The dilemma surrounding the prices of well-known brands and their misleading wine scores.
I have already written quite extensively on this subject in previous posts on IG and my blog. However, after opening a few expensive bottles, like the two in the picture, a few days ago, I would like to reiterate my views and opinions on these topics.
First and foremost, history, notoriety, trends, brands, and scores may contribute to high prices, but they don’t always justify them and certainly don't justify the quality of a wine. Hear me out and read this post to the end before reacting.
People always tell me, “Oh, but this is DRC, Petrus, or Lafite, etc.… so it must be good!” And the answer is: “No!”
Stop trying to find arguments or excuses to convince yourself and others that wine is good when it is not.
And I can already hear you say, “Oh, but tasting is subjective… it is not because you don’t like it that everyone must not like it!”.
I agree, but when there is a consensus in the room or around the table, the wine is likely not to be that good, regardless of the brand, name, price, or scores.
Despite their history and notoriety, the continuous quality of their wines, the constant demand, and the price increase, even the greatest Chateaux, Domaines, Labels, and producers can make bad wines, especially in lesser years (which is reassuring in a way, as mother nature is not always clement - frost, rain, hail, heat waves, diseases, parasites, mold, etc... - therefore producers can only try to produce their best despite these conditions, yet it does not always work out).
I mean, sorry to say, and no offense to anyone, but in my 33-year career as a Sommelier and Wine Buyer, I have opened countless bottles of some of the greatest wines in the world, especially those from Champagne, Bordeaux, and Burgundy, and I have not always been impressed, sometimes even really disappointed.
Why the disappointment? Well, when you pay over 500 Euros (HKD4,078 or USD524) for a bottle of wine from a renowned chateau, domaine, or producer that has received high scores (usually 95 and above), you expect it to be great or even excellent, or at least to live up to the hype surrounding its history, notoriety, price, and scores. Yet, this is not always the case.
Wine scores are a commonly used method of evaluating and classifying wine quality. The most common is the 100-point scale, used by renowned wine critics such as Robert Parker (The Wine Advocate), James Suckling, Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast, etc….
Critics evaluate wines on several criteria, including appearance, aroma, taste, texture, finish, and aging potential. Each reviewer may have their own preferences and weightings for these criteria. A score between 95-100 usually means: Exceptional, a wine of very high quality. 90-94: Excellent, a high-quality wine. And so on.
Scores (or even other scoring systems using stars, glasses, or qualitative descriptions rather than points) can significantly impact the reputation and price of wines. A high score from an influential critic can increase the demand and cost of a wine. Yet, it is essential to note that wine ratings are subjective and reflect the critic's personal tastes. What is considered an excellent wine by one critic may not please another.
Most people amongst connoisseurs and amateurs trust some of these critics’ scores or at least refer to Wine Searcher Average Score (which represents the average of several critic’s scores) or even to the public opinions and scores on sites like “Cellar Tracker” to diversify the sources of the information helping them to choose and buy wine, especially those they never tasted before (or not in a long time for the older vintages).
It is easy to fall into the trap of thinking, “It is a 95-pointer; it must be worth the price!” It is usually the case for lower- to medium-priced wines, as the higher the score and the lower the price, the better the wine. This is not always the case for high-priced wines, as the higher the price and score, the higher the expectations, which can hurt your heart, wallet, and, more significantly, your ego and trust if the wine doesn’t live up to these expectations.
This is especially true for wine that received high scores in lesser years while showing some apparent flaws. The producer will not lower his/her price based on the quality of the wine simply because this or that wine critic gave it a high score.
I have expressed this idea in several previous posts. Still, like for most wines of the "New World," I would love for Bordeaux and Burgundy producers to define the benchmark price of their wine (basically, what it is worth after including all charges and reasonable profits) and only see it fluctuate based on the quality of the vintage and the wine. For example, if a wine sells for 100 Euros in an average-to-good year, it would make sense to lower its price by 20-30% in lesser years and increase it by the same 20-30% in greater years.
However, the reality is that, like anything in life, most Bordeaux and Burgundy wines tend to increase in price from one year to the next. Some of you might argue that this hasn’t been the case in recent years, which is true; for instance, Bordeaux prices fell by 15-30% or more for the 2023 vintage compared to 2022. The issue is that the En Primeur 2022 prices were based on the inflated price of the not-so-good 2021 vintage, which should not have been as high, especially following three excellent-to-good vintages (2018, 2019 & 2020), which were already priced highly after 2017, which was a poor vintage.
As mentioned above, the other problem is when top wines still receive high scores in lesser years, which are not as good as in the better years. This can confuse consumers, as a 95-point (or above) wine should test great regardless of vintage quality. However, the mistake is that a 95-point in a lesser year is not the same as a 95-point in a great year, as it received a 95 for intrinsic quality based on the vintage quality rather than the wine quality per se.
Put yourself in the shoes of a wine critic. Despite some rare exceptions, in a lesser year, most wines will not taste as good as in a good or even great year, which is perfectly obvious, understandable, and logical. And yet, some critics might give it the same score. For example, Lafite Rothschild's 2017 and 2021 were not as good as 2018 and 2022, yet critics give them scores ranging between 95-97 for the former and 95-100 for the latter. However, despite somewhat similar scores, when tasted side by side, 2017 and 2021 are definitely not worth their scores or prices, especially compared to 2018 and 2022. (*)
And it happens too often, especially with big names, understandably, because people build up these expectations to the point of believing the wine will be flawless, causing an immense deception when tasing it, and it is not.
How many times have I tasted some really expensive wines in my career and told myself, “This wine is not that great and definitely not worthy of the price!” The answer is, “A lot!”— In fact, too many times for my taste.
It happened again a few days ago when I opened the two bottles in the pictures. Yet, it is worse this time, as the vintage was good.
Billecart Salmon Le Clos Saint-Hilaire Champagne 1996
I had not tasted this Champagne for a while and did not know what to expect, as I could not exactly remember how it tasted the last time I tried it. However, I have always liked this particular Cuvée, “Le Clos Saint-Hilaire,” and was looking forward to trying it no matter what.
The cork was a bit resistant, and I had to use some force to twist it gently and pop it up silently. I thought it must have been well preserved and still full of bubbles (as this bottle had been stored in the cellar for nearly 4 years, and I bought it from good provenance). Yet, to my surprise, the bottom of the cork was tighter and dryer than a cork of that age is supposed to be, which indicated me that the champagne may have been affected in some ways.
Nice, pale golden color in the glass with a limited amount of very fine bubbles (a typical sign of a slight evolution, and yet the state of the cork may have had something to do with it, too). At first, restraint and lightly oxidative on the nose with yeasty and nutty notes, the aromas developed rapidly with notes of honey, yellow fruit, citrus, and acacia flower.
I was surprised to realize that, despite its barely tastable fizziness, most bubbles were gone and that, at this point, this champagne was drinking more like a still wine than a sparkling wine. To my liking, it tasted somewhat like a Puligny-Monrachet for its freshness, minerality, and citrusy notes and a Meursault for its ample texture and complexity. Very dry and zesty mouthfeel and finish. Unusual but really pleasant and, in the end, not so unusual for a champagne of this age. Although 1996 seems like yesterday for a person my age, it was already 29 years ago…. I loved it and found its taste interesting. It's definitely not for everyone’s palate. I will say, only open it if you’re surrounded by people with an open mind when it comes to old champagne.
Château Lafite Rothschild Pauillac Bordeaux 2015
Now, this wine is the reason why I wanted to reiterate my views and opinions on the dilemma surrounding the prices of well-known brands and their misleading wine scores in this post.
Growing up in Bordeaux, the grandson of a winemaker, and acquainted with wines from an early age, Lafite-Rothschild has always been part of Bordeaux's patrimony and history. It has been revered as one of the world's and Bordeaux's most illustrious estates for decades. A reference for Bordeaux wines as one of the 4 grand crus classes in the Classification of 1855 (**).
Yet, I never really adhere to its image and taste. Don't get me wrong: As a Sommelier and wine buyer, it is always a pleasure and a privilege to open and taste a bottle of Lafite Rothschild. However, although I have the utmost respect for this estate, the Eric de Rothschild family, and their wines, I have always found Lafite relatively dry, austere, tannic, earthy, and difficult to appreciate in its youth.
In fact, despite recent efforts to produce more contemporary wines that are less shy, less earthy, and more approachable in their youth, I have always depicted Lafite Rothschild as an old, dusty, grumpy, dry, and austere aristocrat anchored in old traditions and a classicism belonging to a long-gone past.
That said, traditions and classicism are Bordeaux's trademarks. For the past 100 years, its people, town, wines, estates, and whole wine region have greatly benefited (and still do) from its leading status as one of France's best and oldest wine regions, setting an example to the rest of the world.
In fact, Bordeaux may not have lasted that long without these old aristocratic traditions and classicism, and Lafite Rothschild either, for that matter. So, it may not be that bad after all.
However, despite opening countless vintages over the past 33 years, I have never been impressed by Lafite Rothschild's wines. And this 2015 vintage, once again, did not do it for me.
Don't get me wrong, the wine was not that bad, but it was not worth the price of 515 Euros (average retail price HKD4,200 here in Hong Kong, or roughly USD540 if you prefer) and definitely not worth the range of 95-98 scores.
Some of you may tell me (and I fully agree) that if not opened during its opening drinking windows, Lafite often goes through up-and-down phases, either opening or closing. So, I decided to open it, as Lafite usually takes about 10 years (8+ years in the bottle) to open up.
The 2015 Lafite Rothschild is a blend of 91% Cabernet Sauvignon and 9% Merlot. It is medium to deep garnet in color in the glass. At opening, I smelled the cork, as I like to do, and it did not smell much. In fact, the nose was somewhat restrained (as it usually is for most vintages I tasted). I smelled it in the glass, decanted it, and waited 5-10 minutes before smelling and tasting it again.
Gradually, the timid nose opened up. Despite being from a ripe and hot vintage, its perfume was rather fresh and nuanced. It offered light aromas of cherry and blackberries, mingling with mineral and earthy notes and hints of pencil shave.
What took me aback (when tasting it) was that it was super light-bodied, almost lacking substance and texture (IMO) for a first growth of such a pedigree and at such a high price. Its light structure and freshness were also surprising for such a ripe vintage. Some will call it “elegance,” others “finesse,” and I must say that its refined, silky, balanced, integrated palate and somewhat lingering finish were an agreeable experience, yet not memorable. And yet, I thought it would grow some muscles after 2 hours in the decanter, but it did not. It remained light and unpronounced.
As I thought it might have been my palate, I had my colleagues taste it that night, and we all agreed: It was not worth the price or the scores. We even tasted some slightly bitter green notes along with the savory notes in the finish. It was definitely not what I expected from a 2015 vintage and/or a first growth from Pauillac.
On the one hand, kudos to the winemaker and team who prevented this vintage's exuberance and overripeness. On the other hand, I would have loved to taste a more substantial, more textured, and structured wine with a broader overall definition, especially at this price.
That's all, folks, for today!
The prices and scores of top wines are such recurring and engaging topics that I could write pages and pages about them. However, I do not want to bore you with too many details, numbers, and stats. Yet again, I may write a fuller post about it one day. But I will stop here for today.
Let me know your thoughts in the comments and/or if you have experienced the same things.
Cheers! Santé!
Dom
@ledomduvin #ledomduvin @champagne_billecart_salmon #billecartsalmon #champagne @chateaulafiterothschild #lafiterothschild #pauillac #bordeaux #tastingnotes #wine #vin #vino #wein #sommelier #sommelierlife #sommlife #ilovemyjob #wineyearly #lovewine #wineinlife #lifeinwine
(*) This topic, prices, and scores for lesser vintages, is worth a full post, which I might write about in the near future.
(**) In 1855, only 4 Chateaux were ranked first-growth, as Château Mouton Rothschild was only elevated from second-growth to first-growth in 1973, after decades of intense lobbying by its owner, Philippe de Rothschild.
Unless stated otherwise, all rights reserved ©LeDomduVin 2025, on all the contents above including, but not limited to, photos, pictures, drawings, illustrations, collages, visuals, maps, memes, posts, texts, writings, quotes, notes, tasting notes, descriptions, wine descriptions, definitions, recipes, graphs, tables, and even music and video (when and where applicable).
.png)
.png)
