Points, scores, and ratings

[AlexR]

I grew up, so to speak, with the 20 point system for rating wines, which has as many advantages and disadvantages as any other system.
As time went on, the world largely abandoned this more European way of attempting to objectify wine quality and adopted the 100 point scale used by one Robert Parker, the world’s foremost wine critic for a number of years. Parker based this on American report card grades, where 65 is a fail and 100 perfection.

Like any wine rating system, this 100 point scale is frustratingly inadequate.

For a start, published scores bunch up ridiculously since they all tend to start at 89 or 90, and any sense of perspective gets lost in the process.
More importantly, the attempt to pinpoint wine quality down to precise percentage points is absurd if you think about it, and all the more so with young wines meant to age for decades. Does anyone seriously think that this pseudo-scientific approach can be reproduced, even by the same evaluator, as opposed to genuine scientific findings?

That having been said, there has always been a need for some kind of hierarchy in the world of fine wine. Centuries of trial and error led to the definition of terroirs according to quality, with Burgundy a prime example. Then, of course, there is the producer factor. Once again referring to Burgundy, one winegrower’s Bourgogne AOC can cost 3 or 4 times another’s…
Since consumers do not have the possibility or capacity to compare wines, they frequently rely on critics – oftentimes too heavily, too unquestioningly, too passively.

Last year my friend Izak Litwar in Copenhagen raked me over the coals on this forum because I had categorized my tasting notes for the 2021 primeurs into poor, average, good, very good, and superlative. I had dared to break with the Parker system. In fact, I took my lead from the late Clive Coates MW who described wines in this way. That made a lot of sense to me, and much preferable to “this is a 91 and that is a 92.”
I think it is important to have wiggle room, and leave the door open for changes over time.
Wine, particularly fine wine, is a question of subtleties that transcend two digits.

I’ve reflected on this and decided I will stay more or less with the system that suits me for the 2022 en primeur tastings, but perhaps replace the above terse descriptions with a star system similar to the one used in the Guide Hachette, going from one to five.

Do I look down on people who use percentage points? Of course not. If that’s their way of dealing with a complex reality, fine. It’s just that I cannot abide by that personally.

AR

[JimHow]

It can be subtle. For me I don't take my scores too seriously, they are usually an emotional assessment after I've consumed a critical amount of a particular wine. I have no idea how the experts taste and spit dozens of samples one after another and come up with scores. I'm a Bordeaux wine ENTHUSIAST, so my scores tend to be more exuberant. I think Izak and Jeff Leve are enthusiastic scorers as well. My scores are generally in the 85 to 100 range. When I give a 2019 Cantemerle 94 points and a 2020 Cantemerle 94+ points I hope that gives some impression to those who know my palate preferences, combined of course with the descriptive words in addition to the raw numbers. I like to just come up with a number in that moment in time, it helps me "quantify" how much I've enjoyed the experience. Obviously 90 is an important number in my system, it signifies that the wine has crossed a threshold of enjoyment. I tasted the 2014 Capbern Joel gave to me over the weekend. It was delicious, very smooth, in the end though the 14.5% came to the fore and it finished a touch hot, thus reducing my score from a 93 to a 91. Still, though, a lovely wine and, yes, I have no problems adding a point or two if the QPR is right.

[stefan]

>>
...poor, average, good, very good, and superlative... I took my lead from the late Clive Coates MW...
>>

Clive also used "very fine indeed", "quite good", and the like. IIRC, "quite good" was less than "good" and "very fine indeed" was better than "very good". Quite confusing indeed.

[greatbxfreak]

Jim is 100% right. I am an enthusiastic scorer.

I have been raised in wine since 1984 with a 100 p system and will not change it. My first visit to Bx was in March 1984, so this year marks 40 years since then.

Alex and I will soon go to taste 2023 Bx primeur wines. We have an extremely tight schedule, and all First Growths are confirmed.

[greatbxfreak]

stefan, you are so right.

Clive Coates was very diplomatic in his description of a wine. He overused the expression "very good indeed".

If I were to grade the wines in terms of quality, it would look like this:

1. Eternal, unforgettable
2, Majestic, fantastic, exceptional
3. Excellent, tremendous, fabulous, rivetting
4. Splendid,
5. Very good
6. Nice
7. Agreeable, average, no faults.
8. Boring, monotonous.
9. Bad.

The English language is so rich in synonyms!!

[jckba]

I like the 100 point scale and when tasting young wines, I think score ranges should be more frequently used as wines can change.

And for in bottle scores, I frequently use the plus sign when assigning a score as I am grading the wine in its current state while acknowledging that there is room for future improvement.

[stefan]

>>
I frequently use the plus sign when assigning a score as I am grading the wine in its current state while acknowledging that there is room for future improvement.
>>

Yes, I do the same.

[DavidG]

I grew up on Parker and was quite the acolyte in the ‘80s. The 100-point system made sense, but I was never able to rate wines that precisely, even if using only 85-100. Sure, I could do it with a group of wines in front of me at one sitting. But I couldn’t be sure that today’s 92 would consistently be better than next week’s 94. So I went to broader categories: poor, fair, good, very good, excellent, outstanding. I rarely encounter poor or fair wines these days. Most are very good or excellent. While that works for me, I understand that it is less useful to others. But I have no delusions of being an expert or critic. Enthusiast fits…

[Nicklasss]

I play the game and use the 100 points scale as well. But in all truths, the 100 points scale has just 6 levels:

100
97-99
94-96
91-93
90
<90

For the common mortals, is there a real noticeable difference between a wine rated 97 vs 98? Ihave some doubts…

At the end, maybe using golf (dstgolf would like!) rating would make sense:

-3 albatross = greatest
-2 eagle = superb
-1 birdie = excellent above average
Par = average, expected
+1 bogey = light deception
+2 double bogey = a deception, no way i’m recommending
+3 triple bogey =

[JimHow]

But where do "Mmm doggie" and "Baby doll" come in....

[DavidG]

But where do "Mmm doggie" and "Baby doll" come in....

I think they'd fit right in with the Three Stooges Wine Rating System. Something along the lines of a triple Curly with a Woo-Woo-Woo.

https://www.the-stupids.com/?p=2057

[JimHow]

I'm thinking more Jed Clampett, David...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13gxhHYPuko

[Harry C.]

Nick, where would a Mulligan fit in? I have often said I like some rating with the verbal description, as sometimes the florid descriptors confuse the very basic need for the reader to know if the reviewer LIKED the wine. My example is the famous iron fist in a velvet glove. Is this a good thing? drinking an iron fist? in velvet? Does the reviewer like it NOW? In the future, perhaps? Giving the wine a 95+ generally settles this issue.

[Tom In DC]

I always interpreted "quite good" as "not quite good". Just watch a few BBC shows with the upperclass - quite is never complimentary. And the specific ranking of fine vs. good is a bit confusing. "It's fine" can often mean it's tolerable.

[Nicklasss]

Nick, where would a Mulligan fit in?

Easy Harry : let say you open a 1995 Pichon Baron that is corked or other kind of default, you take a Mulligan until the next bottle of 1995 Pichon Baron you will uncork.

[marcs]

The other thing is that at the very high end scores just don't stay consistent. If you have a truly rhapsodic experience with an aged wine it's rare that your next time drinking the exact same wine, even from the exact same batch, will yield quite the same experience. When a wine gets an extremely high score from experienced wine drinkers like us it's a .01% type of performance and it's likely that random variation inherent to wine will mean that it won't quite reach the same heights again. Scores toward the middle of the range are more reliable.

Have learned this from personal experience...