I have been drinking wines for quite a while, and have been a member/lurker of these WS boards for a couple of years, so I'm not a complete newbie. However, when it comes to composing Tasting Notes and then actually scoring a wine I've had, I don't know where to start.

I notice that in the Cellar Tracker database, there is a section where I can give a wine my personal score, which will be displayed in a column next to CT, WS, WA, etc. and which will affect the databases average. I want to take advantage of this feature.

Hence the topic of this thread...."where to start?" In the past, I thought almost every wine I had was pretty good to great. However, over time, I've realized they are NOT all 90+ points. But the more I drink, the more I find that a wine I thought was, say, 92 points a year ago, suddenly becomes 86 points, maybe even less. So if I would have given that 2003 Yellow Tail Reserve a 95, then the recent Grange I tasted would have to be scored a 125.

What would your recommendation be as far as setting the initial bar (for lack of a better term). Should I taste 10-20 wines that WS or RP rated 90 points, and then try to calibrate my palate to score accordingly? Or should I give a wine I truly enjoy a high score, simply because I really enjoy it, and then screw up the CT database average? Or should I give a wine I truly like an average score (cross-reference it against the WS database) and then compare all future wines (of similar varietal) to that one?

I just don't want to start giving out scores, only to find out a year or two from now, I scored them way too high (or too low).

I would appreciate some constructive feedback...but jabs and funny posts are also welcomed

There's really not much you need to know, and you certainly don't have to waste your time pulling the cork. Here are some guidelines:

If you're last name starts with the letters "L-A-U-B-E," you can just give any well-established California wine a 73 or a 74 and mention TCA in your tasting note.

If your initials are "RMP" and you're tasting a shiraz with lots of fruit, you should start your rating with a 95. Wines imported by the Gateful Palate should start with 97 points. Wines imported by the Grateful Palate and made by anyone named Marquis should start at 98 points as long as the wines retail for $40 or more.

When rating CA wines (those not impacted by TCA), you need only examine the label. Those with high cotton or linen content in the labels should start at 90 points. Beeswax capsules are worth 3 points. Gold foil is worth another 3 points. Please keep in mind that you should maximize all ratings at 100 points to avoid consumer confusion. Wines made by a Turley, a Melka, or an Egelhoff should start at 92 points. If a Harlan is involved, please note that 98 points are the minimum unless the vintage ends in a "98" or an "00."

Wines that cost in excess of $200 per bottle should be rated at 94 points or higher.

Furry creatures on the label are sufficient to put a wine in the high 80's. Furry creatures with a price tag in the low "teens" (i.e., less than $20 but more than $15) should be annotated with a "best buy" icon of one sort or another, but only when accompanied by a score in the 80s.

French wines that start with the letters "C-H-A-T" or some variation thereof should be rated at least in the high 80s. Such wines that retail above $100/bottle should be rated at least 90 points. Such wines that retail above $200 should be rated at least 94 points. Parentheses are helpful annotations in scoring, but if using parentheses, please make at least some note to barrel conditions.

Remember, please, that Pinots should always rate at least a 90 when produced in California or Burgundy. Similar wines that are labeled "zinfandel," "charbono," or "syrah" should be rated in the mid- to low 80's despite wine quality.

Hope these notes help. Good luck.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Golf&Pinot Nut,

Great post, GPN...92 pts. What's the formula for scoring Italian wines?

G&PN, Another classic lesson on how to rate wine that is going into my notebook. I just do not know how I could do it without you.

Good question Mezzo - I have the same problem that you do. I am considering a different approach though. I thought that the ability to accurately describe the wine in as many dimensions as possible would come before assigning a numerical score.

I am not sure about trying to "calibrate" my numerical scoring as against anyone else's until I am much more confident in my ability to accurately describe and appreciate the wine's elements.

There was some useful information about tasting and evaluation methods somewhere else on the site - I will try to remember where I saw it.

My .02

Mezzo Litro,

Thanks for your post. The decision to begin scoring wines, and the desire to be appropriate and consistent, are important steps in the development of wine appreciation. It's good to take them seriously.

First, aim for "consistency". After all, your palate is your own, and you shouldn't measure your ability to evaluate wines according to how close you come to someone else's score. Blind tasting is the key to consistency. On regular occasions, try to taste several wines together blind; every now and then, repeat a wine you've evaluated before. As you focus your judgment, you'll find that your scores for the same wine in two tastings get closer.

Second is "appropriate." By this, I mean how close your judgment comes to a concensus of other reviewers (whether Wine Spectator, another critic, or group such as CellarTracker). Stock your blind tastings with wines previously scored by your "guide" reviewer(s), then see how close you come to their scores. Over time, you may see your judgments converge with others.

I infer that you have chosen to make your judgments on the 100-point scale. I think that makes sense, as it has been adopted by most serious reviewers, so it will be easier for you to guage "appropriate" scores of your own (and theirs!).

You might find it easier to get started if you think in terms of 5-point quality bands: 80-84 is "good", 85-89 is "very good", 90-94 is "outstanding," and so on.

By tasting wines that have scores in these bands from other critics, you can get a sense of what makes a wine "very good" (structure, varietal character, some terroir) as opposed to simply good (straightforward, clean, varietal or regional character) or outstanding (complexity, concentration, distinctive character).

Remember, the goal is not to be able to replicate the scores of some other taster. It's to improve your understanding of wine, your ability to evaluate it and your confidence in your own palate. Happy tasting.

Nice one, GPN....

LOL. Thats just too funny

quote:

Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut:
There's really not much you need to know, and you certainly don't have to waste your time pulling the cork. Here are some guidelines:

If you're last name starts with the letters "L-A-U-B-E," you can just give any well-established California wine a 73 or a 74 and mention TCA in your tasting note.

If your initials are "RMP" and you're tasting a shiraz with lots of fruit, you should start your rating with a 95. Wines imported by the Gateful Palate should start with 97 points. Wines imported by the Grateful Palate and made by anyone named Marquis should start at 98 points as long as the wines retail for $40 or more.

When rating CA wines (those not impacted by TCA), you need only examine the label. Those with high cotton or linen content in the labels should start at 90 points. Beeswax capsules are worth 3 points. Gold foil is worth another 3 points. Please keep in mind that you should maximize all ratings at 100 points to avoid consumer confusion. Wines made by a Turley, a Melka, or an Egelhoff should start at 92 points. If a Harlan is involved, please note that 98 points are the minimum unless the vintage ends in a "98" or an "00."

Wines that cost in excess of $200 per bottle should be rated at 94 points or higher.

Furry creatures on the label are sufficient to put a wine in the high 80's. Furry creatures with a price tag in the low "teens" (i.e., less than $20 but more than $15) should be annotated with a "best buy" icon of one sort or another, but only when accompanied by a score in the 80s.

French wines that start with the letters "C-H-A-T" or some variation thereof should be rated at least in the high 80s. Such wines that retail above $100/bottle should be rated at least 90 points. Such wines that retail above $200 should be rated at least 94 points. Parentheses are helpful annotations in scoring, but if using parentheses, please make at least some note to barrel conditions.

Remember, please, that Pinots should always rate at least a 90 when produced in California or Burgundy. Similar wines that are labeled "zinfandel," "charbono," or "syrah" should be rated in the mid- to low 80's despite wine quality.

Hope these notes help. Good luck.

winederlust, I respect what you're saying, but I still think giving a wine a score based on the 100- point scale is more important than the description, although they do go hand in hand. Ultimately, everything needs to be scored in order to be compared accurately. And everything should be scored using the same scale. I use the 100-point scale (or rather, I will ATTEMPT to use...). And although everyone does have a different palate, there should still be a mechanism in place to judge wine in an unbiased fashion. Which segues me into Mr. Matthews' post.

Mr. Matthews, firstly, thank you for your response. I'm familiar with the 5 point quality bands, and up to now, I've been tasting wines and then reading WS tasting notes and scores (as well as other critics' TNs and scores) and trying to understand why the wine is in that quality band level. I think we all started this way. This (expert scores) has been crucial for me when trying new varietals. I'm somewhat familiar with cabs and shyrahs and what a 85 or 90 pointer should taste like (depending on the vintage and location, of course), but now that I'm drinking more and more Italian wines (at least more expensive Italian wines), I've relied again on critics' scores to help me in my purchases. I don't want to name any specific wines, but I have on occassion found a wine (Italian) that JS scored in the mid- to high-80s that I thought should be 90-92. But in my personal notes, I would not put down a score since I feel it would simply be an inexperienced, newbie-esque score. So again, 'where to begin'.

I think a blind tasting is the best way to judge a wine, but what am I suppose to to? Let my wife randomly pick 3-5 wines from my cellar and then I try them blind? Or do I select the wines, and let someone else keep track as to which wine is in which glass? Is this still truly blind?

Finally, I agree that a wine should be tasted several times over the course of one's 'wine journey' in order to get to a more accurate or 'averaged' score, but when do you start to share this information? This post has actually helped me decide to keep tasting wines and scoring them for myself, but NOT to share those scores with fellow oenophiles. At least NOT until I have much more experience, or when I finally become an honourary WS Editor or Guest Blogger

I vote to give Laube's job to GolfandPinotnut effective Feb 1st 2007.

quote:

winederlust, I respect what you're saying, but I still think giving a wine a score based on the 100- point scale is more important than the description, although they do go hand in hand. Ultimately, everything needs to be scored in order to be compared accurately. And everything should be scored using the same scale. I use the 100-point scale (or rather, I will ATTEMPT to use...). And although everyone does have a different palate, there should still be a mechanism in place to judge wine in an unbiased fashion. Which segues me into Mr. Matthews' post.

It's not likely that there will ever be unbiased scores. As you mentioned, everyone has a different palate. Now, if they took a random sample of all wine enthusiasts (extremely difficult if not impossible), sent them blind samples, and tallied scores that way... it might hold some weight. But even the criteria for scores is entirely subjective. I currently like heavy tannins in my wine that most would wish would go away with age. Blind people can't score on color. Someone whose palate favors fruitbombs will always give them an advantage.

What is interesting to me is that cigars are scored in the same 100 point scale that wines are and I don't know anyone else who smokes cigars that actually takes those numbers seriously.

Do they score artwork on a 100-point scale? How many people would actually agree with someone else's rankings?

When I do a tasting, I start my first few wines in the low 80s, regardless of what I think initially. That gives me room to go up or down.

Everything's relative. If there were no great wines, everything else would move up five points!

Frankly, I like Robert Parker's methodology. It breaks the score into a number of components which are easy to focus on, as opposed to having to score a wine just based on your overall impression.

Start with 50 points.

Color and appearance - 5 points.

Aroma and bouquet - 15 points.

Flavor and finish - 20 points.

Overall quality and room for improvement - 10 points.

I'll score each component separately and add the scores together. I allow myself a 1 point addition or subtraction if the overall score just doesn't feel quite right.

Works for me.

PH

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
and then screw up the CT database average?

That should be the least of your worries - CT averages are already screwed up way beyond usefulness. I love CellarTracker in almost every other respect and use it pretty much daily, but I just don't look at the average scores.

You point it out yourself: Finding your voice on a 100-point scale is tricky. Now add dozens of other people with the same problem, many of which are likely to have less experience than you but haven't given this a second's thought. I'm guessing many are just happy to be given a chance to set the score themselves for once. Then calculate the average of this mathematically.

What use could I possibly have of this figure when evaluating wine? You do the math.

quote:

Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
Frankly, I like Robert Parker's methodology. It breaks the score into a number of components which are easy to focus on...
Start with 50 points.

Color and appearance - 5 points.

Aroma and bouquet - 15 points.

Flavor and finish - 20 points.

Overall quality and room for improvement - 10 points.

I'll score each component separately and add the scores together. I allow myself a 1 point addition or subtraction if the overall score just doesn't feel quite right.

Works for me.

PH

This is an excellent methodology and the first time I've ever heard of it. Is this only a RP 'thing' or is this the method associated with the 100 point scoring system?? Do the WS Editors use this method??

This helps me out immensely. Thanx for the tip PH.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean McDonnell:
Do they score artwork on a 100-point scale? How many people would actually agree with someone else's rankings?

When I do a tasting, I start my first few wines in the low 80s, regardless of what I think initially. That gives me room to go up or down.

So you score wines for your own personal use. That's what I want to do. But you're still scoring. How do you score? What do you look for? And when you first started scoring, why did you choose the 100 point scale? I'm assuming you did this in order to compare you scores to the experts...that's what I want to do.

TORB's scale makes the most sense to me.
0 to 5 in terms of quality.
0 to 5 in terms of value.
Anything else is too fine grained.

Unless you are tasting the wines blind, side by side, with a known benchmark for comparison (which is what I believe WS does) how can you really hope to achieve consistency?

Serve the same wine alone, with cheese, with beef and with pasta. If you can score it the same despite the radically different pairings, well you're a better man than I am.

quote:

If you're last name starts with the letters "L-A-U-B-E," you can just give any well-established California wine a 73 or a 74 and mention TCA in your tasting note.

If your initials are "RMP" and you're tasting a shiraz with lots of fruit, you should start your rating with a 95. Wines imported by the Gateful Palate should start with 97 points. Wines imported by the Grateful Palate and made by anyone named Marquis should start at 98 points as long as the wines retail for $40 or more.

When rating CA wines (those not impacted by TCA), you need only examine the label. Those with high cotton or linen content in the labels should start at 90 points. Beeswax capsules are worth 3 points. Gold foil is worth another 3 points. Please keep in mind that you should maximize all ratings at 100 points to avoid consumer confusion. Wines made by a Turley, a Melka, or an Egelhoff should start at 92 points. If a Harlan is involved, please note that 98 points are the minimum unless the vintage ends in a "98" or an "00."

LMFAO !!!!!

GPN: Great piece. I'm printing it and putting it up in my office.

ML: Your experience with wine scores decreasing is completely natural. I find the same thing happening as my palate develops. Basically, you taste a really good wine, it does some cool stuff, and then when you taste the wine you liked yesterday and realize that it doesn't have the same "oomph," you want to rate it lower. It takes years to get a stable scale in your head.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
This is an excellent methodology and the first time I've ever heard of it. Is this only a RP 'thing' or is this the method associated with the 100 point scoring system?? Do the WS Editors use this method??

This helps me out immensely. Thanx for the tip PH.

I've never heard anyone break it down like this except Parker. I'm sure the WS editors assign some components of their score to differing aspects of the wine, but cannot recall anyone specifying it like this. Glad it helped.

PH

Mezzo, YOU don't need to calibrate your score/taste to that of the pro's. People who read your notes need to calibrate THEIR tastes to yours.

In addition to the professional wine reviewers, there are about a dozen people whose notes I value and consider seriously when a wine they review becames available to me. Over time, I've come to know where my tastes lie relative to theirs-- in some cases a bit higher, in some lower. And as you've already mentioned, I've seen a progression in some of those people's scores where they've become "tougher" graders, so I've made a small adjustment.

The reviews that you put on-line should be based on the standard that you set for yourself; it doesn't take long for other people to clue in on what styles you prefer, and where you might differ from them. As T. Matthews stated so well, "First, aim for "consistency"." After that, don't sweat it. Either your notes will be useful to others, or they won't. You'll really never know, and shouldn't worry about it.

Just take the plunge and don’t worry about score or palate adjustment down the road. And the cellartracker curve will eventually work out any scores out of wack.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:
I still think giving a wine a score based on the 100- point scale is more important than the description...

Mezzo, I couldn't disagree with you more.

As you yourself have pointed out, your scoring is going to change as you develop more experience. This means that you won't be able to rely on the score you assigned when looking back over time.

Therefore, what you have left is your tasting notes. Sure a tasting note has a conclusion, but there's so much more to it. So learn about DESCRIBING a wine and then discover which of those components that you like. Then years later you can go to your notes and know exactly how that wine looked and smelled and tasted in terms of reference that you, or anyone else could understand. And while your likes may change year over year, your notes will be accurate and you could evaluate whether you would like that wine today.

I also believe that learning how to write an accurate, universally understood tasting note is a MUCH more difficult skill than simply assigning a score. I'm only scratching the surface of learning this skill.

I personally don't assign scores yet, even in my own notes. I hope one day to do so. But I don't feel qualified yet, even if I keep the score to myself. Why? Because I haven't tried enough 100 point wines to know what the upper limit should be. How can I score a wine 98 points when I don't know what it takes to be 100 points?

But even when I do begin to assign scores, I'll rely on the tasting note for my real understanding of that wine.

StarV100, maybe I didn't explain myself enough. Let me put it this way. After a couple of years of tasting and assessing various Cali cabs, one should be able to guess what a 92 point cab will taste like versus a 84 pointer (without actually tasting it), even though the decriptors may be somewhat similar. I actually do put value in the TNs, but ultimately a score needs to be given.

BTW, your last note makes a great point (my point):

"How can I (A NEWBIE) score a wine 98 points when I don't know what it takes to be 100 points?"

So....where does one begin when it comes to scoring? I think everyone (including newbies) should attempt to score wines and keep that info to themselves until they have enough experience to share that kind of information. Tasting Notes are very important to help "explain" a wine. The score is the final word. The final summation.

You're clearly dealing with a shifting paradigm. A year after I was serious about wine, the best wine I ever tasted was a 1994 Silver Oak Napa. At the time, that would've been a 100 pointer for me. Two years later, the best wine I ever tasted was a 1997 Turley Hayne Zin. At that point, the Silver Oak would've been 97 points, and the Turley Hayne would've been 100 points.

Now, almost a decade later, I'd shift them all down. I've tasted about a dozen wines that WS or RMP has given 100 points, and I'd generally agree with their assessments. The wines that I used to think were perfect were actually "really good" but not great.

Your perceptions are based largely on your experience. Whenever I taste a wine that I think cannot be improved upon, I have always (so far) found a wine to top it.