Antonio explains score inflation...

Tasting notes, varietals, grapes - anything related to wine
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 2675
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #1  Postby Jim Brennan » December 29th 2012, 10:33pm

From here, for those who still subscribe: http://www.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=243418

I suppose this is the statement that offers the most concise summary:

At the outset, my writing focused on a fairly small number of Piedmont estates that are mostly well-known today, with the exception of a few traditional estates that did not receive much coverage back then. As the years passed, my exposure to wines grew, but where? Was I tasting more great, iconic wines, or was the growth in mid and lower-tier properties? Mostly the latter. As a result of tasting hundreds and now thousands of wines a year that are average at best, my appreciation for what it takes to make a good wine, a great wine and a potentially historic wine has evolved. And that is why the scores for the best wines are higher today than they were years ago.


So it sounds like he's saying that he has now had so much experience with average and poor wines, that he realized he was actually scoring good wines too low in the past.

[stirthepothal.gif]

Sounds more like the proverbial "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit."

Advertisement

User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bad Horse is a Horse.
 
Posts: 5333
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #2  Postby Larry P » December 29th 2012, 11:49pm

It would be so much simpler to just give his old boss credit for improving winemaking everywhere, resulting in universally higher scores.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Sanjay Nandurkar
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 1094
Joined: June 3rd 2011, 10:52pm

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #3  Postby Sanjay Nandurkar » December 29th 2012, 11:50pm

You mean he could have adopted Drew Carey's slogan from "Whose Line is it Anyway" ...This a tasting note where everything is made up and points don't matter!!
User avatar
brigcampbell
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 4120
Joined: April 7th 2010, 12:17pm
Location: Socal

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #4  Postby brigcampbell » December 30th 2012, 12:00am

Larry P wrote:It would be so much simpler to just give his old boss credit for improving winemaking everywhere, resulting in universally higher scores.


Bravo Larry!
Chris Seiber is the kindest, warmest, bravest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.
User avatar
Rick Gregory
 
Posts: 8729
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Seattle

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #5  Postby Rick Gregory » December 30th 2012, 1:16am

Jim Brennan wrote:From here, for those who still subscribe: http://www.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=243418

I suppose this is the statement that offers the most concise summary:

At the outset, my writing focused on a fairly small number of Piedmont estates that are mostly well-known today, with the exception of a few traditional estates that did not receive much coverage back then. As the years passed, my exposure to wines grew, but where? Was I tasting more great, iconic wines, or was the growth in mid and lower-tier properties? Mostly the latter. As a result of tasting hundreds and now thousands of wines a year that are average at best, my appreciation for what it takes to make a good wine, a great wine and a potentially historic wine has evolved. And that is why the scores for the best wines are higher today than they were years ago.


So it sounds like he's saying that he has now had so much experience with average and poor wines, that he realized he was actually scoring good wines too low in the past.

[stirthepothal.gif]

Sounds more like the proverbial "if you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, then baffle 'em with bullshit."

That doesn't even make sense... (his explanation).
Dang Rick, I think that's right
Nate Simon
 
Posts: 1144
Joined: September 17th 2009, 8:41pm

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #6  Postby Nate Simon » December 30th 2012, 1:24am

I see. So, the wines that were good back then didn't seem as good and the scores weren't as high as they should have been because he didn't realize how good they were, or how bad the others were in comparison, or exactly how much better the good ones were, but now that he understands wine more, he can see that more points should be given to wines like those to which he should have given more points back then, so if he tastes wines like those with scores that were too low, he will make amends by giving them extra-special scores in commemoration of those poor great wines that got scores that were lower than they deserved.
User avatar
C Zeitler
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 371
Joined: June 12th 2009, 6:16am
Location: Geneva, Switzerland

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #7  Postby C Zeitler » December 30th 2012, 2:31am

The key word here is "evolved". I am baffled that you judge somebody so harshly who admits that his overview of the wine world has indeed "evolved", i.e. his tastings add to his experience and knowledge. Sounds sensible to me.I find this more honest than the usual "I am Mr. Perfect" BS that you hear everywhere now. But maybe I am just so tired of this because I see it in my corporate environement every day.

C.
User avatar
Marcus Stanley
 
Posts: 444
Joined: November 1st 2010, 3:31pm

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #8  Postby Marcus Stanley » December 30th 2012, 3:16am

One would think that there would be plenty of room in the never-used 0-85 point range of the Parker/WA 100 point scale to accomodate all the 'mid to lower tier' wines one could want. Hard to see why scoring more average to mediocre wines would make it necessary to further abandon the 85-90+ point part of the range and shrink it to a scale of less than ten points.

A more honest confession would probably have read something like "after tasting thousands of wines I realized that numerical scores for infant wines are bullshit, so I collapsed things to a four point scale of less than 90 (let's not even review), 90 (pretty good wine), 95 (really good wine), and 100 (awesome wine!). Then high-end producers learned how to ensure lots of glossy fruit in their barrel samples, and since most of what you can really be sure about in a barrel sample is fruit, all the young wines are tasting really good these days".
User avatar
Robert.Fleming
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6682
Joined: June 11th 2009, 1:58pm
Location: Atlanta

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #9  Postby Robert.Fleming » December 30th 2012, 6:36am

C Zeitler wrote: I am baffled that you judge somebody so harshly ....

Don't come here often, eh?
Antonio Galloni
 
Posts: 27
Joined: August 30th 2010, 8:47am

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #10  Postby Antonio Galloni » December 30th 2012, 6:47am

I explained what has changed in my formal tasting process. Over the years, though, something else happened, which I have written about in the past on our board. I started tasting and drinking the widely acknowledged great wines from all over the world more frequently than in the past. I remember a dinner where the wines were 97 Quintarelli Alzero, 1989 Giacosa SSR, 1989 Haut-Brion, 1990 Rousseau Chambertin and 1990 La Tache. Or another: 1970 Latour/Vega Sicilia/Monfortino, or the lunch meant to feature 1970s-1990s DRC Richebourgs where a 1998 Soldera Riserva stole the show. These informal get togethers, although infrequent relative to my formal tastings, rightly or wrongly, had a profound impact on my appreciation of Italian wines relative to the great wines of the rest of the world. And yes, this is around the time when my ratings for Italian wines started to inch up to reflect the view that the best Italian wines were every bit as great as the best wines from other regions.

I prefer to deal with facts. There can be no question winemaking has improved all over the world. Look at the 2005 vintage in Piedmont. Weather forecasting told growers a big storm that might last over a week was approaching towards the end of the season, so most people brought the fruit in before the rains, which ended up lasting 7-10 days, depending on the exact place. Before weather forecasting, that fruit would have been brought in under or after the rain, and the quality of the wines would have been totally different. Those great $20 Langhe Nebbiolos? Many of them didn't exist before the 2008/2009 crisis, but growers are being more selective as to what goes into their single-vineyard wines, so the Langhe Nebbiolos and straight (non-vineyard designate) Barolos/Barbarescos are better than ever. A famous Tuscan producer told me recently sales of his high-end red ($60+ retail) are down 75% from the go-go 1990s. Where is that juice going now? His sub $20 wine.

My view of wine criticism in general is different from that of some other critics out there. I have always strived to be exceedingly transparent and accessible. I think people deserve the truth. If the NYC Berserkers want to organize a small offline so we can discuss these issues mano a mano (just kidding!) I am in.
User avatar
Scott Brunson
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2596
Joined: November 15th 2011, 3:55am
Location: in between coastal SC and south FL

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #11  Postby Scott Brunson » December 30th 2012, 7:27am

thanks Antonio--curious why you didn't review Lewelling this year after you said such nice things last year.
Hourglass I understand [wink.gif]
Tous les chemins mènent à la Bourgogne!
On CT, I'm S1
Marc Frontario
 
Posts: 897
Joined: May 6th 2010, 4:00am

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #12  Postby Marc Frontario » December 30th 2012, 7:30am

It would be so much simpler to just give his old boss credit for improving winemaking everywhere, resulting in universally higher scores.


Then we should just stop drinking wines from the past, they have now all become irrelevant!! ;)
User avatar
Alan C h a n
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: January 28th 2009, 12:39pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #13  Postby Alan C h a n » December 30th 2012, 7:49am

Antonio, first of all, let me commend you on coming here, into the proverbial lion's den to explain your scoring. It takes guts and you've always engaged in what can be difficult discourse adeptly (especially in comparison to your predecessor on certain beats with whom I've attempted to have conversations). Also, I did read much of your latest Napa report and I do think you've done a very good job rating the wines relative to each other in a way that's as good as anyone I can imagine - of course there are wines where we disagree but that would be the case with anyone's ratings, I would guess.

I'm not by any means an expert on your body of work so let me explain my understanding and perhaps you or someone else here correct me if I have anything wrong. My general understanding is that prior to you taking over duties for California for WA, you had never given any 99s or 100s (or was it 98-100?) to any Italian wines in your years of writing about them in the Piedmont Report or WA. I also think you gave few, if any, scores of that level in last year's Napa report. Now you have given dozens of wines that level of rating in the latest Napa report.

So, my questions: are you saying these latest Napa wines are better than anything that you tasted in Italy all those years, or that you probably underscored some of those Italian wines in years past? Also, I believe you scored many fewer wines in the 98, 99, 100 range in last year's Napa report, and I'm guessing the same holds true for your Italy reports last year, so even if your explanation is "evolution in your knowledge and views", it would seem to me that evolution seems not so gradual, but quite recent and sudden. (And thus, it feels like you might be caving into pressure to give scores that are either more Bob-like, or a competitive response to the ever-escalating scores of certain other critics.) Do I have that wrong?

(For what it's worth, this is a purely academic exercise for me. At some level I find splitting of hairs between a 95, a 97 or 100 to be silly. My view is that once you get to about 94-100 range, whether a wine feels like a 94 or 100 to anyone, even seasoned knowledgeable tasters, is almost entirely up to personal preference and not quality difference.)

Also, perhaps a more important question is, what is the status of your future at WA? No sense in overanalyzing this report if they are lame duck scores. Sorry if this is too direct on what I imagine may be a sensitive issue around WA these days.

Lastly, count me in for any NYC offline you participate in!
Last edited by Alan C h a n on December 30th 2012, 7:55am, edited 1 time in total.
The Amateur Wino wine blog
User avatar
Dan Hammer
SubscriberSubscriber
Macher
 
Posts: 3293
Joined: June 3rd 2009, 11:05am
Location: flight Level 3 seven thousand. NYC Metro

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #14  Postby Dan Hammer » December 30th 2012, 7:53am

Antonio Galloni wrote: If the NYC Berserkers want to organize a small offline so we can discuss these issues mano a mano (just kidding!) I am in.


February 25. viewtopic.php?f=8&t=75327
I specialize in airline miles and hotel points, with a minor in wine.

2013 WOTY

2010 Schrader Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon "Old Sparky" Beckstoffer To-Kalon Vineyard
2008 Lewelling Cabernet Sauvignon Wight
2011 Myriad Cellars Cabernet Sauvignon Beckstoffer Dr. Crane Vineyard
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 30025
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #15  Postby Ken V » December 30th 2012, 8:56am

Alan, here are Antonio's 100s with the region and date of score:

Barolo: Feb 2010
Champagne: Jul 2011
Barolo: Oct 2011
Tuscany: Jun 2012
Burgundy: Aug 2012
2 x Cali Cab: Dec 2012

For 99 point scores from Antonio, there were 5 Italian wines, 2 Champagnes, and a Burgundy rated 99 before the one recent Cali Cab.
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
User avatar
larry schaffer
 
Posts: 2991
Joined: January 28th 2009, 10:26am
Location: Santa Ynez Valley, CA

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #16  Postby larry schaffer » December 30th 2012, 9:03am

Antonio,

Thanks for jumping on board - and thanks for your frankness. Truly appreciated. You say it as you see it - nothing more, nothing less. Just wish folks would let it be and appreciate it for what it is . . .

I also appreciate your comments about the likes of Maybach and others - if you like the wines, should one really care about an arbitrary score? Of course not . . .

Cheers.
larry schaffer
tercero wines
User avatar
John Morris
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: June 21st 2009, 2:09pm
Location: New York City

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #17  Postby John Morris » December 30th 2012, 9:13am

Thanks for the posting, Antonio, and for being so open about this.

I take it from what you said here (and I don't have access to eBob anymore) that you were referring to scores for Italian wines -- that your view of the best of them had changed after tasting a broader range of wines more intensely. Have I got that right?
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- variously attributed and constantly corroborated
Andrew Kaufman
(Online)
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6110
Joined: March 12th 2012, 10:09am
Location: San Fernando Valley, CA.

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #18  Postby Andrew Kaufman » December 30th 2012, 9:14am

Ken V wrote:Alan, here are Antonio's 100s with the region and date of score:

Barolo: Feb 2010
Champagne: Jul 2011
Barolo: Oct 2011
Tuscany: Jun 2012
Burgundy: Aug 2012
2 x Cali Cab: Dec 2012

For 99 point scores from Antonio, there were 5 Italian wines, 2 Champagnes, and a Burgundy rated 99 before the one recent Cali Cab.


Ken are the scores out on ebob for Dec 2012? Two 100 pointers.
User avatar
Alan C h a n
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: January 28th 2009, 12:39pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #19  Postby Alan C h a n » December 30th 2012, 9:40am

Thanks Ken - perhaps I have not framed the score cutoff correctly but I still have the same question whether we are looking at sdores from 98-100 or 96-100. Also, I think if you take into account the barrel scores given, there is a palpable shift upward in scores, as Antonio has admitted. To me it seems more shift than is warranted by CA vintage variation, and I'd like to square it with Antonio's past work in Italy, etc. If it is about evolution, perhaps Antonio or someone else with broad knowledge of his scoring can shed light as to whether that evolution was truly gradual or more recent and sudden as it feels to me.
The Amateur Wino wine blog
User avatar
Jim Brennan
 
Posts: 2675
Joined: April 17th 2009, 6:10pm
Location: People's Republic of Illinois

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #20  Postby Jim Brennan » December 30th 2012, 11:07am

Thanks for the insights Antonio.

If i understand you correctly, It sounds like you're saying that you were previously more conservative on the better/best Italian wines, due to having a limited frame of reference to the best wines from other regions?
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 30025
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #21  Postby Ken V » December 30th 2012, 11:15am

Andrew Kaufman wrote:Ken are the scores out on ebob for Dec 2012? Two 100 pointers.

No, I got them from a guy in Singapore. [snort.gif]

Yes Andrew, that's where I got them. The 12/12 issue was posted a few days ago.
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
User avatar
Larry P
SubscriberSubscriber
Bad Horse is a Horse.
 
Posts: 5333
Joined: June 21st 2010, 3:13pm
Location: Livermore, CA

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #22  Postby Larry P » December 30th 2012, 11:45am

Antonio, re-reading it looks like you're trying to justify the greater number of 100-point wines recently. I can buy that more experience with great wines will build the confidence to award 100 points.

However, I had trouble understanding the meaning because to me, a greater problem with score inflation is the large number of very average wines scoring in the low-90s. When I got into wine about 25 years ago, a Wine Advocate 85 was a very good wine. Now it seems anything below 90 is not recommended, and 90-93 is loaded with mediocrity. Your comments seem to agree at least with the idea that there is a vast sea of very average (read: boring) wine out there. Care to comment about score inflation in the 85-90 point range? This is an area of great interest to me, since these are the wines I'm most likely to be buying and drinking on a regular basis. I don't have any interest at all in 100-pointers.
P ! g g ! n s

"You keep me searching for a heart of gold" - Neil Young
"Metal heart, you're not worth a thing" - Cat Power
Jim Slatin
 
Posts: 75
Joined: June 5th 2011, 11:14pm

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #23  Postby Jim Slatin » December 30th 2012, 11:52am

It's funny how some can attack the man for his opinion, which we all have one. He came on this site and explained that the way he analyzes and scores wines have evolved as of late as a result of new experiences. Haven't we all gone through that and do we get attacked for it. The question is do you agree with his palate or not and then allow him to do his work. I admire him for coming on here and it made sense. I personally agree with Tanzer more often then the others because i find my palate is more in line with his.

A lot of those who bitched about parker's high scores went out and payed top dollar for those wines so they could impress people or for future investments. Then they further complained about the climbing prices of those wines when they themselves are ultimately responsible for those prices. It's not RP's or Antonio's fault prices have sky rocketed--they don't force us as consumers to bend over. so lets give them a break and just drink wines we like instead of basing our purchase decisions off of one critics opinion. remember, the purpose of these write ups by critics should be to assist us in or searches for good juice and is not meant to be the holy grail that drives some to go out and buy cases of a wine that they haven't even tried yet. What are we sheep. We're supposed to be able to think for ourselves.
User avatar
John Morris
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 6528
Joined: June 21st 2009, 2:09pm
Location: New York City

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #24  Postby John Morris » December 30th 2012, 12:01pm

Jim Slatin wrote:A lot of those who bitched about parker's high scores went out and payed top dollar for those wines so they could impress people or for future investments. Then they further complained about the climbing prices of those wines when they themselves are ultimately responsible for those prices.


I'm with you that Antonio is being commendably open about this.

However, I think what you say confuses (a) complaints about score inflation with (b) complaints about high scores driving up prices, which are two separate things.

I think the tendency to give so many scores over 90 and 95 has debased the scale.

I don't really have an issue with consumers having information that affects demand, so (b) doesn't bother me. Moreover, for my palate, I find so many high WA and WS scores to be bizarre, that I find the inflation a positive factor because it steers a lot of money from the wines I like to things I don't.
"We've all heard that a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters will eventually reproduce the entire works of Shakespeare. Now, thanks to the Internet, we know this is not true." -- variously attributed and constantly corroborated
User avatar
Eric LeVine
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 11148
Joined: January 27th 2009, 9:58pm
Location: Seattle, WA & Bern, Switzerland

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #25  Postby Eric LeVine » December 30th 2012, 12:13pm

Antonio has always been amazingly and commendably transparent.
-Eric LeVine (ITB)
It rhymes with wine...
Doug Schulman
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 2210
Joined: October 21st 2009, 9:42am
Location: MA

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #26  Postby Doug Schulman » December 30th 2012, 12:21pm

John Morris wrote:I think the tendency to give so many scores over 90 and 95 has debased the scale.

I agree completely, especially about scores above 90. I and many people think that so many such scores from several major critics do not make sense. This doesn't seem to be what Antonio was discussing in the post that spurred the starting of this thread, and I don't follow his reviews so am unaware of whether or not he is anywhere near as much a part of the trend as most other major critics are, but I would be interested to know what he thinks of this common complaint.

As far as the explanation for awarding more 99 and 100 point scores recently, it makes sense to me.
ITB - retail sales and education
User avatar
Ken V
SubscriberSubscriber
Fine Wine Geek
 
Posts: 30025
Joined: January 27th 2009, 1:42pm
Location: Delmar, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #27  Postby Ken V » December 30th 2012, 12:58pm

My perception is that long ago (before Antonio came on the scene) both Parker and the Spectator rated plenty of wines in the 80s indicating wines well worthy buying at the right price, esp. in 85-89. But retailers noticed that many customers had a hard cut-off at 90. There was lots of discussion about little difference in sales between 88 and 89 points or between 90 and 91, but crossing from 89 to 90 made a huge difference. As time went on, both customers and winemakers viewed an 89 as the kiss of death. Some merchants even tried to play against this by having an "89 point sale". Lots of good wines at good prices. Sadly, I think it was mostly customer response that caused scores in the 80s to be undervalued.
Ken V @ s t o l @
The Fine Wine Geek
Click on the W W W button under my name to see my website.
"Don't be meek, embrace the geek." -Terry Theise
Twitter: @FineWineGeek
User avatar
Alan Rath
(Online)
 
Posts: 5124
Joined: April 24th 2009, 12:45am
Location: Fremont, Ca

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #28  Postby Alan Rath » December 30th 2012, 1:10pm

Antonio Galloni wrote:I remember a dinner where the wines were 97 Quintarelli Alzero, 1989 Giacosa SSR, 1989 Haut-Brion, 1990 Rousseau Chambertin and 1990 La Tache. Or another: 1970 Latour/Vega Sicilia/Monfortino, or the lunch meant to feature 1970s-1990s DRC Richebourgs where a 1998 Soldera Riserva stole the show. These informal get togethers, although infrequent relative to my formal tastings, rightly or wrongly, had a profound impact on my appreciation of Italian wines relative to the great wines of the rest of the world. And yes, this is around the time when my ratings for Italian wines started to inch up to reflect the view that the best Italian wines were every bit as great as the best wines from other regions.

Antonio, your participation here is appreciated. I can see your argument for elevating a very few Italian and other wines, based on their quality level relative to the best wines of the world. But my own reaction the few times I have had the chance to tasted a truly great wine is to remind myself how many wines, even very good ones, do not reach those lofty levels. And that the score compression we've seen is really the opposite of what should be happening. I would urge you to consider a gradual expansion of the score range, pushing back down into at least the 80s. And personally, I reserve scores about 95 for wines that have clearly proved their quality, which can only happen over time with development in the bottle. You could easily institute a rule that no recently released wine can score over 95, and higher scores are reserved for retrospective tastings later in a wine's life.

I happen to think that rating wines very highly has at least a small component of narcissism on the part of the reviewer, bringing attention based on being the messenger, discovering some great new wine others don't know about, etc. That kind of thing happens all the time here on the wine boards, but is easy to filter or ignore when amateurs like us do it. When it infuses professional critique, it's much more difficult to filter. I would urge you to resist giving out such high scores, and try to gradually push scores back into a range where a very infrequent 98 or 99 actually means something.
Cheers
Last edited by Alan Rath on December 30th 2012, 1:17pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mike pobega
SubscriberSubscriber
King Cab/Prince of Pinot
 
Posts: 8414
Joined: January 27th 2009, 4:26pm

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #29  Postby mike pobega » December 30th 2012, 1:13pm

Antonio Galloni wrote:. If the NYC Berserkers want to organize a small offline so we can discuss these issues mano a mano (just kidding!) I am in.


Sounds great. I will happily bring the 2010 Maybach (see may avatar). I will be happy to set it up if you are serious. I have a little experience doing such tastings.
----email me at mike at pobega dot com if so. Awaiting your email.

[cheers.gif]
WOTY 2013
2011 Rivers-Marie Cabernet Panek Vineyard
2011 Quivet Cellars Syrah Hulda Block Las Madres Vineyard
2005 Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon Majories Vineyard Premiere Napa Valley Auction
Dan.Gord0n
 
Posts: 1649
Joined: May 10th 2010, 10:47am

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #30  Postby Dan.Gord0n » December 30th 2012, 1:45pm

Ken V wrote:Alan, here are Antonio's 100s with the region and date of score:

Barolo: Feb 2010
Champagne: Jul 2011
Barolo: Oct 2011
Tuscany: Jun 2012
Burgundy: Aug 2012
2 x Cali Cab: Dec 2012

For 99 point scores from Antonio, there were 5 Italian wines, 2 Champagnes, and a Burgundy rated 99 before the one recent Cali Cab.


So, Antonio has rated merely 16 wines either 99 or 100pts from many regions and vintages and people are upset....seems odd. Given the quality of winemaking in those regions how hard is it to believe that there would be at least 16 wines made of that quality....particularly given the quality of some of the vintages reviewed. Either you have a full scale that goes to 100 or you pretend it doesn't and the greatest wines only get 98pts even though they are the best of the best.

I also have always thought there to be a different scale when it comes to Italian wines and Burgs compared to CA cabs, Bordeaux and Rhones...from most every critic. Has the WA in its history awarded more than 10 100pt scores to Burgs? What about Italy? Great winemakers and some great vintages over the years but very few (on a relative basis) high scores.

Gee, Parker gave 17 wines 100pts just from the 2010 Northern Rhone....even if that was far too many and it was cut in half of quarter still a lot from other regions.
User avatar
Todd Tucker
 
Posts: 680
Joined: May 18th 2010, 4:49pm
Location: Tucson, AZ

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #31  Postby Todd Tucker » December 30th 2012, 4:46pm

I find no problem with the scores that AG has had and the "inflation", especially with his forthright discussion of this in the past and having the guts to come here and reply. It actually seems pretty honest and practical. I should not be, but still am baffled by some of the WA bashing here. It seems at least from his previous explanations that he acted pretty damn smartly and humbly with the earlier Piedmont reports. It shows some humility and self awareness that I think is pretty impressive, to allow for the possibility that one does not know all: holding off the giant numbers because he was aware of not having been exposed widely to the non Italian icons of wine. His approach shows wisdom that avoids a myopic world view. It sounds like he tasted the best Piedmont wines and left room to spare figuring there may be some world famous wines he has not tried may be better than these Italian stars. Then with comparison, he realizes that they stand toe to to with the icons of Bordeaux and Burgundy et. al. Sometimes you need to see the world the realize how great something from your own backyard is. He has seen the vinous world now and has a yardstick that goes to 100 now.
User avatar
Andrew Demaree
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 974
Joined: January 23rd 2011, 8:33am
Location: Saratoga Springs, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #32  Postby Andrew Demaree » December 30th 2012, 4:57pm

Todd Tucker wrote:I find no problem with the scores that AG has had and the "inflation", especially with his forthright discussion of this in the past and having the guts to come here and reply. It actually seems pretty honest and practical. I should not be, but still am baffled by some of the WA bashing here. It seems at least from his previous explanations that he acted pretty damn smartly and humbly with the earlier Piedmont reports. It shows some humility and self awareness that I think is pretty impressive, to allow for the possibility that one does not know all: holding off the giant numbers because he was aware of not having been exposed widely to the non Italian icons of wine. His approach shows wisdom that avoids a myopic world view. It sounds like he tasted the best Piedmont wines and left room to spare figuring there may be some world famous wines he has not tried may be better than these Italian stars. Then with comparison, he realizes that they stand toe to to with the icons of Bordeaux and Burgundy et. al. Sometimes you need to see the world the realize how great something from your own backyard is. He has seen the vinous world now and has a yardstick that goes to 100 now.


+1
User avatar
Alan C h a n
 
Posts: 1328
Joined: January 28th 2009, 12:39pm
Location: New York, NY

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #33  Postby Alan C h a n » December 31st 2012, 5:53am

Dan.Gord0n wrote:
So, Antonio has rated merely 16 wines either 99 or 100pts from many regions and vintages and people are upset....seems odd. Given the quality of winemaking in those regions how hard is it to believe that there would be at least 16 wines made of that quality....particularly given the quality of some of the vintages reviewed. Either you have a full scale that goes to 100 or you pretend it doesn't and the greatest wines only get 98pts even though they are the best of the best.

I also have always thought there to be a different scale when it comes to Italian wines and Burgs compared to CA cabs, Bordeaux and Rhones...from most every critic. Has the WA in its history awarded more than 10 100pt scores to Burgs? What about Italy? Great winemakers and some great vintages over the years but very few (on a relative basis) high scores.

Gee, Parker gave 17 wines 100pts just from the 2010 Northern Rhone....even if that was far too many and it was cut in half of quarter still a lot from other regions.


Dan, have you read the report? If you were referring to my posts, they were not just about 16 wines, but the scoring broadly. Not sure if Ken counted only wines with final bottle scores etc. for 99/100, but looking at wines rated 96 and above for final score, and wines with a barrel score of at least (96-98), how many do you think were in this Napa report? Over 100 by my quick count. Also, I'm not upset about that, I just want to know how to interpret these scores, because they seem to me to be markedly higher than AG's scores for Napa last year and I'm guessing they are markedly higher than he has scored the best vintages from Italian regions. When placed in the context of 1) Bob handing out big bunches of high scores as you point out, 2) critics like Suckling seemingly starting an arms race of high scores, 3) the hue and cry about AG's scores being too low last year by various high-score-loving Napa fans and 4) the recent sale of a possibly controlling interest in the WA, I want to know, has AG adjusted his scoring, or is this set of Napa wines that much better than those in last year's report, and that much better than any vintage he has tasted in Italy, etc. If it's an evolutionary process, how much of that evolution happened in just the last year since his 1st Napa report?
The Amateur Wino wine blog
User avatar
Bill Klapp
SubscriberSubscriber
 
Posts: 3364
Joined: June 27th 2009, 12:50am
Location: Neive (CN), Italia

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #34  Postby Bill Klapp » December 31st 2012, 7:00am

Dan.Gord0n wrote:
Ken V wrote:Alan, here are Antonio's 100s with the region and date of score:

Barolo: Feb 2010
Champagne: Jul 2011
Barolo: Oct 2011
Tuscany: Jun 2012
Burgundy: Aug 2012
2 x Cali Cab: Dec 2012

For 99 point scores from Antonio, there were 5 Italian wines, 2 Champagnes, and a Burgundy rated 99 before the one recent Cali Cab.


So, Antonio has rated merely 16 wines either 99 or 100pts from many regions and vintages and people are upset....seems odd. Given the quality of winemaking in those regions how hard is it to believe that there would be at least 16 wines made of that quality....particularly given the quality of some of the vintages reviewed. Either you have a full scale that goes to 100 or you pretend it doesn't and the greatest wines only get 98pts even though they are the best of the best.

I also have always thought there to be a different scale when it comes to Italian wines and Burgs compared to CA cabs, Bordeaux and Rhones...from most every critic. Has the WA in its history awarded more than 10 100pt scores to Burgs? What about Italy? Great winemakers and some great vintages over the years but very few (on a relative basis) high scores.

Gee, Parker gave 17 wines 100pts just from the 2010 Northern Rhone....even if that was far too many and it was cut in half of quarter still a lot from other regions.


Antonio's 100-pointers are not a suitable yardstick, because he is not, and never has been, Parker in that regard. Here is the yardstick for Napa wines in WA issue 204:

Of 895 wines covering a little less than 18 pages, the first sub-90 score shows up on page 17. "Firm" sub-90 scores are 27 89s, 27 88s, 12 87s and 4 86s, for a total of 70 of 895, or 7.8%. (There are also 5 89-92s, 13 89-91s, 1 88-91s, 5 88-90s and 2 89+s, for a total of 26 that could go either way.)

At the top, we find the following (I arbitrarily used the POSSIBILITY of 96 or more as my cutoff, to track Parker's 96-100 "extraordinary" category):

100-2
99+-1
98+-7
98-100-2
98-13
97-99-1
97+-8
97-25
96-98-7
96+-15
96-31
95-97-13
95+-19
94-96+-1
94-96-12
93-96-2
93-95+-1

Total 160, or 17.9% are potentially "extraordinary" wines. (Of those, 13 were from the 2011 vintage, 95 from 2010, 48 from 2009, 1 from 2008, 2 from 2007 and 1 from 2006.) For those for whom 95 is the psychological cutoff for greatness (despite the published scale for WA "extraordinary" wines being 96-100), there were 40 95s, 15 93-95s and 8 92-95s as well, meaning that over 25% of the 895 wines tasted were potentially 95 points or more. And before there is any whining about the inclusion of bracketed scores as potential 95s or 96s, please count how many of Antonio's 2009 scores achieved either the top number in the bracket or exceeded the top number in the bracket.

I will have more to say on this later, and without meaning to rain on the parade of what apparently is a majority on all wine boards of those who drink CA wines dominantly or exclusively, and may honestly believe that they are superior to Old World wines, it is patently absurd for any critic to assert that there could be that many "extraordinary" wines coming out of Napa over a two-year period. None of Antonio's rationales hold any water in that regard...
User avatar
Joe B
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: October 28th 2012, 2:40pm
Location: illinois

Re: Antonio explains score inflation...

Post #35  Postby Joe B » December 31st 2012, 7:16am

As a coin collector I have been really puzzled by the rating system for wine. Coins are graded by professionals on a scale of 0-70. There are practically very very few 68-70. Very very very rare. They also have or use the scale all the way down to zero. You never see sub 84 wine ratings so what is the point with the system. Also. Far too many perfect scores. It's rediculous to me. Something in the wine industry smells fishy to me. If this guy gives out less perfect scores I would be more inclined to believe him
J W@ll @ce

Return to Wine Talk