A Tale of Two Pinots

The story: Wine writers/bloggers love to argue the merits of the wine score. This is generally followed up by an argument about the motivation to have the original score argument. The only conclusion here, from a less than interested consumer point of view, is that writers and critics probably just love to argue. That might be true. Or it may just be a matter of passion. Anyone who would dedicate themselves to a single subject the way wine writers and bloggers do, must have a bit of passion. And when you are passionate about something you naturally begin to develop opinions, and apparently the need to sharpen those opinions against contrasting thought. I understand the arguments for scores on both sides. It seems a bit foolish to try and quantify something as subjective as the experience of a taste of wine. And yet many consumers like the comfort that an expert's clearly expressed opinion offers them. Critics say that these scores must be taken in context with the text that accompanies the score to truly understand why the wine received the score it received.

I recently drank two New World Pinot Noirs within a short span. One from California's Sonoma Coast, the other from half way around the world in New Zealand, these wines were so remarkably alike that it got me thinking about scores, even with notes. Obviously tasted next to each other these wines would not be identical. And likely tasted next to each other a person would come up with a preference for one over the other (possibly even a strong preference). But from the tasting notes below, see if you can tell which one you would prefer and therefore put out your cash for:

The wines: The Sonoma Coast Vineyards 2009 Freestone Hills Pinot Noir is a translucent magenta in the glass, with a nice nose of dusty cherries, forest floor, and baking spice. The palate is lush and bursting with juicy cherries. Across the mid-palate the Christmas spice kicks in, turning the juice towards the sweet side and then finishing with enough acidity to keep it friendly.

The Craggy Range 2009 Te Muna Road Pinot Noir pours a bright cherry red. The nose expresses dusty cherry juice, a bit of herbacous leafiness, and some clear cinnamon. In the mouth one gets ripe cherry juiciness and a bit of barrel spice that leads to a rather heavy sweetness on the lengthy and tasty finish.

The verdict: In both cases I found these wines tasty, easy to drink, pleasant, and probably widely appealing. I wrote for both wines that they seemed a bit ripe and lacked any substantially interesting flavors, but would certainly have mass appeal, and present exactly what they intend to present. There is nothing wrong with either of these wines, you must just appreciate the fresh and fruity stylings of rather New World Pinot Noir. And (privately since I do not score wines on The Vino File), I gave both wines 89 points. I would also add that both wines will probably benefit from a bit more time, some of the nuance was lost in their youth and as the fruit recedes they will get better. By the way, both wines are around $40 (not uncommon for a quality pinot I suppose.)

What strikes me is that neither the score nor the note can really indicate the differences in these wines. That bothered me for awhile. But then I realized that taken individually this information is helpful, and for me is worthwhile. If I know I like my Pinot to express lively fruit, a touch of spice from laying in oak, and to be juicy and easy to drink, then these notes make it clear that I will enjoy these wines. If I know that I like my Pinot bold and layered, or more reserved and smokey, then these are probably not the wines for me.

In the end I do recommend these wines for people who prefer this style. They were both well made and delicious. I also propose that while context and severe distinction is impossible to anticipate or communicate in a score or a 60 word text, there is value in seeing what others say about a wine. I guess then I better keep on!

Disclaimer: These wines were received as media samples with intent to review.