Do wines need scores? Or are words enough ?

WINE TALK
1

  1. Does wine tasted from barrel, which may be just an approximation of a final wine in the bottle really need a score ?

  2. Scores are in any way definitive; use them as a useful guide or pointer to perceive the wine within a broader context. It’s one vision at one point in time, of one wine !

  3. Wine scores by prominent critics have created an imbalance in the way wine is appreciated and even made !?

2

  1. No, they dont but there is a demand for it so critics fullfill that demand in the marketplace

  2. Yes. not sure what the question is?

  3. Not for me, but im sure you are correct.

3

I agree. Words should be enough, but in this jaded culture, not. Points are more very subjective and show a personal lean.
Words can get the point across better if the reader knows what they seek from a wine; Imagine a world where shelf-talkers only used words, and abused words/verbage no less?
“This Cabernet has dark black currant and blackberry with some soft tannins. It would be a great pairing with steaks, chops and other grilled meats”

YIKES.

4

Numbers are useful. But a 94 point wine intended for immediate consumption needs to be distinguished from one that will age gracefully for a decade or more, so a narrative is necessary to elaborate on the numerical rating.

5

I often find difficulty in reading tasting notes without scores. I understand that descriptions, but without a score i am lacking the taster’s subjective qualitative verdict on the wine. A wine can taste of “dark cherry with a core of minerality” in many different ways and the score helps to understand the impression of the wine PROVIDED that the tasters palate is aligned with my own

6

you must know the scorer to actually know what any score means.

7

I’m more in the camp of words plus some reference-point score, whether that be numerical, alphabetical or some other metric. Your note above is the perfect example of why I would like a reference point. That note really does not tell me much other than the fruits are reflective of Cab, the soft tannins telling me that perhaps it’s a “drink it now” kind of wine, and that, like most Cab, it pairs well with meat. Nothing jumps out at me that this is anything more than a quaffer. So if the price is sub-$25, I guess I’m okay with it. What if the price is $50, $75, or $100+? I would like notes, score and price so I can make a fully informed decision if this is a wine or estate that I do not drink with any regularity and do not have a chance to try, first. Of course, the notes and score need to be from someone I trust or they do not carry much weight.

And BTW, perhaps you intend the note to be quaffer material, not intended to pick on you.

8

+1

For all their limitations (and there are many), they force critics to rank things and be clear about the relative and absolute quality of a wine. Otherwise it’s very easy to slip into the Clive Coates mode (“fine,” “very fine,” “very fine indeed”).

(Is it just me, or does this topic seems familiar?)

9

I’m 87 points on this thread.

10

Of course it’s familiar. But it’s entertaining to observe the passion that is sometime exhibited to denounce something that is relatively benign.

11

I think that for reviewers you tend to agree with, the score is useful when comparing one reviewer’s notes for one producer in a vintage, or for different vintages of the same wine. I haven’t subscribed to journals for years (since the late 1990s) until I picked up Meadows (for the first time) and Tanzer this year to help out selecting some 2010-2012 red Burgs, and I thought more than once that I was pretty impressed that when fixing two variables (same producer and vintage, or same wine and producer) that in general, a ‘93’ more often than not was a distinct step up from a ‘91’. The text may not always reflect the subtle difference as well for two very good wines.

12

Me too.

13
14

Scoring started as a way to democratize wine writing, and make it more accessible to the masses. It has become a crutch for very poor writing, in some cases writing absolutely devoid of content. Scores have now become a tool for retails to market wine, and for critics to market themselves, so not really all that useful to consumers anymore.

15

No words or scores are necessary for the enjoyment of wine. That’s the beauty of it. I’d never remember wine based on words or numbers if left to my own devices, but simply on remembered sensory input.
Unfortunately that doesn’t help others so some sort of communication becomes necessary. Pictures, words, and scores are all helpful in giving some sort of impression of what you drank yesterday. For most of us just scoring: Good, very, good, etc. might be enough but a number is really not any more evil and it is shorter. What is unfortunate about the scale used is the psychological gap from 89 to 90. It is only one point but worlds apart in how we perceive the product.

16

I like the Hugh Johnson scale, approval of wine ascending from one hesitant sniff for the bottom score all the way up to the purchase of the entire vineyard as full approval

17

score inflation is real

18

It needs both I think. Words should be enough, but unfortunately, they oftentimes are not. There are many common descriptions that I find in wine reviews that are simply too vague for my uses. Scores on the other hand can give a sense of relativity.

19

Giving a score to barrel samples is a pretty worthless exercise. As someone who tried it for a while I learned that they had little to do with the finished wine beyond some basic characteristics that are more driven by the vintage and appellation than anything else. It does give certain critics the appearance that they are tasting wines first. For something I taste in barrel, I use 1, 2 or 3 * to indicate following up when it has a label.

Drink what you like. If you are interested in a professional’s advice, look back at what they said about some wines you particularly enjoy. That can then help you learn about wines earlier than others.

20

Yeeeah words are enough; … [worship.gif]

The 2005 Montrachet surprised almost everyone in the room. An opulent nose, which could be sensed fully a foot (30cm) away from the glass, had smoky, resinous fruit, flint, nutmeg, and the whiff of a birchwood sauna. The palate had amazing delineation and length, with mouth-puckering intensity but a perfect balance between fruit and acidity—no slouch at all. Gil Lempert-Schwarz; DRC a unique experience.