Points, scores, and ratings
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2024 7:44 pm
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
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
