The best use of 'best of' lists

In my mailbox last night was the most recent installment of the Wine Spectator top 100 list. This is one of the most anticipated rankings of wines when it is released each December. For good reason. The number of reviews annually in the Spectator is exhaustive, and the top 100 issue is their culling of all those reviews for the 100 wines they think the most of, although the phrasing and the focus of that list has shifted a bit. This year, the cover of the issue reads “the 100 most interesting wines.”

We applaud the shift, trying to narrow all of the wine available in a year to “the best 100” is not only futile in our opinion, it is also highly subjective. As we have written so many times, the most important thing about wine is what you like, not what is liked by a wine professional whose palate may or may not appreciate the same things yours does. With any wine reviewer, it is most important to find one you agree with most of the time, indicating a similarity in palate preferences.

So what is the best use of any top 100 list? The Wine Spectator does take advertising from wineries big and small, which despite industry complaints we have never found prompts overly favorable ratings on any one wine, especially when their evaluation is combined with your own common sense and the all-important opinion of your palate.

As we said, the work the Spectator does in any one issue or over the full year is exhaustive. It covers appellations across the globe and treats big and small wineries alike. They use individual evaluators for each appellation which we feel is vital to accurate rating. The most effective way to get good and consistent ratings for an area is to have someone working with that area and really getting to know the ups and downs of vintages and producers. They are in tune with all that goes on, leading to great institutional knowledge.

The top 100 then is compiled from all of those individuals based on the case they make for the wines being included, and with the input from their colleagues. Once the lobbying, jockeying for position and voting is completed, their list is assembled. When the issue hits our mailbox, here is what we look for.

The top 10 spots resemble the lifetime achievement awards at the Oscars. There is nothing wrong with that. I find it difficult to make the case that somehow legends like Peter Michael and Washington’s own Quilceda Creek would not deserve the award each and every year. The Au Paradis from Peter Michael and the Quilceda Creek Cabernet — numbers one and two on this year’s list — are spectacular wines. These two wineries have been making great wine for a very long time and they deserve the spots where they landed. With being number one and two, though, the wines are impossible to get this year. Look for them in future vintages, and view the award from the perspective of a reference on the quality of their overall body of work.

Spots 11 on down are names you will have a chance of finding in our local market. When looking through the list, focus on regions and producers you have liked in the past. Attempting to secure a wine you would likely not enjoy (based on past experience with a region, producer or varietal), just because it lands on this or any list will leave you disappointed. Also, focus on the wines that come from a wine writer you most often agree with. As you read wine publications over time, even on a casual basis and with a casual approach, you will discover certain writers and evaluators of wine whose commentary and scoring resonate with you. Therefore, focus on the wines that make it on the list from those folks.

Finally, don’t get too hung up on finding the exact vintage shown in the list. While certain bad years should be viewed with skepticism, if you can find the same wine from an equivalent year, it is likely a safe bet. This year’s “best of” list has many domestic 2012s listed, a great year to be sure, but 2013 was nearly as good, so you can feel comfortable moving up a year.

As always, a bit of guidance from your favorite wine professional is helpful. Stop by the shop or ask some wine folks about their favorites on the list and their opinion of an entry that strikes your fancy. We have tasted many of the wines, and a bit of experience with the wines and knowing your palate will help us find the best from the best of list to fit your taste.

If there is a topic you would like to read about, or if you have questions on wine, you can email George@thedinnerpartyshop.com, or make suggestions by contacting the Healthy Community section at the Coeur d’Alene Press.

George Balling is co-owner (with his wife Mary Lancaster) of the dinner party, a wine and tabletop décor shop by Costco in Coeur d’Alene. George has also worked as a judge in many wine competitions, and his articles are published around the country. You can learn more about the dinner party at www.thedinnerpartyshop.com. You can get all of these articles and other great wine tips by friending us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/#!/dinnerpartyshop.