Guess the score

[Daniel_McIntosh]

OK, I’ll share the prize with Blair.

[J_a_y_C_a_i_n]

@Corey N.

I find most people, including many respected posters, assign a numerical score based on potential, rather than what’s in the glass.

Really? I would agree with you when you’re talking about professional wine critics. If Suckling or Laube or Parker tell you “94 points - drink from 2020-25” they’re telling you that they think the wine will be a 94-point wine during their projected drinking window. But when I read reviews on Cellar Tracker, I always consider the numerical scores to be based on the taster’s “in the glass” perceptions.

[Corey_N]

@J a y C a i n

@Corey N.

I find most people, including many respected posters, assign a numerical score based on potential, rather than what’s in the glass.

Really? I would agree with you when you’re talking about professional wine critics. If Suckling or Laube or Parker tell you “94 points - drink from 2020-25” they’re telling you that they think the wine will be a 94-point wine during their projected drinking window. But when I read reviews on Cellar Tracker, I always consider the numerical scores to be based on the taster’s “in the glass” perceptions.

Yes, really. They might not rate a wine to the fullest potential, but I have seen plenty of notes that lead me to believe that they are not judging what’s in the glass. I’ve seen plenty of notes that talk about a wine that’s tight/shutdown and not giving any pleasure at the moment with a grade that doesn’t seem to match.

YMMV.

[Joe_B]

72

[Blair_Ridley]

@Daniel McIntosh

OK, I’ll share the prize with Blair.

What is the prize? Do we get to know the identity of the scorer?

I agree with David. Good syrah is not becoming more difficult to find.

[Mark_Y]

@Joe B

72

Joe, turn off Fox, and pay attention…
The score is already revealed (as 87)

[Joe_B]

@Corey N.

@Brian Tuite

87pts which isn’t a real surprise as anything under 90pts is plonk. But he clicked on “I like this wine”

Leaving aside the merits of whether numerical scores are helpful or not…I find most people, including many respected posters, assign a numerical score based on potential, rather than what’s in the glass. So a wine that is unfocused today, but has time to come together gets scored as if the flavors are harmonious. A tannic beast is graded as if the tannins have tamed, etc…

Isnt this what everyone does with “great” French wines even though they are all closed down? I have only had a few Bdx but they were all not ready to drink yet had very high scores. If I scored them correctly, they would fall into that 80 area.

[Joe_B]

@Mark Y

@Joe B

72

Joe, turn off Fox, and pay attention…
The score is already revealed (as 87)

I have been on vacation in Yellowstone since last saturday. First night in a hotel last night and my kids are swimming in the pool before I make the last leg home.

[Mark_Y]

@Corey N.

@J a y C a i n

@Corey N.

I find most people, including many respected posters, assign a numerical score based on potential, rather than what’s in the glass.

Really? I would agree with you when you’re talking about professional wine critics. If Suckling or Laube or Parker tell you “94 points - drink from 2020-25” they’re telling you that they think the wine will be a 94-point wine during their projected drinking window. But when I read reviews on Cellar Tracker, I always consider the numerical scores to be based on the taster’s “in the glass” perceptions.

Yes, really. They might not rate a wine to the fullest potential, but I have seen plenty of notes that lead me to believe that they are not judging what’s in the glass. I’ve seen plenty of notes that talk about a wine that’s tight/shutdown and not giving any pleasure at the moment with a grade that doesn’t seem to match.

YMMV.

I’ve seen this done as well… where people rate on potential or “what might be” instead of what’s in glass.

personally i rate what i’m tasting… unless it’s flawed of course…

[Jay_Miller]

@Blair Ridley

I agree with David. Good syrah is not becoming more difficult to find.

So do I. Easier I would have said.

[Corey_N]

Jay,

Here’s one example from a poster that I like and whose palate I respect…based on the note below, how would you think this wine should score?

[Open 24 hours. Not decanted.] Tight as a drum. Some black fruit in the nose. Tannic and structured. Needs a lot of time. Not fun to drink now, but should drink well in 10-20 years.

[Brian_Tuite]

@Corey N.

@Brian Tuite

87pts which isn’t a real surprise as anything under 90pts is plonk. But he clicked on “I like this wine”

Leaving aside the merits of whether numerical scores are helpful or not…I find most people, including many respected posters, assign a numerical score based on potential, rather than what’s in the glass. So a wine that is unfocused today, but has time to come together gets scored as if the flavors are harmonious. A tannic beast is graded as if the tannins have tamed, etc.

And then of course there’s bias – people tend to rate wines higher when they’ve purchased them, when they are expensive, etc.

He called it hot, unfocused, astringent and mediocre. I don’t get the impression of potential here.

My note on the same wine:

“Had an itch for a Syrah after weeks of Rosé, Whites with some assorted reds mixes in. Wasn’t sure about opening this since my experience with the '09 was that they needed time. Different vintage different results.

This is a small production wine, 170 cases, from a vineyard at the base of Spring Mountain in St Helena. Warm climate but lots of afternoon shade allow it to develop a nice acid structure an some red raspberry notes. The only place I have seen this is at BP Wines in SH. Worth seeking out, especially if you are a Northern Rhone fan.

On pop n pour this had an incredibly bloody nose. Deep, dark, intense blood, iron and extracted fruit. Seemed a bit hotter than the 14.7 listed on the bottle but that blew off with air. The nose added a nice menthol and game note that wrapped around some nice tart blue and red berry fruit. Texturally is medium plus bodied and supported with good acidity and abundant tannins. Well structured and stuffed for a long life. Great that it shows so nicely at this young stage. Was exactly what I was pining for tonight.”

If I had gone by his note I never would have purchased this wine. Besides, I haven’t had any problem finding good Cali Syrah either.

[Brian_Tuite]

@Corey N.

Jay,

Here’s one example from a poster that I like and whose palate I respect…based on the note below, how would you think this wine should score?

[Open 24 hours. Not decanted.] Tight as a drum. Some black fruit in the nose. Tannic and structured. Needs a lot of time. Not fun to drink now, but should drink well in 10-20 years.

Sounds young, not mediocre, unfocused, hot… Just sayin.

[J_a_y_C_a_i_n]

@Corey N.

Jay,

Here’s one example from a poster that I like and whose palate I respect…based on the note below, how would you think this wine should score?

[Open 24 hours. Not decanted.] Tight as a drum. Some black fruit in the nose. Tannic and structured. Needs a lot of time. Not fun to drink now, but should drink well in 10-20 years.

Based on what you’ve already told me, I’d guess it would be a high number. Seems the best way to treat this would be “75 points now, but probably 95+ after 2020.”

[Corey_N]

@Brian Tuite

@Corey N.

Jay,

Here’s one example from a poster that I like and whose palate I respect…based on the note below, how would you think this wine should score?

[Open 24 hours. Not decanted.] Tight as a drum. Some black fruit in the nose. Tannic and structured. Needs a lot of time. Not fun to drink now, but should drink well in 10-20 years.

Sounds young, not mediocre, unfocused, hot… Just sayin.

Brian,

First let me be clear that I’m not trying to bash the poster – I like him. But I was answering Jay’s comments about scoring on potential. (I’m not even saying that it’s necessarily wrong to judge on potential, it’s just not what I do.)

When I score a wine, try to score it based on how it is performing when I drink it. I agree that the wine that he scored sounds young, but when you read “not fun to drink now” how can you think that this merits a good score unless you are judging on potential?

[J_a_y_C_a_i_n]

@Corey N.

When I score a wine, try to score it based on how it is performing when I drink it. I agree that the wine that he scored sounds young, but when you read “not fun to drink now” how can you think that this merits a good score unless you are judging on potential?

So back around 2000, I picked up 18 bottles of 1974 BV Cab. It was cheap, and probably well over the hill at that point. I had recently had luck with some older 1974 California Cabs that were drinking really nicely (e.g., was shocked to open a 74 Fetzer Cab on a whim in 1999 and was blown away with how good it was - who would’ve thunk that?). Well, as you might expect, it was awful. Well over the hill. I opened maybe six bottles to see if I could find one that was palatable, but was sorely disappointed. I ended up giving most of the wine away to friends with 1974 birthdays with a stern warning not to try to drink it.

But perhaps I should’ve just said “Essence of stewed fruits and vinegar. Seems to lack integration. Not enjoyable now. Try again in 3-5 years.”

[Corey_N]

@J a y C a i n

@Corey N.

Jay,

Here’s one example from a poster that I like and whose palate I respect…based on the note below, how would you think this wine should score?

[Open 24 hours. Not decanted.] Tight as a drum. Some black fruit in the nose. Tannic and structured. Needs a lot of time. Not fun to drink now, but should drink well in 10-20 years.

Based on what you’ve already told me, I’d guess it would be a high number. Seems the best way to treat this would be “75 points now, but probably 95+ after 2020.”

92 points.

[Larry_P]

In a lot of people’s minds these days, the 100-point scale ranges from 85-100 with 91-94 being an average wine and 85 being undrinkable. On that scale, 87 is in line with the note.

[Larry_P]

@J a y C a i n

@Corey N.

Jay,

Here’s one example from a poster that I like and whose palate I respect…based on the note below, how would you think this wine should score?

[Open 24 hours. Not decanted.] Tight as a drum. Some black fruit in the nose. Tannic and structured. Needs a lot of time. Not fun to drink now, but should drink well in 10-20 years.

Based on what you’ve already told me, I’d guess it would be a high number. Seems the best way to treat this would be "75 points now, but probably 95+ after 2020."

Or just rely on the text, which gives a much more specific and precise description of the wine?

[Corey_N]

@Larry P

Or just rely on the text, which gives a much more specific and precise description of the wine?

I think it’s hard to rely on just text. So much depends on who is writing a note. This is not meant to bash anyone, but there’s a prolific writer of tasting notes that tells me the flavors of a wine, but I have no idea whether he liked it until I see a score. Similarly, sometimes text tells you all about pleasure, but nothing about the flavors.

I like the idea of reading both notes and numbers. YMMV.