WINE NOTES

1. This wine has been reviewed in the Wine Spectator in the issue indicated, however the listed rating and description are those of the Wine Reporter staff. For the Wine Spectator's specifics on this wine see the Wine Spectator. It should be noted that the Wine Spectator's use of its 100 point scale may produce results that are unreliable or inaccurate as these point ratings are made by reviewers with no formal academic training in wine evaluation and that scientific testing methods capable of producing statistically accurate ratings to a statistical significance of .05 were not employed. According to statistical expert, Scott Shewbridge (www.ssha.com/ss_wines.htm) these ratings are accurate only to within five points, not to one point as the Wine Spectator's reviews infer. Thus a wine rated as 92 may actually be only an 87. Furthermore, Mr. Shewbridge reveals that, in his opinion, wines rated an 85 should actually be rated as a 75 according to the Wine Spectator's description of its point ratings. We also believe that it is significant that the Wine Spectator does not engage reviewers who have passed the formidable Master of Wine examination - we believe that the Wine Spectator's long time reviewers have not taken the examination for this prestigious credential for fear of embarrassment of failing it. For this wine, the Wine Spectator's evaluations of the wine's flavor, structure and character may also be unreliable.
   
   

2. It should be noted that while Robert Parker's use of his 100 point scale may produce results that may be off by as much as several points due to the physical impossibility of conducting tastings that provide statistically precise results, a wine that receives a high rating from him will be an exceptional  wine worth buying. Mr. Parker is the most influential wine critic in the wine world.
   
   

3. Inasmuch as the Connoisseur's Guide to California Wine uses what is essentially a four point rating system (no star and one through three stars)  we consider the reviewer's rating as accurate. Furthermore, it must be noted that the reviewers are quite stingy in granting stars, particularly three stars and there is even the possibility that this rating is too low. The description of this wine also appears to be on point as the reviewer's have more than twenty-five years experience in tasting California wines.
   
   

4. It should be noted that the Wine Enthusiast's use of its 100 point scale may produce results that are unreliable or inaccurate as these point ratings are made by reviewers with no formal academic training in wine evaluation and that scientific testing methods capable of producing statistically accurate ratings to a statistical significance of .05 were not employed. According to statistical expert, Scott Shewbridge (www.ssha.com/ss_wines.htm) ratings on a 100 point scale are accurate only to within five points, not to one point as the Wine Enthusiast's reviews infer. Thus a wine rated as 90 may actually be only an 85.  We also believe that it is significant that the Wine Enthusiast does not engage reviewers who have passed the formidable Master of Wine examination - we believe that the Wine Enthusiast's reviewers have not taken the examination for this prestigious credential for fear of embarrassment of failing it. For this wine, the evaluations of the wine's flavor, structure and character may also be unreliable.
   
   

5. Clive Coates is a Master of Wine having passed a formidable wine tasting examination that most candidates fail several times - as such his wine ratings and wine descriptions are accurate and on point. It should be noted that Mr. Coates is one of the world's foremost experts on wine and wine tasting.
   
   

6. Decanter Magazine uses wine reviewers who are Masters of Wine and as such we consider its reviews and descriptions as accurate and on point.
   
   

7. It should be noted that Wine & Spirit's use of its 100 point scale may produce results that are unreliable or inaccurate as these point ratings are made by reviewers with no formal academic training in wine evaluation and that scientific testing methods capable of producing statistically accurate ratings to a statistical significance of .05 were not employed. According to statistical expert, Scott Shewbridge (www.ssha.com/ss_wines.htm) ratings on a 100 point scale are accurate only to within five points, not to one point as the Wine & Spirits reviews infer. Thus a wine rated as 90 may actually be only an 85.  We also believe that it is significant that Wine & Spirits does not engage reviewers who have passed the formidable Master of Wine examination - we believe that Wine & Spirits reviewers have not taken the examination for this prestigious credential for fear of embarrassment of failing it. For this wine, the evaluations of the wine's flavor, structure and character may also be unreliable.