Hey guess what? I'm not the only one talking up New York wine.
I finally got my latest Wine Spectator in the mail (a hearty thank you to all the local winemakers, fellow bloggers and readers who apparently get theirs before me and alerted me to the New York-heavy content this month) and I think the New York coverage, spearheaded by Mitch Frank (who I happen to know reads LENNDEVOURS and who I've met in person recently) is nicely done. Mitch is a great guy and writer, and I for one am glad to have him covering the NY wine scene for WS.
Now on to the scores given to NY wines.
First, let me say that I think they did a good job of pulling many of Long Island's best wines out and highlighting them, including the small-production 2003 cabernet sauvignon from Roanoke Vineyards. For that young a wine to score so well with all of the 2001s just shows its potential. I expect the 2004 grand vintage chadonnay from Paumanok to improve dramatically in coming years as well.
But the fact that not one wine (not one) from New York state garnered at least a 90 score seems to supports the locally held belief that there is a ceiling for scores from the WS. That's why so few wineries are represented -- I'm guessing that several wineries didn't bother submitting samples because of the percieved ceiling.
I know that WS does all of its tastings blind, but if I'm not mistaken, they are aware of the region they are tasting. To me, that isn't truly blind and makes it easy for a publication to artificially lower the ratings of a particular region. I'm not saying that there is or isn't a pre-determined score that local wines can attain from WS, but I've tasted some of the wines that they give 90-92 and they can't hold a candle to the best Long Island wines. Period.