Is it me or are most CT scores centered around 90?

[BrianMarshall]

@John Morris

The surprising thing to me is that the scale is compressed on the upper side, too. I’m surprised more CT uses don’t follow the Suckling model and award lots of 94s and up.

I’ve noticed this, too, John. Part of me wonders if the average CT scorer is apprehensive when it comes to scoring wines over - say - 92 or 93. I don’t know if it is a perceived lack of experience with wines of that caliber or something else.

[Ian_Sutton]

Perhaps it’s easier to come up with a score in an 11 point (85-95) scale than try to do the same on a broader 50-100 point scale…

In reality I see points scoring as an emulation of what critics do, so fully expect the 90 point average to catch up to 95 point average fairly soon

[Blake_Brown]

When I posted numerous wines on CT, all of the previous scores and notes were readily apparent and made it easy to be biased and score with the consensus except for flawed wines. I do not use scores when evaluating wines and would prefer not to on CT, but we have no choice. I read the reviews and take more from them than the score.

[Brian_Tuite]

@cjsavino

Well you first need to consider who is using CT, it is not the Kendall Jackson Chardonnay crowd. So if you are that into wine that you need to log it into CT, you most likely are also buying better wines.

I beg to differ.

[Chris_Foley]

From Cellartracker:

NV Carlo Rossi Burgundy

Red Blend

USA

California
Central Valley
Stanislaus County

Community Tasting Notes (1) Avg Score: 69 points

3/15/2014 - XXX wrote: 69 Points

For a jug/jar wine (can glass ever be made into a jug?) at 6.99 USD for 1.5 liters, I am impressed. My expectations were lower than what was delivered. This “burgundy” is smooth, a little spicy, notes of sweet bluberries - that’s about it.

I’ve heard this can produce a bad hangover. I will be testing that theory tonight and into tomorrow. Rated a 69: sucks dick but enjoyable nonetheless. At least the mouthfeel is soft…

[BrianMarshall]

@Chris Foley

From Cellartracker:

NV Carlo Rossi Burgundy

Red Blend

USA

California
Central Valley
Stanislaus County

Community Tasting Notes (1) Avg Score: 69 points

3/15/2014 - XXX wrote: 69 Points

For a jug/jar wine (can glass ever be made into a jug?) at 6.99 USD for 1.5 liters, I am impressed. My expectations were lower than what was delivered. This “burgundy” is smooth, a little spicy, notes of sweet bluberries - that’s about it.

I’ve heard this can produce a bad hangover. I will be testing that theory tonight and into tomorrow. Rated a 69: sucks dick but enjoyable nonetheless. At least the mouthfeel is soft…

My family thinks this is what I’m talking about when I say burgundy.

[mattbillet]

I find Cellar Tracker useful, and I would say that there are only a few wines I have ever really disliked and reported as such there. I am beyond whim purchasing, and my purchases are fewer and far between because I have plenty to drink and generally prefer older wines. For this very same reason, most of the wines I tend to buy are wines that would be scored north of 90 points most of the time. For me 89-90 point wines are “table wines”, and I don’t do that much anymore. And, I am not afraid to show my love for some of the beautiful wines I drink.

I agree with the premise that only less than 5% of wine consumers are fine wine drinkers. I think that professional critics often miss this fact in their assumptions on the trends in wine and marketing. Of the CT crowd there are a number of beginners and learners (as is true with some on this site) and I laude anyone who is expanding their scope of interest. I would tend to see CT scoring differently from professional Critic scoring because individual drinkers really are heavily influenced by their personal tastes (some critics are guilty of this as well). I find it interesting that sometimes I see reviews where the reviewer specifically indicates that this isn’t the type of wine they care for in the text of their review.

Sometimes there are specific types of wine that a segment feels strongly about. Paso Rhone Blends, Sonoma Pinot, etc. They have passionate followers, whereas some Burgundy lovers find full bodied CA Pinot or Chardonnay too powerful, or simply not within their flavor profile.

Scores can be helpful indicators, but it is all about discovering your own palate and comprehending how it seems to evolve!

[Jeff_Leve]

@mattbillet

I would tend to see CT scoring differently from professional Critic scoring because individual drinkers really are heavily influenced by their personal tastes (some critics are guilty of this as well). I find it interesting that sometimes I see reviews where the reviewer specifically indicates that this isn’t the type of wine they care for in the text of their review.

A critic should be all about their personal taste. That is what differentiates one taster, from another. Personal taste, coupled with the ability to express what they are tasting is what makes a critic/writer interesting and worth following, or not.

[lleichtman]

The question I have is how they are actually scored on CT. Does anyone use scoring sheets and actually score their wines or do people just write down a number that they think corresponds to something? This is my frustration with the 100 point system. There are many scoring systems from 20 point systems to 100 point systems to simply ABC systems and IMO, if you are not scoring a wine, then the whole thing is fairly meaningless.

[Chris_Foley]

@lleichtman

The question I have is how they are actually scored on CT.

CT has a simple and easy to follow scoring system with a “Wine Rating Assistant” to help out. Below/Average wines are in the range of 70-79, Good is 80-85, Very Good is 86-89, Excellent is 90-93, Outstanding is 94-97 and Extraordinary is 98-100
However, users are free to use any scoring system they feel comfortable with. Some people post their math while others just seem to put out random numbers. If everyone followed the CT system the average scores would be more valuable IMO.

[Blake_Brown]

@Jeff Leve

@mattbillet

I would tend to see CT scoring differently from professional Critic scoring because individual drinkers really are heavily influenced by their personal tastes (some critics are guilty of this as well). I find it interesting that sometimes I see reviews where the reviewer specifically indicates that this isn’t the type of wine they care for in the text of their review.

A critic should be all about their personal taste. That is what differentiates one taster, from another. Personal taste, coupled with the ability to express what they are tasting is what makes a critic/writer interesting and worth following, or not.

Totally agree Jeff.

[Jay_Miller]

@Ian Sutton

They need to get with the changing times. Don’t they know that 95 is the new 90?

On the subject of CT, I’ve never much considered the fan/friend side of it, however I’ve just added someone for the first time, a chap in Finland called Otto (though not the Otto that I know from here, WLDG and Wine Pages) as we seem to have a very large amount of crossover in the wines we buy and drink, in a way I’ve never noticed with anyone else. Forceberry is the user name, and barring a few wines that are even more esoteric than my tastes, plus a keen beer focus, there are remarkable similarities.

There are 2 Otto’s who post here and on Disorder, one of whom is from Finland and is a huge Musar fan. I’ve never met him in person but have always enjoyed his posts and liked him.