I'm curious about your views on scores if you believe in the 100-point (or multiple derivative thereof) numerical scale.
First off, do you believe in linear progression? For example, is the perceived gap in quality between 88 and 89 the same as the gap between 89 and 90 - both are just one point - or is there some kind of quantum leap to get past the 90 barrier? Looking at my personal database, I have a lot of wines scored in the 87 to 91 range, and when I make my notes I am sure to put down why I decided to cross the 90 barrier if I do.
Second, do you look at all 90s in the same way when looking at critics? If the above point holds true, then someone who decided to score 90+ must think there is something special about the wine, so even if you don't agree with them point to point is the wine perhaps worth trying out? Also, do all 90s from critics mean the same thing? When I see a 90 from Tanzer or Meadows, it piques my interest way more than one from RP or WS (a broad generalization, of course, not taking into account individual critics and so on...).
To summarize, I am curious to see, if you believe in the 100-point scale, whether (1) there is a non-linear leap in quality going from 89 to 90 and beyond and (2) whether there are certain critics whose 90+ score means you'll take a closer look...
Cheers from abroad,
...
Posts: 389 | Location: Toronto, ON | Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Personally, I think it's exponential, not linear. Especially when you cross the 95 point barrier. It really has to be special to get up there.
For me I look at who wrote the note first, then consider how that note and score correlates to my palate. In that context and for my palate, a 90 is not a 90 is not a 90 (or insert any other numerical value here).
89 points is a silver medal. 90 points is a gold medal. 89 is Excellent. 90 is Outstanding. 89 is a 'B'. 90 is an 'A'
On the other hand, the way Parker describes the scoring system is to score colour, aroma, taste and ageability individually and then add up the points. (I wonder if he realllly does that, either mentally or otherwise, rather than just deciding a score as a whole.) In which case the difference between 89 and 90 is just a single point; perhaps the nose was just a shade muted, or the tannins a little too harsh.
The other point is that every score over 80 is supposed to be a good score, yet most people on this board probably wouldn't even consider buying a wine that the critics had scored 81.
http://scmwine.info
Posts: 6562 | Location: Santa Clara Valley AVA | Registered: Jul 02, 2004
Originally posted by futronic: Personally, I think it's exponential, not linear. Especially when you cross the 95 point barrier. It really has to be special to get up there.
For me I look at who wrote the note first, then consider how that note and score correlates to my palate. In that context and for my palate, a 90 is not a 90 is not a 90 (or insert any other numerical value here).
Also seems non-linear to me. I feel like I know what is a 90 to me when I taste it. I do the same thing as fut, look who wrote it, look what the note says (in terms of what I like/dont like), and if I decide to buy (because I expect it will be a good qpr) then I buy/drink/informally rate/buy more or dont buy more. Pricing is not linear, so I don't expect quality to be linear, and if I would be willing to pay $Y for a 90, I would be willing to pay more than $Y x 1.055 for a 95 or $Y x 1.11 for a 100. I have found that I am far more likely to agree with scoring of the pros with a 90 than I am with a 95 (and I suppose the variance increases because of the perceived non-linear relationship). But I have only tasted about 6 different wines so far, so will get back to you in a few year.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Thanks for insights - I figured it was this way. Even though Parker has the "system", I still don't believe that it's "just a single point" that separates an 89 from a 90 - like Dave Tong said, it's the difference between a B and an A...
But, I find that when Tanzer or Meadows give a 90, I'm really intrigued because I know they don't hand them out like candy, unlike RP...
Posts: 389 | Location: Toronto, ON | Registered: Nov 10, 2008
Originally posted by The Economist: I'm curious about your views on scores if you believe in the 100-point (or multiple derivative thereof) numerical scale.
First off, do you believe in linear progression? For example, is the perceived gap in quality between 88 and 89 the same as the gap between 89 and 90 - both are just one point - or is there some kind of quantum leap to get past the 90 barrier? Looking at my personal database, I have a lot of wines scored in the 87 to 91 range, and when I make my notes I am sure to put down why I decided to cross the 90 barrier if I do.
Second, do you look at all 90s in the same way when looking at critics? If the above point holds true, then someone who decided to score 90+ must think there is something special about the wine, so even if you don't agree with them point to point is the wine perhaps worth trying out? Also, do all 90s from critics mean the same thing? When I see a 90 from Tanzer or Meadows, it piques my interest way more than one from RP or WS (a broad generalization, of course, not taking into account individual critics and so on...).
To summarize, I am curious to see, if you believe in the 100-point scale, whether (1) there is a non-linear leap in quality going from 89 to 90 and beyond and (2) whether there are certain critics whose 90+ score means you'll take a closer look...
Cheers from abroad,
...
This is a great topic. This is how I view the 100 point scale (props to the governor of spain in buffalo for helping me hone my scoring system. I score initially on an emotional responce....drink it and think is this good, great or off the charts (classic) Wine from 85-89 are good wines Wine from 90-95 are great wines Wine from 95-100 are of the charts.."classic" Once I have decided which "range" I am in, I hone in on whether I am just barely in the great range etc....the jump from 89 to 90, 94-95 and 99-100 are much bigger jumps than say 91-92. For me, if there is every any question as to which range I am in, then I am always in the lower one...same thing with wines in the 95-100 point range...if you have to ask yourself, it is not Classic. Similarly.....100 point wines screams at you in my experience....with these wines there is only 1 score. I have only done this on 3 occasions: 1990 Cos d'Estournel 1998 Guigal La Landonne 2001 Luciano Sandrone Cannubi Boschis
In terms of critics....I work more on the ones to avoid....which are harvey steiman, jay miller and natalie Maclean. Having said that, I am a big Neal Martin fan. Most other tasters are within a point so if I buy a 90 point rated wine on their reccomendation I am usually in the 89-91 score range.
Under 90 you can't sell it. Over 90 you can't find it. - Retailer
Under 90 you discount it first season. Over 90 you may discount it in a few years, if you haven't sold out. - Wholesaler
Ooh. Ninety points. Let's buy that one. - Customer
If I'm scoring the wine, because it's easier and more understandable to people, I use the same 15 - 20 point system that everyone else does. If I give it 89, it's pretty good, just not quite as good as something else. But I may feel differently in another five minutes. So I don't parse my own scores too finely and figure they're roughly good to plus or minus two points.
If I'm reading someone else's score, I assume the same, no matter who the critic is. I'd be very interested in meeting someone who on different days and in different settings, consistently gives the same wine the exact same score in blind tasting. I would however, expect them to be roughly in the same ballpark and with rather similar tasting notes. Otherwise, that's a useless critic.
If they don't taste blind, then why score at all? They're tasting their expectations. Not to say that their observations lack any merit, but I discount your score if you know exactly what you're drinking beforehand, because I don't know your bias and relationship with the source of the wine.
But I'm not going to base my own wine purchases based only on somebody else's score in any case. I have enough wine and if I buy something new, it's because I know and like it or because it's an interesting region, grape, treatment, producer, or whatever. So other than for merchandising purposes, scores are of interest in a fairly academic sense.
Posts: 794 | Location: NY | Registered: Dec 09, 2007
If they don't taste blind, then why score at all? They're tasting their expectations. Not to say that their observations lack any merit, but I discount your score if you know exactly what you're drinking beforehand, because I don't know your bias and relationship with the source of the wine.
Points are important for one's own personal reference too.
If I'm picking across varietals to buy, I don't bother with my notes if I just want something I know I would like to drink. I look up the score I gave it, and will just pick the one I gave the highest score to.
Posts: 3563 | Location: NYC | Registered: Feb 16, 2007
First off, do you believe in linear progression? For example, is the perceived gap in quality between 88 and 89 the same as the gap between 89 and 90 - both are just one point - or is there some kind of quantum leap to get past the 90 barrier? Looking at my personal database, I have a lot of wines scored in the 87 to 91 range, and when I make my notes I am sure to put down why I decided to cross the 90 barrier if I do.
Second, do you look at all 90s in the same way when looking at critics? If the above point holds true, then someone who decided to score 90+ must think there is something special about the wine, so even if you don't agree with them point to point is the wine perhaps worth trying out? Also, do all 90s from critics mean the same thing? When I see a 90 from Tanzer or Meadows, it piques my interest way more than one from RP or WS (a broad generalization, of course, not taking into account individual critics and so on...).
I do not believe it has a linear progression. For one thing, it doesn't starts at 0. And for Jay Miller, it ends at about 120.
(1) The whole 100 point scale and 89to90 leap for me is a relative relationship, limited to the extent that 90 is superior to 89 ( given they are rated by the same person )
(2) My purchasing decision around 88-91 points are more dictated by price than by points. I rather get a much cheaper 89 than a ripoff 90.
Posts: 157 | Location: Vancouver, BC | Registered: Jun 19, 2009
Like Gundam, I would rather buy a well priced 89 than a rip off 90.
My scoring system actually starts at 75. Todate, I have not been blessed with a 100, but have given mutilple 95-96s. I will tend to rate some wines 83-85 where the pros have rated them 86-88. I tend to put many wines in the high 70s that the pros put in the low 80s. Seems to me that years ago certain wines were chosen as standards, like Gallo Rhine Wine and given a 75 as a base standard. Scores were then based off that. To me that wine was maybe 70. So therein lies the problem. What is your basis for standards?
I think for me the 10s (80 & 90) are non-linear. The wine has to show something distinctive to make it over that hump.
I have a stated bias. If a wine is so over the top, that it will not pair with any food, then I will mark down the score. I am a food - wine guy. Palate fatigue from drinking a half glass of wine is a definite mark down in rating for me. This does not seem to be the case with the pros.
I believe in the 100 point scale as a foundation and a useful exercise, but it can , and is, taken too far.
It's mildly exponential. I interpret scores as placing a wine within a category. 90 is the low end of the excellent category and 89 is the high end of the very good category, and as such there is a great difference b/t and 89 and 90 than there is b/t 88 and 89.
All scores should come from blind tastings hands down.
Are you more likely to give a 90+ to a great producer based on past experiences or judge harder because of high expectations?
Remember being in school. Top producers (like A students)sometimes get A's based on their past work/wines; on the other hand sometimes the evaluator makes it harder on them to get an A because of high expectations.
Only Blind Tasting = Accurate Evaluation
Harp
Posts: 13 | Location: Las Vegas | Registered: Jun 18, 2009
As GregT talks about, I think that scores are variable between dates, multiple tastings at the same sitting, glassware, your health, the weather, state of mind etc… So I doubt my palate is honed to the degree that a 90 point wine to me in one instance will be a 90 point wine in another. I also agree with him though that it will be pretty range bound within a couple of points.
That’s why to me, I look at scores a little differently, more akin to BT scores.
<85 – not the 1st bottle, not the 2nd bottle, maybe the 3rd (if there’s less than 3 of us) i.e. drinkable but totally unremarkable. May be plonk or just uninteresting.
86-88 – Nice table wine. Quite drinkable but lacking in at least 1 area. Not memorable but not embarrassing.
89-91 – My drinking sweet-spot. Nice wine, would drink at an informal dinner with friends. Not overtly lacking anywhere and most qualities are above average.
92-94 – The bottom rung of very good wine. 1st bottle of the dinner party other than at very special occasions. Above average with at least 1 exceptional quality.
95-97 – Exceptional wine in every facet. Special occasion wine. Absolutely memorable.
98-100 – Extraordinary on every level. Stupendous and potentially life altering.
For me, I rate wines fairly linearly in the 75-95 point range. In the rare instances when I get wines I score over 95, I think the point separation gets a little wider. I have yet to taste a wine that I have given a 100 (or a 99) to, and I am trying to reserve that range for life-altering bottles that really leave me speechless. So for me, it is a little harder to get from 96 to 97 than it is to go from 94 to 95. That said, I'm thinking the major critics are pretty linear in general, even into the upper 90's, but I could be wrong.
For the wines I enjoy week-in and week-out, I would say that there is about the same separation between 89 and 90 points as there is between 92 and 93, or 85 and 86. And I make an effort to NOT view 90 as some magical threshold, as I have had too many wines that both I and major published critics have scored at 88 or 89, yet have thoroughly enjoyed. I think there is a tendency for all people to gravitate to round numbers as benchmarks, so I do feel that there is definitely a subconscious tendency in everyone (myself included) to put a special significance on the 90-point threshold.
------------------- "She wore a Mount Rushmore T-shirt, and those guys never looked so good--especially Jefferson and Lincoln--kind of bloated, but happy." --Guy Noir
Posts: 947 | Location: Saginaw, MI | Registered: Mar 12, 2007
85 – not the 1st bottle, not the 2nd bottle, maybe the 3rd (if there’s less than 3 of us) i.e. drinkable but totally unremarkable. May be plonk or just uninteresting.
Guess that's the point I was making. Rob kind of starts with < than a 85 being drinkable but totally unremarkable. With that discription would be in the high 70's for me.
Don't know Rob's age, but it's kind of like public education today. You get a B for showing up. I'm a old fart, you have to work for a C for just showing up. Guess that's the problem in a nut shell.
Originally posted by Rock&RollCowboy: Is it just me or does this guy remind anyone of Barrelmonkey??
---------- "Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink I feel shame. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes and dreams . If I didn't drink this wine, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, 'It is better that I drink this wine and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
- Jack Handy
Posts: 1088 | Location: San Diego | Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Originally posted by Sandy Fitzgerald: Rob Rutherford said
quote:
85 – not the 1st bottle, not the 2nd bottle, maybe the 3rd (if there’s less than 3 of us) i.e. drinkable but totally unremarkable. May be plonk or just uninteresting.
Guess that's the point I was making. Rob kind of starts with < than a 85 being drinkable but totally unremarkable. With that discription would be in the high 70's for me.
Don't know Rob's age, but it's kind of like public education today. You get a B for showing up. I'm a old fart, you have to work for a C for just showing up. Guess that's the problem in a nut shell.
30's. I think there might be some bottom range discussion though too. I'm scoring things that I would DRINK. To me, something in the 70's is something that I would take a sip of but not drink and therefore isn't included in the drinkable but totally unremarkable level that I described.
Say 80-85 is a pass, below that is a fail and isn't drunk.
