Wine Chronicles: Will Michelin’s Star System Work for Wine?
By Dan Berger
Article Thumbnail: Dan Berger reflects on his decades of experience rating wines and considers Michelin’s new entry into wine evaluation. He raises concerns about the complexities of judging wine, especially the importance of regional knowledge and the loss of sub-regional identity in modern Napa cabernets. Drawing parallels to restaurant ratings, he questions how transparency, consistency and style differences will be handled. Berger concludes with curiosity and skepticism, noting that Michelin’s brand power may still carry the guide forward.
NAPA VALLEY, Calif. — After 44 years of formally ranking wines, I can honestly say that I didn’t know what I was doing for the first few years. That revelation came to me in 1981 when I was sitting next to perhaps the greatest winemaker in American history, André Tchelistcheff, as we evaluated entrants in a major wine competition.
It was then that I realized that I still had a lot of learning to do.
The fact that André and I were frequently in agreement on many of the wines was heartwarming and proved to me that I knew something. But I also knew I needed more seasoning. Then I acquired a book published at UC Davis on sensory evaluation and learned that I had years to go before I would feel truly proficient.
That all came to mind last week when I read that Michelin, the automobile tire company that has long evaluated restaurants, has decided to leap into the wine evaluation dodge, presumably using its iconic star system. According to an article in the Daily Mail, “It is not clear how the [Michelin wine] guide will work as details surrounding the evaluation criteria have been kept quiet for the time being.”
Since Michelin previously acquired the Wine Advocate, the influential wine rating guide founded by now-retired Robert Parker, I assume that the Michelin reviews will probably differ from it. Since the Advocate uses 100-point scores, I’m guessing that Michelin will stick with its three-star evaluations, perhaps using three glasses for the best wines.
Recently, Michelin began rating hotels, using a three-key system to replace stars. In London two weeks ago, Michelin announced that it had awarded one key to 1,742 hotels, two keys to 572 hotels and three keys to a select 143.
(The story in the Mail said Michelin’s new wine guide “will judge winemakers across the world.” But evaluating winemakers makes no sense since every winemaker is at the mercy of his or her grape grower, soil type, clone and vintage. But the story was written by someone identified as a Mail “junior reporter,” so she may have misunderstood that wine will be evaluated, not winemakers.)
One of the vital aspects of evaluating wine is that the evaluator(s) be extremely knowledgeable about the kinds of wine being evaluated. Although I can do a decent job with Georgian qvevri wines, Georgians might consider me to be a dolt with them.
And so it is that the people who Michelin selects to evaluate Napa Valley cabernets should be experienced with various styles and types of these wines (as well as the history of the valley), and therein lies an enormous complication that has been created (since about 1997) by Napa producers themselves, and which has no simple solution.
Challenge your vocabulary with this week’s mystery wine word. Submit your answer in the poll, and check the bottom of the page for the correct answer.
Forty and 50 years ago, winemakers throughout Napa were proud that they had crafted wines that represented the vineyards from which the grapes came. Locale meant something. A cabernet from Rutherford, when it was authentic, smelled like Rutherford. And it differed from a cabernet that came from Oakville, even though the districts share a boundary line.
There was no rigidity to this. But it had always been assumed that sub-regional characteristics carried some qualitative benefits. Diamond Mountain differs from Mount Veeder. This was partly a result of harvesting fruit back then that yielded wines that had roughly 13.5% alcohol.
Starting in the latter 1990s, however, bigger and richer cabernets became so popular that many winemakers chose to harvest fruit later than ever, making wines with much higher alcohol levels (15-16% was common). Late-picked grapes usually make wines in which sub-regional identities are obliterated.
These traits had usually been part of how early cab evaluations were validated. In the last 20 years or more, wines with excessive ripeness levels display a richness that many high-end cab buyers liked, but the wines had little to no regional personalities.
So, one question that might crop up in the Michelin evaluations is, “Will sub-regional characteristics count for anything?” If not, why not?
Along that same line, will the same criteria that is used to evaluate Napa Valley cabernets also be used to evaluate cabernets from, say, Lake County, Amador County or Santa Barbara?
I called a good friend and longtime wine judge who addressed the question of regional identity and he used Michelin’s restaurant guide as an example:
“America presents regional challenges to a single [food or wine] evaluation system,” he said. “Would a dive bar in Houston serving outstanding chili be comparable to a dive bar in New Orleans serving stunning gumbo?”
Similarly, I would ask, “If the people who are chosen to evaluate Napa cabs for Michelin have only five or seven years of experience with these wines, can their evaluations be valid?”
Now look at how the Michelin restaurant guides are produced. The reviewers are never identified. Few people question this bit of obfuscation; most people trust their expertise. But wine? I suspect that Michelin will not reveal the names of those who judge wines in the United States.
About 25 years ago, Consumer Reports began reviewing wine. I was most interested in this because I wanted to know who the judges were. The magazine declined to reveal their names. I also wanted to know what parameters were used for getting into one of the top spots. I could reach no one at the magazine to even ask the question. No one responded to my calls.
I hoped I would learn something from the first CR issue that contained wine reviews. Among the first wines evaluated were several pinot gris. Only four wines were recommended. The article never gave any details about what parameters were used, but what was confounding was that the top wine listed was one I knew well. It was a nice white wine, but I marked it down for only one problem: It did not smell or taste anything like pinot gris. How could that have been ignored?
Although Consumer Reports has a great reputation for evaluating refrigerators, washing machines and vacuum cleaners, its wine evaluations by unknown reviewers were so vague that soon wine reviews were abandoned.
Another drawback that Michelin may face is wine style. Case in point: A domestic sauvignon blanc is its own unique entity. The style of wine that it makes can be similar to a chardonnay (if it is aged in barrels), or slightly sweet, or similar to white Graves, or like a Pouilly-Fumé, or akin to New Zealand’s versions. It may be wildly floral, herbal or earthy or even blended with muscat and made like a light dessert wine.
And what happens when a Napa cabernet that sells for $80 or $90 a bottle turns out to be sweet?
Also: Will the wine judges be told what region or sub-region each wine is from? If so, does sub-regional character become an issue? Will the judging be done scrupulously double blind? Will all the evaluations be done at the same venue in one massive tasting, or spread out over weeks in different locations, perhaps involving different evaluators?
Regardless of what the answers to the above questions are, I suspect that Michelin will succeed with this. In London last week, Michelin chairman Florent Menegaux said he thought that the company’s wine ranking guide would be more influential than the Wine Advocate had been, saying, “The Michelin brand is much more powerful.”
And finally, I wonder if there will be any coordination between what the Wine Advocate publishes and what Michelin reveals. It might be amusing. Such as if the Wine Advocate gives a wine 100 points, but that same wine gets no ranking in Michelin. Can we call the next stage in this awkward scenario a post-dicament?
—
Dan Berger has been writing about wine since 1975.
Wine Discovery:
2022 Matthiasson Red Wine, Napa Valley ($95) – A classic meritage blend with 55% mountain-grown merlot and 41% cabernet sauvignon. As soon as you pull the cork and pour, the aroma is intriguing but slightly disjointed with cabernet showing up with herbs and beautiful complex fruit. After an hour in the glass, the wine’s merlot gathers itself into a uniform, Bordeaux-ish gem that is even more impressive the next day. The wine has only 13.5% alcohol, which permitted the house to make a beautiful savory statement in which the structure is based not on gritty tannins but on balanced acidity. It will age beautifully for several more years.
Today’s Polls:
This Week's Word Challenge Reveal:
The correct answer is B: “Fluid that nourishes plants.”
In viticulture and plant science, “sève” refers to the sap that circulates inside plants — transporting water and nutrients through the xylem and phloem. For grape‑growers in regions like the Napa Valley, monitoring vine health, sap flow and vigor are key to managing yield, vine balance and ultimately wine quality.
The term derives from the Old French sève, itself from the Latin sapa meaning “must” or “sap.” Its use in the botanical sense goes back to at least the Middle Ages, when it described the vital fluids of trees and plants. In the context of wine, the notion of “sève” also evokes the vitality of the vine and its connection to terroir — reminding us that what happens underground and within the living vine ultimately shapes what ends up in the glass.
Explore These Related Articles:
Browse All Napa Valley Features Stories
The views, opinions and data presented in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy, position or perspective of Napa Valley Features or its editorial team. Any content provided by our authors is their own and is not intended to malign any group, organization, company or individual.
