As many of you know, I gave a less than favorable review to a bottle of Beringer White Zinfandel last week. When I was poured a glass of this at a friend’s barbecue, I viewed it as an opportunity to give my honest opinion of the wine. After I had posted a quick write-up, I noticed someone referenced the wine holding a low 80’s score on CellarTracker. To me, a score in the low 80’s should at least resemble a sense of character or place. Sadly, what I had tasted barely resembled wine.
As a prominent figure in the wine world, I always admired Gary Vaynerchuk’s approach to scoring wines. If he strongly disliked what he tasted, he wouldn’t hesitate to throw out a low score. Was he being a sensationalist? I don’t think so. At the very least, I view Gary’s openness towards giving his unbiased opinion of a wine to be refreshing. Also, I know James Suckling used to dish out some low numbers to the wines he felt weren’t up to snuff.
Is it wrong of me to assume that most people grade wine on a generous curve? Is it somehow taboo to score a wine below 80 points in this day and age? Have improvements in winemaking been so drastic over the last 30 years, that bad wines no longer exist? Are we afraid to say we occasionally come across a downright unpleasant wine? I know I’m not. How about you?
i don’t think the reaction to your note had anything to do with your score, just that people thought you were bagging on the wine because it was beringer white zin not because of what you actually tasted.
My wife and I were having a similar conversation Sunday night. I agree that people are afraid to rate a wine too low. I loved when Vaynerchuk would throw out a 75 point rating to a wine that he thought wasn’t well made, overly manufactured, or wasn’t true to the varietal. It’s an honest rating.
When people don’t like a wine I feel like they use a 85-88 pt rating when in reality it should be rated a lot lower.
if you score a wine 55 and purport to be scoring it on the commonly accepted rubric, which is roughly, acc to my understanding, as follows–
90s - v. good to great
80s - average but unremarkable to good
70s - bad to below average
60s - very bad to bad
50s - undrinkable, flawed, etc.
– the wine better be absolutely undrinkable, poorly made, utter shit. modern winemaking makes this type of wine quite rare, and such wines are more commonly rated as “flawed” in CT. many of us have tasted the wine you reviewed, and it’s not that bad. your note screamed of label bias.
I think it is hard to answer this question because the question presupposes that everyone views scores the same. If I remember correctly, your score for the Berringer White Zinfadel was in the 50s. Your description evicerated the wine. Yet, it is still in the top half of the 100 point range. If the whole range is in play, why would it score in the 50s? Perhaps, you rated it in the 50s, because your low scores are from 50-70. For someone else, a low score may be 80-85. Thus, giving a wine an 82 would be giving out a low score. My point is that even an “objective” point based scale is infused with relativity.
I think that the recent thread regarding the 2012 Rivers Marie is an example of this. The OP gave the wine an 83, which started a thread that went on for 7 pages. Although there were a number of reasons for the interest in that thread, I believe that part of the interest was the fact that 83 was considered a very low score by some.
I do think that a score below 80 does draw attention. I think that this is partially due to the audience. For the most part, the wines consumed and discussed by members of this board are higher end wines. In theory, most of the wines should be well made and represent some of the better wines produced. For this reason, there should be fewer low scores posted. As such, “lower” scores tend to stand out more.
I think we’ve all seen times where people are giving out a very low score to get attention and/or to make some kind of statement about wine (e.g. “I give this Harlan 70 points because it’s too ripe, too oaky and too lush, and I only like really old-school cabs like Ridge”), rather than because the wine actually struck them as being that bad.
I didn’t feel that Mark’s note about Beriger white zin was in that category, but I guess others did. It’s not always clear what someone’s motive is, especially just over an internet message board.
To the specific question posed, yes, we tend to gravitate towards a high 80s to low 90s range, because it feels safer. If I give a Carlisle zin 93 points, nobody is going to look at me funny, but if I give it 98 points, people are going to think I’m just trying to get attention or make some kind of point. Ditto if you give the Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc 88 points versus 81 points.
Points, like words, are used as a form of communication. If you’ve used them in a way that helps to communicate your thoughts about the wine in some way that is of some use to some people, then that’s a good thing. If not, then it’s not. There is no objective judge of how you’ve done, but you just kind of go by feel and feedback sometimes to learn a good style.
I read a note like that and it’s pretty clear the wine actually struck them as being that bad. Is it always about attention? I think readers can tend to read way too much into writing.
People freak out when other people give wines they love low scores, as if the scorer must have an agenda, must be inexperienced, must be doing it wrong by drinking it too young, not enough decanting, wrong food, whatever. Haven’t we seen this again and again? A recent thread on Rivers Marie was a good recent example. A poster gave a wine an 82 and multiple people flipped out. Never mind that an 82 is still in the B range, above average, and even when the poster said this, people didn’t listen or or the insinuation was he wanted attention with a provocative score.
So are we afraid of scoring a wine too low? Yes, absolutely. And we need to look in the mirror instead of calling out others for speaking their minds.
I think it’s somewhere in-between these two ideas. I don’t think that anyone was surprised that Beringer White Zinfandel would be rated poorly by this board’s standards. However it’s also difficult to detach Beringer White Zinfandel and its reputation from the review itself. What if it was poured blind as any other Rose without the Beringer WZ perception? Would someone be as bold to give a Rose tasted blind 55 points? Or would an objective score be somewhere in the 70s or 80s without the label in mind?
I think the issue with labels is that when we have expectations for a wine (good or bad) we tend to look for elements in the wine to re-affirm them (unless we’re just being iconoclastic). So if we were to taste Haut Brion we would definitely be more inclined to look for things we like about it. When we taste Beringer White Zinfandel, we’re more inclined to look for things we don’t like about it. Both inclinations tend to color our objectivity.
My recent note on Lascombes, which is quite contrary to what is on CT, but I call it like I see it:
The 05 Lascombes is terrible. I’m an open-minded Bordeaux guy, and even like some modern stuff like Pavie and Fleur Cardinale, but this wine has no resemblance to Bordeaux. Sludge, milkshake and an overkill of oak. Oak on the nose, wood on the palate, highly astringent woody finish. Terrible wine. Avoid. (sub-70 pts)
I recall buying a few of these on release following the hype on eBob. I never really was thrilled with the Margaux region, but the hype propelled me to buy. This estate has no soul. You need to look no further than it’s own label: “Lascombes perfurmed nose of blackberry and licorice harmoniously combine with flavors of ripe fruit, smoke and oak to create an opulent indulgence”.
To answer the OP’s question, yes I believe there are many, many people afraid or unwilling to score a wine below say 80 points or 70 or whatever. Those folks have all manner of explanations as to why they don’t or won’t score a wine that low.
If we all used a true 100 point scale in wine, would there be a place for a 28 point wine? How about a 41 pointer? Even the “100 point scale” is really only a 50 point system if a 50 is undrinkable, horrifically flawed crap. Shouldn’t that crap be a zero?
Anyways, I had a lot of folks insulting me and insinuating that I suck at wine after the Rivers-Marie thread, which I gave an 83 points to (A grade of B, if we are on the 100 point scale). That, more than anything, convinced me that most of us just don’t know how to rate wines.
Two things. One: people were insulting you (if that’s not too strong of a word), not because you rated a wine 83, but because you insulted (if that’s not too strong of a word) others who did like the wine. At least, that was my take. Two: the 100 point scale is really a 50 point scale (50-100), but using numbers up to 100 is comfortable because we’re familiar with and often use percentages; at least, I think that’s why. And her lack of a 100 point scale is why JR isn’t as infuencial, IMO.
to be honest, i read through the RM thread… and i agree with what Kyle said Beau…
No one would insult Robert for rating the Lascomb 70pts… he had a bad experience so be it.
but he doesn’t say “i don’t get it… you guys who score it 92 are idiots, and can’t think independently… or you guys who score it 92 know nothing about how to rate a wine”…
you tasted a wine. u rated it… no one cares really.
you start telling others how they are wrong/bad/stupid at something that you just happen to disagree on, that’s what people had a problem with…
![[popcorn.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/1/1ca9f29573458cca2424a66a50d6c1261081dd3e.gif "[popcorn.gif]"){kind=small}
I wonder if this thread will grow some legs.