I just got done with my notes for a 2021 Vincent Chardonnay I bought during BD15. For a $30-40 it is insanely good - clearly better than many bottles that go for 2x as much. However, if I compare it to the last mind blowing whites I’ve had (a tie between Kobayashi Viognier and Louis Michel & Fils Grenoulles) it lands about 90-91 (versus 94-95). But those wines are easily 2-3x the price.
Just curious how folks consider such things.
Just divide the points by the cost, the higher the ratio the better the value fundamentally. There’s always a diminishing marginal return once you push higher with price points since there’s a finite score of 100.
I don’t.
I’d say it shouldn’t come into play, but then I think it’s kind of natural to up score an inexpensive wine that over performs, and maybe down score a more expensive wine that is expected to blow you away, but doesn’t.
Higher expectations. If a $100 wine and a $30 wine are the same quality, the $100 wine is likely getting a lower score. I do take into account region, too.
Funny, I think it’s the exact opposite. A higher priced wine will generally get a higher score. Confirmation bias.
I’ve already given the Sphaerics chardonnay 97 points.
I think I used to be guilty of doing that. Now I grade more expensive wines harder.
Ok, interesting thought here. Personally, it helps me most when the score is the score, independent of price. It’s hugely relevant about the price and availability, too, to inform whether to buy (or buy again). What do you think?
I don’t consider it at all when scoring/reviewing. However, it’s an entirely different matter when I’m deciding whether to (re)buy.
I don’t consider it at all when scoring/reviewing. However, it’s an entirely different matter when I’m deciding whether to (re)buy.
100% this. Yes.
My scoring system, adapted from Leibniz binary system, builds-in whether to buy/rebuy. All wines score either 0 or 1. I buy 1. Either I like a wine enough to buy, most often in quantity, or I don’t.
I don’t use number scores, but if I did, I think the right thing is for it not to factor price.
It’s really not necessary — someone can give a $30 wine 91 points and $120 wine 92 points and figure out the bang for your buck ratio, without needing to change the actual scores to incorporate that.
When and if I score at all price is no factor.
It s up to the consumer if buying a 88point wine for 30 - or a 91point wine for 100 -
Taking QPR into account scores would maybe turn out the other way round - confusing.
Not at all.
Rating has nothing to do with price.
However, when I was first exploring wine I developed a star system which reflected how much I’d pay for another bottle. I think that was a good exercise. I did evolve it over time, adding more stars as well as minuses. A wine can be enjoyable enough, but not inspiring to the point you’d want to buy another of the same instead of trying something new. That’s a zero. You might try a $15 wine that you’d happily pay $25 for. You may find a $50 that you’d buy at $25, but seems overpriced above that. There are wines you’d gladly pay $150 for, based on enjoyability. A zero is a wine you’d be fine with drinking if served at a party. Two negative ranges for unpleasant and repulsive. As many positive brackets as you want.
Price should not be part of the scoring process.
That’s the next step when you decide whether given price, what else is out there and your resources, whether it is something you want to buy.
Score is a subjective quality measure. Price is objective. Deciding whether the subjective quality on offer is worth the price being asked is an individual, value-based decision.
For those who think price should be part of score would you rate top tier grand cru Burgundies with a score in the 70s because their prices have escalated beyond reason?
I do not score on price at all, quality and price are two distinct variables. Now that said, I will note when a wine is a solid QPR or not worth the fare. But I would not down-score or up-score a wine because of price.
I don’t give scores to wine.
That said, I did (solely for myself) briefly toy with a score that represented the £ value I perceived from the wine. If accompanied by the purchase price, it gives a ready view of value for money e.g. 25 / 20 (amount paid), shows it’s good value for money. It also should help focus the mind on what value we ourselves get from the wine, independent of actual price. The idea stemmed for early tasting group sessions, where we’d guess the price of the wine just tasted.
Why didn’t I stick with it? A realisation that there is no such accuracy in my opinion / palate from day to day. Hence I’m happy simply sticking to a TN and imprecise feelings about what enjoyment I got.