In the Wild: Fox Run Vineyards 2016 "Lake Dana" Riesling and Kemmeter Wines 2019 "Two Notes" Riesling

I go back-and-forth on numerical ratings for wine (I’m still not sure if I’m going to use them when I officially launch this newsletter in the new year) but when I am reviewing wines, I always taste them a little bit differently than I think many critics do — especially those from more traditional magazine or newspaper outlets.

First, I never score wines based on at-winery tastings. There are too many variables — glassware, outside aromas, tasting order, etc. Plus, I don’t care who you are — sometimes a wine will taste better at the winery, with the winemaker, than it does when you’re at home. I can’t take anything you say seriously if you’re basing reviews on at-winery tastings. I taste in my home, in my office, with the same wine glass every time.

Second, I try to taste and re-taste each wine the same way that my readers will. I don’t taste wine in assembly-line fashion. I get it. At big, wine-focused publications, a critic may taste 30 Long Island merlots in a sitting. That makes it nearly him or her to spend more than a couple of minutes on each wine.

That’s just not how I do it. I taste every wine over at least two or three days, both with and without food. Sometimes – particularly if a wine keeps getting better or is changing without falling off – I even taste wines over a week or more.

Again, that’s more similar to how most of my readers drink the bottles they purchase — over more than one day. Certainly over more than two minutes (I hope — but you do you!).

Lastly, I don’t bother with tasting wines blind when I’m reviewing them. Even magazines that claim to taste blind aren’t really tasting blind. The critic still knows the wine style or grape and the region. Sometimes even the vintage. So there is till some potential bias. I don’t bother. I actually think the context is good and — again — my readers aren’t stuffing their bottles into paper bags before drinking them. At least not typically.