2007. It’s a great vintage, but where? Panic! What we need is to compare wines from various growing regions so that we can get a good idea of the quality of the vintage. Right?
Not exactly and sort of wrong, in fact. The more one drinks wine, the less impressed one might become with the ability of the “professionals” to prognosticate. The truth is, everyone has something to sell. Merchants sell wine, writers sell subscriptions or their next article, and any idiot can tell you the best way to sell something is to make it SINSATIONAL!
There’s not much sinning going on in the wine world, but as we all know when something does pop up, the “pros” are there to point out those sins – unless of course, they might endanger their access to the next great vintage! So vintages, or rather “professional” vintage assessments, should be taken with a grain of salt. It’s still important information, so how can it be made more valuable?
It’s a good thing to remember that most professional wine writers seem to have a single, linear scale by which to judge vintages. It is unthinkable to have great vintages that display different characters. Great vintages are the ripest vintage; that’s pretty much where the buck stops.
Of course if you don’t like super-ripe vintages, that linear scale is less useful, though I have always been partial to vintages that have historically scored around 88 to 90 points. With today’s grade inflation, that might be 88-92 points, but I for one don’t need more in my wine. A little less will do just fine, thank you.
There’s really no reason to this grouping of 2007 Cabernet-based wines, other than the obvious. If you go by the experts, the California wines should be great and the Bordeaux mediocre. Let’s take a look and see if sweeping generalizations defy logic in the world of wine!