Scores become a problem when those of certain critics, or publications, are invested with a power that goes beyond their original purpose. Hence Parker’s scores influencing the way wines are made, or the price at which they are sold.
^That’s right. Certain publications have a vested interest in pretending they are the absolute authority and their scores are objective. That’s what the backlash is about, to a large degree. Don’t put someone’s scores up on a pedestal. Don’t use them as a crutch, either. They are a useful part of a review, that’s it. The whole review is still subjective, with or without a score. It’s still a snapshot, one person’s perspective, one point in time, one circumstance, one particular bottle in its own particular mood.
The problem is numeric scores. Here is the rating system we should use:
Weniger als der Durchschnitt
Gerade noch Durchschnitt
Etwas über dem Durchschnitt
Würde ein erwachsener Mann Schrei vor Glück machen
Erleben Sie ein Engel und eine Taube fliegen durch den Himmel, die Blumen auf die Erde maiden
Scores, like alcohol, are not a problem. It’s one’s relationship with either that can be problematic.
What’s that? This month’s changes to the German labeling laws?
Well put!
An astute observation. The aims are more selfish, on the part of critics as well as producers and sellers.
No, this wouldn’t be nearly confusing enough to be worthy of labeling laws in Germany
I’m not sure how deeply I want to wade into these waters, but…
There are some benefits to scores, but there are various negative effects as well.
As time goes on I come to feel ever more strongly that the negative outweighs the positive.
If the question truly is “Do wines need scores?”, then the answer is obviously “No” as we got along fine without em for many years.
If the question is re-phrased as “Are we better off with scores?”, I’d still answer “No” though I imagine many feel differently.
Scores suck!
Enough said!
i’ve written about this before, but it was an incident that convinced me that scores are absolutely necessary. I personally saw how a score in the 90’s helped convince a woman at the LCBO to buy a bottle of the fabulous Warre’s 1983 Vintage Port as a gift for a friend based upon that score which she confirmed for me was her main motivating factor when I complimented her aloud on her choice.
Yes, scores are evil to more experienced drinkers like us and have been abused and lazily relied upon by wine writers and critics blah blah blah. We on the board here all know this. But they are necessary for retailers and for the average consumer as one more tool they can use to help them make a choice and ultimately a purchase which benefits wineries.
This said, where the score comes from matters to me as well. I honestly trust a high score on CellarTracker or from a member of this board far more than I would a professional critic, but that doesn’t make the critic’s score wrong necessarily.
Tran:
I don’t see how your example shows scores to be “absolutely necessary”.
As you yourself note, there are other tools available to aid both retailers and consumers.
A knowledgeable sales person working the floor of the shop would have been at least as good in guiding this woman’s purchase.
I like to learn about a wine through osmosis.
Good advice.
Sometimes I like having access to a quick rating or ranking that lets me know roughly where the author thinks, the wine in question sits in the overall hierarchy. Then the words act as welcome further context to flesh out the initial, inevitably simplistic rating system.
I polled my subscribers last year about a number of aspects of how they used the content of my publication. One of the questions regarded what they wanted in a review, score only, note only, or both. Over 80% stated a review with a numerical score. That is enough confirmation for me that responsible reveiws that include scores will remain a valid resource.
I doubt many would argue with this, Doug.
I agree. I actually find many of the descriptors fairly tedious to read and not that useful as a buying guide. There are many different aromas and fruit, etc. tastes that I would find appealing, so I do not find myself searching hundreds of notes for wines that taste of red currants so that I can buy them and only them. What I AM interested in reading about are any flaws, as well as stylistic choices i would rather avoid such as finishing warmth or candied fruit or overripe jammy or even stewed fruit, excessive oak, etc. Unfortunately, these characteristics are not always explicitly described. I find scores helpful as a summary device to tell us how impressed the reviewer was with the wine. As stated above, it is possible to read through the descriptions of the wines characteristics and, without a score, not know whether this was good for a $25 house wine or a $300 grand Cru. It helps to know how impressed the taster was with the wine. What is more nonsensical is assuming that the snapshot at that time of a wine can be pinpointed down to that level of precision, or that those scores can be compared from one wine to the next at that precise a level. I personally like to think in terms of A, B, C, D with some pluses and minuses thrown in…beyond that and I am lost.
Wines need scores so I have some sort of basis to purchase. Notes are helpful in determining its style and flavor which is equally important.
Wines need proper storage and drinking, not scores and prose! 