here are a few factors they list in their consideration of the classification: quality, price, winemaking philosophy, history, terroir. and they have a minimum 15 years history of producing wines to qualify a winery.
they do their homework i think. all in the list are well known names. and their classification may also be justified by each vintage's scores and market prices. but is such a classification really meaningful?
US is a more dynamic place than France or Italy. Though people may acknowledge Napa, Sonoma, etc, produce some of the best wines in the world, there are still too much uncertainty out there. Of course, here, uncertainty is a good thing. US has much more potential than the old world and we are probably going to see more and more successful stories like screaming eagle, harlan estate, etc. Like Terroir only accounts for 20% in their evaluation (i have no idea how they do that), this is usually regarded as the single most important thing that determines the character of a wine. Besides, from statistical angle, many factors are correlated. The factor list is somewhat biased.
Second, is such a list really helpful? I think at current stage, the effect is limited. US wines seem to be extremely polarized. Those cult wines can fetch price even higher than Bordeaux first growth while those jug wines are selling at price lower than grape juice. The classification seems to tell us something that is already well known rather than providing any guidance. If there is something I would like to know, I think it's some guidance on the prospect or evaluation of the rising stars.
I think a classification of US wines is like to score the hedge funds. It's fine but pretty much nonsense. See LTCM? But anyway, though there is a long way ahead, no doubt US wines are gaining ground now. I will keep an eye on those cult wines, especially my favorite ones from Bill Harlan.
没有评论:
发表评论