Introducing the new Comte Flaneur Scoring System (CFSS)

[Comte Flaneur]

Introducing the new Comte Flaneur scoring system, CFSS (copyright).

Quite simple. The scale goes from -10 to +10, which is equivalent to 80 to 100 in the most widely used system championed by Robert Parker but where frankly any score below 80 is redundant because we rarely encounter these wines. Anything that would previously score in the 60s or 70s is assigned a score of -10. What would previously have been 90, scores 0 on this scale.

It cuts off the long redundant tale of the 50-100 point system and is superior to the 0-20 scale where scores inevitably get bunched in to mid-to-high teens. When did you ever see a single digit score in the 0-20 scale?

[Comte Flaneur]

Here is an example of the CFSS in action, with a selection of wines consumed over the last week or so.

The Elio Grasso LN is an ideal mid-weeker. It displays the foursquare signature and limitations of the 2017 vintage but is in a good place now, -1.

The Benetiere Cordeloux Cote Rotie is multi-faceted and explosive - it hits you from all angles. Impressive stuff but after half a bottle it is time to put the stopper in it and live to fight another day, +3.

The Grosset Springvale Riesling was the surprise package among these wines and my favourite of the bunch. Purchased in the Harvey Nicks sale I expected this to be nowhere near ready but it was an absolute delight. Consumed over three days, +3

1998 Wynns ‘John Riddoch‘ Coonawarra Cabernet Sauvignon 1998. I had not tried one for many years. The last few times these were problematic with unclean oxidative notes. This bottle was exactly the same and these unpleasant oxidative notes just lingered while the wine was quite aged and leathery - these have been very well stored - so frankly a disaster, -8.

The 1981 Larrivet-Haut-Brion is still mature and tertiary but is showing little sign of flagging. Loved it. An astute auction purchase if I may be so bold, +1.

I opened the 2000 Clos Fourtet last night to go with some lamb chops. Not tried one of these for a few years. It is now well into the prime time drinking window. Predominantly merlot this is sleek and very smooth as it glides across your palate. It made the Riddoch look very amateurish. It performs well but perhaps it lacks a bit of personality? I am not sure where this is going from here. I saw the name Philippe Cuvelier on the label - perhaps a right bank Leoville Poyferre? +2.

[JoelD]

Interesting system, Ian. I certainly like the idea behind it. However in execution, I think that it would make people very confused. Especially more casuals. They will likely assume a 2/10 rating is terrible, while in reality that is quite solid.

I think we all agree about how the 100pt system has devolved and we just end up with around 15pts to work with. Which I think is why some started used the 20pt system, but then that just ends up being mostly rated between 15-20 with half points. Every solution seems to end up with the same problem.

[jckba]

While the 20 point scoring system works as well as the letter grading system which our own Arv employs, I can’t help but state that I’m with Joel on this one in that I would find it hard to drop a system I am innately familiar with in favor of something other.

In my 3rd Tuesday of the month group we generally taste 12 wines blind and the approach that I take is non numeric as I look to break down the field into a top half and a bottom half followed by further finalizing my preferences in each bracket with a series of pluses and minuses. And I find that works well for this type of setting.

[jal]

I like it, it's simple enough. I would just add an explanation to your signature of every post, just so as not to confuse newbies to your system.

[JimHow]

I found myself understanding it pretty quickly. Well done Mr Flaneur!

For me it’s 85-100, but that is the scale of a Bordeaux wine ENTHUSIAST, with a policy of rating only when I have something on the positive side to say about a wine. On the rare occasions that I give a sub-85 point score it is because a noteworthy wine has underperformed in such a way that I decide it is noteworthy to comment on it.

[DavidG]

Ian, it’s a logical scoring system from your perspective and for those who take the time to understand it. For anyone else it will be confusing. It sounds like you enjoyed the Elio Grasso, “an ideal mid-weeker” even though it had its limitations. The first impression most would have to a -1 score is that the wine is no good. Negative numbers convey negative connotations. Then there’s the potential confusion associated with the minus sign itself… or is that a dash.

As an internal scoring system and for use with those who embrace it, two thumbs up. If you want your scores to be understood by the rest of the wine-drinking public, not so much. Although, it might force them to read your always stellar notes to see what you meant. So maybe a good thing after all!

[stefan]

I dunno, Ian. I have to do a serious computation to find out what your new score really is. What will people with lesser maths skills do?

[un bureaucrate]

I’m always interested to see how folks here tally their likes and dislikes for wine; if I understand this one correctly, it’s an easy indicator to essentially show a given wine is more pro than con or more con than pro, ranging from not-flawed-plonk to epiphany, no?

Was it a year or two ago somebody on this board proposed that zany “grundekin” scoring system? This is much easier to grasp at-a-glance, obviously nowhere near as convoluted. Personally, I still find the late Mr Broadbent’s 5 (and occasionally 6) star system most to my liking, but I just might try this new system out for the remainder of the year in my personal notes, it’s an appealingly thoughtful method. Thank you.

[DavidG]

My favorite TIC rating system was Stuart Yaniger's "Three Stooges Wine Rating System." I gave it three Curlys with a woo-woo-woo. Sadly, it no longer appears to be available on the web.

Three Stooges Wine Rating System.pdf

(106.34 KiB) Downloaded 254 times

[Nicklasss]

I appreciate your creativity Comte, but i'm also in the camp that negative numbers are only seen positively in golf.

Maybe a simple rating system, from 1 to 10, so when you taste a wine, you try to imagine where it would finish in a wine tasting with some of it peers? Example: 1982 Lafleur is a 1, while the 2005 Duhart-Milon is a 4, and the 2012 GPL would be a 7, finally 2003 Péby Faugères or 1993 Batailley are 10...

[JimHow]

My system is best. 85 to 100. You know my palate, you know where I stand. You know when a "93," in a certain time and place, can be a "negative." Or a "positive." You know my nuances, my groove. 85-100, man, I'm telling you....

[JoelD]

I appreciate your creativity Comte, but i'm also in the camp that negative numbers are only seen positively in golf.

Maybe a simple rating system, from 1 to 10, so when you taste a wine, you try to imagine where it would finish in a wine tasting with some of it peers? Example: 1982 Lafleur is a 1, while the 2005 Duhart-Milon is a 4, and the 2012 GPL would be a 7, finally 2003 Péby Faugères or 1993 Batailley are 10...

Damn, is the 03 Peby Faugeres that bad? I actually have one or two of those. I remember enjoying the 03 Faugeres actually. But this may have been on the early stages of my palate changing.