All kidding aside, I would like to think I try to represent a consistent benchmark. Anyone reading my notes, might like or not enjoy the same wine. But as long as I have reasonably described what to expect if the wine is in your glass, or if you are thinking of purchasing a wine I wrote about, I’ve done a good job with my notes. The scores, for those of you that do not get the purpose of scores, simply let you know, that on that day, with that bottle, I liked that wine to that degree, more or less than other wines in the same peer group.
I forgot to include the Jeff Leve factor in score assessments. All en primeur Bordeaux not yet being sold in the US will have their scores determined by five different notes from Jeff Leve. You should religiously follow these scores if you like exploding chocolate covered cherries with fifteen minute finishes and don’t care about alcohol levels. If not, subtract ten points. 
I like your style! Oh, and don’t forget opulent, sexy textures ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
Like cashmere on velvet, baby!
Bob’s summation and Soren’s observation of the percentages of scores in the 88-92 range anecdotally explain why so many of the wines I’m drinking hover around 90 points, even though my own opinions are all over the board. As others have stated, one of the best uses of CT is to read the tasting notes, find others that align with your palate and then try the wines that they like. I just wish I could afford those wines…
“Group-Stink” not “Group-Think”!
I jump on CT only for a group of posters I know and that’s about it.
I used to think the group notes were helpful to determine approachability, and even those options vary greatly.
Bummer. Bobby O is one of the few ‘non-ballah’s’ whose palate I would trust without reservation.
Perhaps. Leaving aside issues like: at a point in time, etc, I wonder how many tasters who rate 2 wines 91 and 92 respectively, would given the same wines blind a few days later assign the same 1 point differential?
Specifically how often might the two be reversed in ranking?
The short answer is probably, 91 is pretty much equal to 92. In which case how many “points” are there really in the scale?
I’m sorry. I am not following your point. If a taster gives wine 1 a 91 and wine 2 a 92, it suggests that on a given night, with those bottles, in that company with that meal, he slightly preferred #2. Will the same guy think differently on a different night? Quite possibly. Is anyone suggesting differently?
He’s a Poseur! 
Thanks. I’m way too unorganized to log all my stuff on to CT.
It’s a strong platform, wish it had started early with it.
The points are all I care about - no time for ponderous notes. I mean, what better way to find a smooth wine?
Related to this topic: a couple of us who are friends somewhat regularly post low scores on wines that the majority really love (we don’t). We often get hostile or passive-aggressive comments on CT for this. It’s interesting to me that people think we have an agenda as opposed to giving a rating based on what we honestly think, and that our palates and assessments could differ from theirs.
and palets too.
wow
I think I need to be a little more “daring” in my ratings just for clarity and granularity, as right now I’m mostly rating stuff between 88-93 and that’s not a very big scale to go back and reference. I should probably use 80-98 more frequently to distinguish one “92” from another. I think at first when I started rating stuff on CT I just thought I should be conservative, partially in the interest of being community minded (not unnecessarily trashing stuff that was “fine” and not being all up on some wine’s jock when it was merely “above average”), and partially with the thought “well there’s so many wines I’ve never tasted, what happens if I rate something a 98 then a couple years down the road I taste something that blows that wine out of the water?”. That is probably just dumb because there’s no objective 100pt wine to calibrate to so maybe I should just rate how I feel at the moment and if I seem naive in hindsight c’est la vie.
I find CT useful. However, while “group think” and a tendency to center on 90 points might be common, I also wonder how much professional reviews drive these scores. Check out Robert Parker’s 88 score for cloyingly sweet, mass produced Apothic Red and then the scores on CT…
The compression of the scores by any individual seems completely understandable to me, and isn’t necessarily a sign of a poor palate. I only buy wines I already know I like, or wines I have every reason to expect that I will like based on past history, pedigree, and the opinions of others, including some here. It would be a mild shock, therefore, if I opened a wine ad thought it was sound but deserved a score between 50 and the low 80s. My cellar is not a random sample but a carefully selected collection. Why should I expect wines I really don’t like?
But I don’t score wines, for myself or on CT, and I don’t really use the scores others add to their notes. And as I have said before, I really only use the notes of others to determine whether a wine is nearing its drinking window. For me the value of CT is in the ability to collect purchase, shipping and delivery info.
I wonder if I am unusual in using CT as a major source of buying recommendations, or just unusual in admitting to it. I find CT just absolutely invaluable in guiding me to wines and it has replaced critics for me. I buy much less than I used to but when I do I carefully consult CT.
To give a concrete example, here is a wine I would NEVER have bought without CT:
I know I like good Corton, but did not know Pougets well, was not familiar with Jadot as a Corton producer, and did not think of them as a significant winemaker in that area.
But if you click on that link, you will see 17 different detailed notes on the wine, all of which are positive and many of which are RAVES – claiming the wine is not just good but unusual and special. (Check out the reviews by PJaines, Keith Levenberg, and Don Cornutt). The commenters include several people I am familiar with and trust as experienced wine tasters with significant Burgundy expertise. And there is a 93.3 score, which is an unusually high score for Burgundy (because it produces non-obvious and sometimes challenging wines I think Burgundy scores seem generally lower than more overtly fruity types of wine). Further, that score represents the average of 17 tastings over five years – much more reliable than a single rushed tasting from a single critic. And I don’t think that a dozen different people over five years tasting a Jadot Corton-Pougets, a pretty obscure wine, and giving consistent descriptions, are just driven by groupthink
You can’t get this kind of thing from individual wine critics. Cellartracker is a treasure.
P.S. admit that I haven’t actually tasted the wine yet, letting it age. But like I said I trust CT
Well, I think I can anchor the other side of the continuum then. I would buy (and in fact have bought) wines that Keith and Don recommended, but that is because I “know” both of them. But I don’t recognize any of the others who posted notes on that wine and if they had all given it 100 points and it was $10/bottle it would not have motivated me even to look further at the wine.