I recently got the new Wine Spectator in the mail with the list of the glorious top 100 of 2007. I have an online subscription to the magazine as well so I could have very well looked at who was on the list this year, but I didn’t. I wanted to have the excitement of reading each bio of the top 100 wines all at once.
So I started in, reading about each of the wines, trying to commit as much of it to memory as possible. I was excited about the wine that won this year, not only did it sound like a fabulous wine, but again #1 wasn’t a really crazy priced wine at $80. Now don’t get me wrong, that is still expensive, but it isn’t over $100 and for some reason that is where I start to question whether or not the bottle is worth it. I have been meaning to do a little research and look back to see how many of the #1’s have been $100 and over. IF anybody knows that stat let me know.
So let me cut to the chase and to the title of today’s post. Did anyone else find it weird that #13 was rated a perfect 100 points but was not the #1 wine of the year which was rated 98 points? I know other factors are involved, the most obvious difference in this case being the fact that #13 is more than double in price than #1, besides that they are different wines. I just wanted to throw it out there, and add some more evidence that ratings, although they are a good guide sometimes to wine quality, do not always tell the whole story.
Let me know what you think. Also, if anyone out there has had one or both of these wines, let me know what you thought of them.