media influence. Wine should speak for itself not purely or control by wine critics.

My oh my. What most of these comments miss is that scores for wines are quickly becoming irrelevant. But good for Michel Bettane. I see his stand as a call for both a level playing field and a return to decorum and studious appreciation of wine as opposed to the handicapping it has become. And let's not forget that Bordeaux is huge and diverse, not at all limited to the few chateaux with the most to gain by early and tenuous evaluations of their toddling wines.

I think the point Mr. Bettane is making is that JS isn't sending out a newsletter like RP or even WS a month after the community tastings. He is offering his impressions in real time via his subscription website, thus not only "scooping" other critics but monetizing it until the others catch up. Seems a little unfair.

Bettane is one of the best tasters out there. He is fighting for the consumers so the producers dont manipulate consumer out of ever more money. All the best to him and his efforts.

I agree with "California Winemaker" I have had many 90pt wines that quite frankly, aren't very good! I willing to bet money plays a role in that. Find a producer or region and drink it!

I think the wine should be able to speak for itself - not by some writer/journalist! They have not formal training in winemaking so why should we care what they have to say! Wine scores should not determine what sells.
Cheers

My friend, Gerald Asher, wine writer in San Francisco, CA, once told me that he was asked to give a talk on 'the purpose of wine writers.' He said that 'the purpose of wine writers was to provide quotes for the producers.'

Oh my gosh! If Bettane boycotts en primeur, then the event will need to be canceled!

Sounds like self publicity for Monsieur Bettane. Would anyone really notice/care if he did not show up? I am sure that he is a pleasant person and I have nothing against him personally, but he is a mere sprat in a large ocean of opinion formers. RP and JR are still the most quoted/respected journos. Shame more people do not champion the satellite and fringe appellations of Bordeaux in these great years such as 2009 and 2010. It can be easy/dull/lazy writing how wonderful a First Growth is. Surely the art of a journalist is finding the next excting area/Chateau/Domaine?

Surely Mr. Suckling is being coy. How much help to the consumer is offered by applying numerical scores to unfinished wine? It tells them diddly about what the wine will be like once it hits the shelves. The whole number-score thing is bunk anyway -- except from the most naked commercial aspect. I guess ya gotta sell the stuff . . .

We don't publish Sauternes scores at Bordeaux Gold but understand the customers need for information. The customer has to understand, however, that the earlier the wines are tasted the less likely the review (scored or not) is to be accurate. April is too early to get a really good picture of some wines (e.g. Climens) who still have their lots in separate barrels whereas others (e.g. de Rayne-Vigneau) have been blended for many months.

And this is just one of the reasons why I will never buy Bordeaux again. It's become all about ratings, greed and ever-increasing hype and nothing about the wine itself. When will they start claiming that 2011 is the next "great" or "outstanding" vintage? Out with the Old World and in with the New, as far as my drinking is concerned.

Journalists need to realize that they themselves are the root of the problem, in applying scores to unfinished - and therefore incomplete - wines. If journalists simply published their tasting notes, rather than giving scores (whether numerical, stars or any other chosen scale) I am sure the impact and therefore the potential distortion this may cause to the market would be lessened, since that controversial "headline" effect of scores would no longer apply. It is a sad fact that many buyers base their decision solely on a 100-pt scale, or similar, rather than the actual tasting note and description of the wine.

I like all the pot stirring, it keeps things fresh with ideas and can hopefully balance out some of the issues we as consumers are seeing with Bordeaux. I love that so many of the journalists are sticking to their guns and not selling out. Those that do are playing a dangerous game with the people who pay for their services, like-wise the Bordeaux with their consumers. Both sides need to work together to preserve what has been great about Bordeaux, but also realize that WE, the consumer, are what is ultimately important and who they need to be catering to. Remember people, there is a lot of good wine out there, both sides need us more than we need them. If you cant afford first growth or super second Bordeaux, just remember what goes up, must come down so be patient...spend your dollars on the $30-$100 Bordeaux for collecting as many of those wines are worthy of it. Are just in another region like Rioja, Barolo, or Brunello...its a big wine world out there!

Surely the early scores will influence opinions next week? And surely the consumer is the loser because lazy merchants can repeat critics' scores without having to nail their colours to the mast first?

As a retired wine importer in Australia - much of it primeur Bordeaux - I have long deplored the dominant Bordeaux mentality to make as much money as possible.
I always found Bordeaux to be ruthlessly commercial with few there with a deep passion for their wines.
Money was God!
Which is why a had far greater emotional empathy with the Burgundians - mostly modestly sized family domaine. I find real soul in the wines of that region.
I also become ever more frustrated by the way Robert Parker points controlled the market.
As many merchants observed - if a Bordeaux wine scores 90+ points, I can't buy it. If it scores less than 90, I can't sell it.
Madness surely!

Many consumers do not realise how brilliantly the Bordeaux proprietors, negociants and
dealers-down-the-line (those trading off points & press comment) have
successfully entrapped the media to do their selling work for them, ahead
of prices being declared - thereby sometimes enabling cloud-cuckoo land prices.

When anyone is tasting a wine which has not been released, it is prudent to
be circumspect when expressing praise, otherwise that praise may go to
the owner's head. It's common sense.

I agree with Remi Thakrey : "Sadly, journo. rivalry is one of the commercial methods used by growers to gain competitive advantage."

Is there any other field of activity in the worlds of commerce or art where the producers, traders or artists have so successfully manipulated the
media to pump up prices ahead of the products being put on the market ?

Fortunately we now have the web, where writers could give us their concise, precise, complete assessments of key Bordeaux wines, after the prices have come out. It could happen this year. It needn't stop those already in Bordeaux, or about to go there, from filing early, valuable descriptions and overviews of the vintage.

If the web can contribute to a revolution in Tunis or Cairo, can it not also be put freshly to work in Chartrons-land ?

One less body in Bordeaux next week wont be a bad thing at all to be honest. We shall miss him.Consumers are a savvy bunch and they will wait until all the critics and dare I say it, even the little wine merchants, have their opinions in. They will triangulate their favourites, make their minds up and then sit back and watch the never ending tumbleweed of indecision as we all wait for the prices to be released. Nothing will happen until Big Bob unleashes his scores at the end of April so we all have plenty of time to twit/blog/face/flic/pigeon our ramblings back to HQ. Oh and please don't take away Mr Sucklings critique....priceless. 2010 BDX..Bring it on!

Bettane can send out this news into the world, but he will go to the "en primeur" anyway. Journalists will never bite the hand that feeds them.

En primeur used to be a means for consumers of obtaining wines at a discount, by taking a risk that the finished product would turn out well, and by accepting to pay a 100% deposit two years in advance.

The EP game has become a marketing tool designed to fuel speculation and prices, ensuring maximum returns for châteaux owners. For consumers, the risks are unchanged, but the discount is no longer assured.

In accepting to participate in this masquerade, journalists are simply helping to perpetrate a system that they should deride.

"Teasing" is just another marketing tool. How long until some unprincipled hack produces "scores" before Xmas?

In such conditions, Michel Bettane is right, he shouldn't go, but then neither should any other self respecting journalist.

Of course, we as consumers could simply exercise our right to ignore the whole thing.

Yes, of course, you are all right to a certain extent. I think, however the problem is more to do with Bordeaux Chateaux' greed, than journalist rivalry. Yes, journalists influence the price at which they release; but the Chateaux can choose to adopt Anthony Barton from Ch. Leoville Barton's approach, and price the wine according to more reliable data like their own assessment of quality and cost, or they can follow the journalist's 2010 hype and dance to the tune of yet another 'vintage of the century' (or was that millennium, I forget?)

This Medoc issue may interestingly be compared with the recent Gevrey-Chambertin one : the syndicat d'appellation decided last February to discontinue primeur tastings this year, being fed-up with decisive judgments made too soon and that can doom the future of a wine. Vosne-Romanée isn't far from taking a similar position, though less extreme, simply by saying that those journalists who want to taste primeurs will have to organize the job by themselves, not being officially helped by the syndicat any more.
Seems then that primeurs tasting are getting out-of-control in both regions ?

I agree with Jancis. Cant' blame critics for feeling like pawns! The sad thing is that the more critics spring up, all wanting to make a name for themselves, the more of this we will see. But I suppose, there is no way of stopping this! Its all about creating 'hype'. Which is what we are going with the thread!!

When I saw the headline, I was hoping he was boycotting due to the over the top alcohol content of Bordeaux in the last 10 years. If they could make 12.5% wine in a years like 1990 & 2000, I'm sure they could manage it now. Seem to be more interested in competing with overblown Australian wines than making Bordeaux.

You may consider this "timing" problem as secondary if you remember the main problem being that you have two situations :
- some wines are tasted blind in comparison with others, thanks to UGCB organisation
- more and more top names are tasted only at the property, not blind, and with no comparison possible.

If now you think even a top name is able to taste in these 2 conditions in the same spirit, you have a lot to learn about wine tasting.

The owners have undestood that at perfection.

What difference??? The difference is huge inflated prices to the consumer making it near impossible for normal people to purchase such fine wines. I totally agree with Michael.I really dont think the UCG will loose any sleep if Michael (sadly)stops playing the game?!!

Steven, I respectfully disagree and kind of agree. Unfortunately in this day, critics scores determine, or a best influence the prices set by the growers. This becomes a tool for wine brokers to speculate upon, an excuse for over-inflating prices or reduces the price of wine to a point at which it is no longer viable. Sadly, journo rivalry is one of the commercial methods used by growers to gain competitive advantage. So in the longer term, yes, it is important. However, stick to the rule that ‘a good wine is a wine you enjoy’ and let us try and support the smaller vinyards, even if this means ignoring the critics.

What difference does releasing the scores a couple of weeks early make to the consumer? NONE. The wines are not available to buy, no prices have been released. Journalist rivalry? Very probably.... "I'm 98 on that" ;)