WTN: 2003 Bogle Merlot

2003 Bogle Merlot

This was a gift.

This is really horrible stuff. On the nose some blueberries and vanilla. On the palate sweet, watery, vanilla and wood chips. Really bad. Half the bottle went into the stock pot. 60 points. One to avoid.

Tom T.

Gosh, it seems you may have ruined the stock!

I had many Bogle Merlots and they were generally Ok - Not sure of the year - but it was many years ago... Sorry to hear that!

How bad would a "wine" have to be to be worth fewer than 60 points?

John (who never did and still doesn't understand the so-called 100-point system)

Over the years I have found Bogle a reliable brand for Petite Syrah, Zin and a blend called Phantom..I have not been fond of their Merlot,Cab and their whites.. I can't say your comments on the merlot surprise me.. I found the Bogle Merlots to be mediocre at best

[David M. Bueker]

John - it's called the 100 point system because it ends at 100, not because it will ever use all 100 points. Even the most notable user of the system says that it starts at a base of 50 & there are easy ways for many wines to get to 70-80 as long as they are not technically flawed.

Tom's score is more an expression of extreme dislike IMO. He's probably justified, but don't try to relate his 60 to an equivalent Parker or Tanzer score.

Tom's score is more an expression of extreme dislike IMO. He's probably justified, but don't try to relate his 60 to an equivalent Parker or Tanzer score.

To be honest that was a throw away line. I didn't "score the wine". You hit the nail on the head - it was an expression of extreme dislike. Had I tried to honestly use Parker's scoring system I'm sure the score would have been some other number.

Tom T.

How bad would a "wine" have to be to be worth fewer than 60 points?

John (who never did and still doesn't understand the so-called 100-point system)

FYI

Robert Parker's rating system employs a 50-100 point quality scale. It is my belief that the various twenty (20) point rating systems do not provide enough flexibility and often result in compressed and inflated wine ratings. The Wine Advocate takes a hard, very critical look at wine, since I would prefer to underestimate the wine's quality than to overestimate it. The numerical ratings are utilized only to enhance and complement the thorough tasting notes, which are my primary means of communicating my judgments to you.

96-100:
An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. Wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase, and consume.


90 - 95:
An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.


80 - 89:
A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.


70 - 79:
An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.


60 - 69:
A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.


50 - 59:
A wine deemed to be unacceptable.




Scores in parentheses indicate that the wine was tasted from barrel.


Tasting Notes & Ratings

When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner. I spend three months of every year tasting in vineyards. During the other nine months of the year, six and sometimes seven-day workweeks are devoted solely to tasting and writing. I do not participate in wine judgings or trade tastings for many reasons, but principal among these are the following: (1) I prefer to taste from an entire bottle of wine, (2) I find it essential to have properly sized and cleaned professional tasting glasses, (3) the temperature of the wine must be correct, and (4) I prefer to determine the time allocated to the number of wines to be critiqued.

The numeral rating given is a guide to what I think of the wine vis-à-vis its peer group. Certainly, wines rated above 85 are very good to excellent, and any wine rated 90 or above will be outstanding for its particular type. While some have suggested that scoring is not well suited to a beverage that has been romantically extolled for centuries, wine is no different from any consumer product. There are specific standards of quality that full-time wine professionals recognize, and there are benchmark wines against which others can be judged. I know of no one with three or four different glasses of wine in front of him or her, regardless of how good or bad the wines might be, who cannot say, "I prefer this one to that one." Scoring wines is simply taking a professional's opinion and applying some sort of numerical system to it on a consistent basis. Scoring permits rapid communication of information to expert and novice alike.

The score given for a specific wine reflects the quality of the wine at its best. I often tell people that evaluating a wine and assigning a score to a beverage that will change and evolve in many cases for up to 10 or more years is analogous to taking a photograph of a marathon runner. Much can be ascertained but, like a picture of a moving object, the wine will also evolve and change. Wines from obviously badly corked or defective bottles are retasted, since a wine from a single bad bottle does not indicate an entirely spoiled batch. Many of the wines reviewed have been tasted many times, and the score represents a cumulative average of the wine's performance in tastings to date. Scores, however, do not reveal the important facts about a wine. The written commentary that accompanies the ratings is a better source of information regarding the wine's style and personality, its relative quality vis-à-vis its peers, and its value and aging potential than any score could ever indicate.

Here then is a general guide to interpreting the numerical ratings:

90-100 is equivalent to an A and is given only for an outstanding or special effort. Wines in this category are the very best produced of their type. There is a big difference between a 90 and 99, but both are top marks. As you will note through the text, there are few wines that actually make it into this top category because there are not many great wines.

80-89 is equivalent to a B in school and such a wine, particularly in the 85-89 range, is very, very good; many of the wines that fall into this range often are great values as well. I have many of these wines in my personal collection.

70-79 represents a C, or average mark, but obviously 79 is a much more desirable score than 70. Wines that receive scores between 75 and 79 are generally pleasant, straightforward wines that lack complexity, character, or depth. If inexpensive, they may be ideal for uncritical quaffing.

Below 70 is a D or F, depending on where you went to school. For wine, it is a sign of an imbalanced, flawed, or terribly dull or diluted product that will be of little interest to the discriminating consumer.

In terms of awarding points, my scoring system gives every wine a base of 50 points. The wine's general color and appearance merit up to 5 points. Since most wines today are well made, thanks to modern technology and the increased use of professional oenologists, they tend to receive at least 4, often 5 points. The aroma and bouquet merit up to 15 points, depending on the intensity level and dimension of the aroma and bouquet as well as the cleanliness of the wine. The flavor and finish merit up to 20 points, and again, intensity of flavor, balance, cleanliness, and depth and length on the palate are all important considerations when giving out points. Finally, the overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement—aging—merits up to 10 points.

Scores are important for the reader to gauge a professional critic's overall qualitative placement of a wine vis-à-vis its peer group. However, it is also vital to consider the description of the wine's style, personality, and potential. No scoring system is perfect, but a system that provides for flexibility in scores, if applied by the same taster without prejudice, can quantify different levels of wine quality and provide the reader with one professional's judgment. However, there can never be any substitute for your own palate nor any better education than tasting the wine yourself.

The thing is, I tried a French Merlot-based wine (generic "Bordeaux") that cost $13 and I thought it was delicious. Why are (most) cheap American wines so bad? (No notes on the producer )

I've only tried their Zinfandel once. Maybe it was just me, but one trademark term came to mind: "Welch's Grape Juice" The only Zin I've had that was WORSE than the cherry koolaid Rombauer pumps out.

I was just planning on going to Costco and picking up some Bogle Merlot. I think they sell it for $7 or so. I've always found Bogle Merlot to be an OK everyday wine.

Thanks, David and Tom. I was interested to note that if you add up all the points components near the end of the piece Tom posted, you get 105.

And I do understand that numeric or letter grades are really a shorthand for the rater's overall opinion. I also understand the difference between opinion and liking. Of course I buy wines I like, and I sometimes buy wines that when I think about them objectively, they might not be technically the best, but I like them anyway.

Yet, the "100 point" system still smacks of grade inflation to me.

curmudgeonly old John

[David M. Bueker]

John - it's not the system, but rather how it's used.

If you look back at old copies of the Wine Advocate (I have them all the way back to the beginning) there were a lot of really low scores, sometimes in the 50s. Winemaking is better now, and with som many good wines in the world it's tough to leave space in a publicaiton for stuff that doesn't make an 85 point cut.

As for 105 in Tom's post - it adds up to 100. You counted the color points twice (note that the same point total is covered in two consecutive sentences).

The thing is, I tried a French Merlot-based wine (generic "Bordeaux") that cost $13 and I thought it was delicious. Why are (most) cheap American wines so bad?

Don't worry, most cheap French wines are bad too. You got lucky with the generic Bordeaux (or more accurately you benefitted from an importer who chose it amidst all the other cheap crap).

The thing is, I tried a French Merlot-based wine (generic "Bordeaux") that cost $13 and I thought it was delicious. Why are (most) cheap American wines so bad? (No notes on the producer )

I've only tried their Zinfandel once. Maybe it was just me, but one trademark term came to mind: "Welch's Grape Juice" The only Zin I've had that was WORSE than the cherry koolaid Rombauer pumps out.

Now there's sound reasoning:

One report of a US merlot that one person didn't like, followed by one French wine you did like, and the extrapolation is that (most) cheap American wines are bad and most cheap French wines are good? Lovely, Mr. Pot Stirrer and Flamethrower, Esq.

First, most American wines aren't bad. Second, most French wines are not necessarily good. I'd venture to say you had a better chance with American wines than French wines overall, at the price points we're talking about. Yeah, sure, I could choose selectively from each camp and stack the deck any way I wished, but that's just playing around.

Now if you want to get into styles you (or Tom T,) doesn't like, that's a horse of a whole 'nother color (actually, that horse might be best described as 'piebald'). I'm not a big fan of Bogle wines either. Which means absolutely nothing about the quality of other American wines. Or French wines. Or Italian wines. Means I don't like Bogle's style all that much. Careful what you strap on your extrapoltions there, Brian.

The thing is, I tried a French Merlot-based wine (generic "Bordeaux") that cost $13 and I thought it was delicious. Why are (most) cheap American wines so bad?

Don't worry, most cheap French wines are bad too. You got lucky with the generic Bordeaux (or more accurately you benefitted from an importer who chose it amidst all the other cheap crap).

But are they bad in the same way? I would actually prefer a slightly astringent, not very fruity "bad" French wine to the Bogle Zin or Merlot. I find the latter undrinkable. (I'm not talking active flaws-rampant brett or VA)

[David M. Bueker]

But now you are talking style preferences, not technical quality.

I cannot believe I am going to say this, but wines like Yellow Tail (or Bogle Merlot) are not bad. In fact they are probably about as good as can be technically achieved.

Do wine amateurs like them? Usually not.

It's two different issues.

The thing is, I tried a French Merlot-based wine (generic "Bordeaux") that cost $13 and I thought it was delicious. Why are (most) cheap American wines so bad? (No notes on the producer )

I've only tried their Zinfandel once. Maybe it was just me, but one trademark term came to mind: "Welch's Grape Juice" The only Zin I've had that was WORSE than the cherry koolaid Rombauer pumps out.

Now there's sound reasoning:

One report of a US merlot that one person didn't like, followed by one French wine you did like, and the extrapolation is that (most) cheap American wines are bad and most cheap French wines are good? Lovely, Mr. Pot Stirrer and Flamethrower, Esq.

First, most American wines aren't bad. Second, most French wines are not necessarily good. I'd venture to say you had a better chance with American wines than French wines overall, at the price points we're talking about. Yeah, sure, I could choose selectively from each camp and stack the deck any way I wished, but that's just playing around.

Now if you want to get into styles you (or Tom T,) doesn't like, that's a horse of a whole 'nother color (actually, that horse might be best described as 'piebald'). I'm not a big fan of Bogle wines either. Which means absolutely nothing about the quality of other American wines. Or French wines. Or Italian wines. Means I don't like Bogle's style all that much. Careful what you strap on your extrapoltions there, Brian.

Guilty as charged.

But....I think it is a matter of style. I prefer astringent and funky to soft and fruity and sweet. I would argue that, to my limited palate, CHEAP Americna wine does suffer in comparison to cheap French wine. As a generalization, not a hard and fast rule. But then, I would agree that reflects good importers and good wine shops. I'm sure there is the equivalent of BV Coastal (or Bogle) in France, too.

The thing is, I tried a French Merlot-based wine (generic "Bordeaux") that cost $13 and I thought it was delicious. Why are (most) cheap American wines so bad? (No notes on the producer )

I've only tried their Zinfandel once. Maybe it was just me, but one trademark term came to mind: "Welch's Grape Juice" The only Zin I've had that was WORSE than the cherry koolaid Rombauer pumps out.

Now there's sound reasoning:

One report of a US merlot that one person didn't like, followed by one French wine you did like, and the extrapolation is that (most) cheap American wines are bad and most cheap French wines are good? Lovely, Mr. Pot Stirrer and Flamethrower, Esq.

First, most American wines aren't bad. Second, most French wines are not necessarily good. I'd venture to say you had a better chance with American wines than French wines overall, at the price points we're talking about. Yeah, sure, I could choose selectively from each camp and stack the deck any way I wished, but that's just playing around.

Now if you want to get into styles you (or Tom T,) doesn't like, that's a horse of a whole 'nother color (actually, that horse might be best described as 'piebald'). I'm not a big fan of Bogle wines either. Which means absolutely nothing about the quality of other American wines. Or French wines. Or Italian wines. Means I don't like Bogle's style all that much. Careful what you strap on your extrapoltions there, Brian.

Guilty as charged.

But....I think it is a matter of style. I prefer astringent and funky to soft and fruity and sweet. I would argue that, to my limited palate, CHEAP Americna wine does suffer in comparison to cheap French wine. As a generalization, not a hard and fast rule. But then, I would agree that reflects good importers and good wine shops. I'm sure there is the equivalent of BV Coastal (or Bogle) in France, too.

Yahbut, Brian, I'm not talking about 'astringent and funky'. I'm talking about thin, acrid, vinegary, shoddy and cheap swill. Your chances of getting a good quality cheapo is far better on an American shelf (or a UK shelf) than it is on a French shelf.

I understand you're not really talking about quality, but about the style you prefer---but I'm talking about quality, and I can testify that the really cheap stuff in France is quite often basic swill. (Actually, a lot of the really basic swill is probably EU rather than French.)

John - it's not the system, but rather how it's used.

With all due respect, David: Crap.

It is the system. And how it works.

[David M. Bueker]

With all due respect Hoke - I disagree.

I'm not a fan of the system, but grade inflation is not the system. The scores have gone up because of improved winemaking and the need for hype and glitz.

I understand you're not really talking about quality, but about the style you prefer---but I'm talking about quality, and I can testify that the really cheap stuff in France is quite often basic swill. (Actually, a lot of the really basic swill is probably EU rather than French.)

I will defer to your much deeper knowledge, Hoke.

I would argue that, to my limited palate, CHEAP Americna wine does suffer in comparison to cheap French wine..

Hey, to my limited palate American wine at all price points suffers in comparison to French wine. But we've had these threads before.

With all due respect Hoke - I disagree.

I'm not a fan of the system, but grade inflation is not the system. The scores have gone up because of improved winemaking and the need for hype and glitz.

Point is, the entire system---that of awarding "points" on a precise scale to any and all wines---is the problem.

Once you've accepted that premise, you're ready to swallow anything.

Then it becomes easy to quibble and argue over an 85...or an 84. Like it makes any sense. Or makes any difference.

[David M. Bueker]

Windmills Hoke...windmills.