TN: an 03 village Burgundy.

[JonoB]

Please note, I am currently experimenting with a 100 point scale that uses the full range of 100. Much like a university scoring system; drinkable is above 30, above 50 shows typicity and above 70 is mind-bohglingly good.

2003 Morey-Saint-Denis "Aux Chéseaux; Domaine Louis Remy
an elegant perfumed nose, earth, leaves, plum and strawberry, nice depth, poise and complexity. Leafy, herbs, strawberry, marble and a slightly sandy quality, soft, subtle and elegant. Nicely balanced, and whilst the fruit character is ripe and the mineralité is somewhat subdued, this is a lovely wine. Perhaps lacking the zip and complex flavours of a grander wine, it is a lovely drinking wine that still has time in hand, the finish remains dark and filled with tannins. A very pleasant experience. 68+/100  

[dstgolf]

Wow you must have a different scale to grade wine. 68+/100 would never have a description of elegant nose...nicely balanced...complex flavours of a grander wine etc. Are you sure on the number???

[JimHow]

My scale is basically 88 to 95+.

[Houndsong]

EVERYBODY is way too doctrinaire. I applaud Jono for using the full hundred points and thus broadening the range. Nevertheless he, like it seems everyone else, is bound by outdated norms and modes. No, not outdated, because these modes and norms were never valid ab initio. I believe the upper, and possibly lower, "limits" to be unbounded. And I can explain. I don't believe in perfect wines or perfect scores - in theory perhaps, but not in practice, not in the objective, empirical realm that our corporeal selves inhabit. These are simply constructs of small minds and assclowns, intended to sell subscriptions or advertisments.

We need not squint through a microscope, nor a telescope, nor a radiotelescope, not an x-ray telescope, nor scan the distant horizons with our naked i to see the limits of such thinking. For the limits are upon us already. For 2012, via 2009, has already brought us 19 "perfect" wines, yet the First and Second Growths are already, we're told, "upping their game" to bring us even more perfect wines (i.e., "more" modifying "perfect", not a numerically greater number of perfect wines). Clearly, gentlemen, if one can produce a wine that is more perfect than perfect, indeed more better than perfect, then they can produce wines capable of scoring 101, 110, or even a thousand points or more.

Probably some doctrinaire assclowns won't like this, and won't accept it, despite that it's indisputably, mathematically, metaphysically, and enologically true.

OK. Then I put to you an alternative truth, one that's mutually destructive to the first. That is, in a world where admittedly wines can always get better, be improved, etc., 100 points represents the upper limits of a quadratic, asymptotic function. Please consult with an empirical mathemetician for the precise solution. Nevertheless, in this truth, wines can also be ranked as they become more and more perfect, yet without ever reaching a state beyond which they can no longer measurably be said to be more perfect than the next least perfect wine. But they can never be "perfect."

So you see, and you must agree, that this business of perfectness and constrained, 100-point scales, is pretty much b.s.

[JimHow]

Wow! Brings to mind the final existential soliloquy of Scott Carey in The Incredible Shrinking Man!

[JimHow]

[[closing soliloquy narration]
Scott Carey: I was continuing to shrink, to become... what? The infinitesimal? What was I? Still a human being? Or was I the man of the future? If there were other bursts of radiation, other clouds drifting across seas and continents, would other beings follow me into this vast new world? So close - the infinitesimal and the infinite. But suddenly, I knew they were really the two ends of the same concept. The unbelievably small and the unbelievably vast eventually meet - like the closing of a gigantic circle. I looked up, as if somehow I would grasp the heavens. The universe, worlds beyond number, God's silver tapestry spread across the night. And in that moment, I knew the answer to the riddle of the infinite. I had thought in terms of man's own limited dimension. I had presumed upon nature. That existence begins and ends in man's conception, not nature's. And I felt my body dwindling, melting, becoming nothing. My fears melted away. And in their place came acceptance. All this vast majesty of creation, it had to mean something. And then I meant something, too. Yes, smaller than the smallest, I meant something, too. To God, there is no zero. I still exist!

[DavidG]

I've got no problem with any scale Jono (or anyone else) wants to use, as long as he explains it. Otherwise those of us used to 70 points being crap will have trouble reconciling the TNs with the scores.

[dstgolf]

Hound,

Altering any scale is fine as long as it makes sense. I agree that a perfect score(100) is a little rediculous let alone 19! We've lived our entire lives from first entering school and probably before for most to live a life based on percentages. Achievement in school,on the playing field,at work and in the market everything is based on percentages. Where I come from 68+% is mediocrity on anyones scale!

[stefan]

Any scale that avoids using imaginary numbers is inherently flawed.

[Houndsong]

By the way, researchers are again studying LSD to see if it has any therapeutic application to treatment for alcoholism. I already know the answer to that one. I think it might also help some of these inhibited, doctrinaire assclowns break free of the bounds of "perfection" and "100-point" scales.

[Tom In DC]

Any scale that doesn't realize it's based on imaginary numbers is in denial.

[JonoB]

Yes, the numbers all come from my head...

If you come from a British University, 68% = a 2:1 which is the prerequisite for most graduate program's; this doesn't mean you can't get 100; (70+ being a first), it just means it is nearly of not impossible. This is where I have decided to play around. In fact above 40 is a pass in some UK universities. This is the basis for the experiment and does it make sense to me after using it for a while.

Why, because with the traditional 100 points, or 20, you end up with a collection of wines with high scores; I will put an explanation in my signatures which will perhaps be clearer than this.

Numbers are all imaginary.