To answer your question about my data (I don’t have a problem with Jebs scoring, as I know he has this slightly different interpretation of the scale. Although I too think an even more nunanced approach would be a tad more helpful for me as a consumer):
100… 4 … 0.28%
99… 11 … 0.76%
(as I so often do not write reviews for everyday or weak wines, the % are a bit overstated)
I’m a bit closer to Jeb’s end than to the other extreme. For me a wine reaches 100 pts if: a) expressive nose, palate, finish, b) highly complex, c) high precision, d) evolving aroma profile, e) highly harmonious and balanced, f) creamy texture and yet airy and light, g) perfectly round tannins, h) high but perfectly integrated acidity, i) very good and long finish and finally j) the wine has to create a deep emotional response. I can imagine that many wines fit in this category. Not just one or two. It’s really all about definition and intepretation of the scale.
The problem with these types of comments against high-scores, or the number of wines hitting 100 is that most people commenting here do not score a lot of wine. Plus, I am willing to bet not one person making these comments has tasted the 30 wines in question. That is not to say anyone would, or would not score those same wines triple digits. It is to say that most folks here are talking about one taster’s view as being right, or wrong, or handing out triple-digit scores like candy without having even tasted the wines.
Not that this is new for the Internet
FWIW, I think I have given 210 wines 100 Pt scores, out of 21,147 wines tasted. I get Email and see comments about my overscoring wine all the time. But for parity with the scores being discussed in this thread, that is slightly over 1%. That average has remained relatively consistent.
Right. But then aren’t we back to the original question I had, which is, what’s “peer group” mean? Are Napa whites a peer group? Northern Cal whites? Cal whites? Whites? Or is it just Chards? And would that, then, include other regions that produce Chard? So I’m still not clear on what the rubric is, specifically.
And about delineation. I’m not really talking about 50s or 75s…Bob Parker answered that years ago, effectively I think, by stating that wines that would fall wthin those ranges wouldn’t be recommended and because TWA is about the business of recommending wines, they naturally don’t appear. I’m talking more about a readjustment that would take place in the 80-90 range, which is vastly underutilized. It would be much more helpful if – again, moving back to the thread – all these Dunnick 99 -100 point wines fell within the 90-98 range, which would then cause the the 90-95 wines to move down to the 80s and things would adjust accordingly. That way, you leave room for superlatives and the vast majority of excellent wines are still awarded quality ratings. But, like I said, there is creep over time which puts pressure on a disciplined approach.
How is that more helpful? If a reviewer thinks a wine deserves 100, he should step up and give it 100. That is what the scale is for. There are reviewers that purposely don’t, or almost never give 100, simply on principal. I think that is crazy!
When the vintage and wine allow it, and the taster sees it that way, he should go with his gut. That is what subscribers pay for.
People griping about scores being too high have generally forgotten how bad a lot of wine was through the 1980s, and in some places into the 1990s (have a 1984 or 1992 Bordeaux and report back, or maybe a 1988 from Napa). There has been some reassessment, as folks have become more tolerant of high acid/low fruit wines, but wines being made by good producers these days are on a completely different level than 30+ years ago when scores like 75 actually made sense.
Jeff, I think you are probably right about reviews of new vintages. But over time, many of us who are serious about wine do go back (within just a few years) and taste wines in a given vintage. No, not all. But several, if not many. Having done that numerous times over the last 35 years, I almost never experience or understand the score compression at the top when tasting those wines. And I experience a 100 point wine very rarely…far, far less often than you do, or Jeb or almost all the critics do. I could be wrong, but I think many of my fellow drinkers on this board also don’t experience what they think are 100 point wines as often as critics do. So I think the question might be, what is it that seemingly has reviewers offering much higher scores than their readership might assign?
WTF? That doesn’t make a lot of sense. It’s not like brett or some bacterial fault that can develop differently bottle to bottle depending on oxygen exposure. Seems more likely that variations in experience with different bottles reflect the circumstances in which they were drunk (temperature, decanting, whatever), rather than true bottle variation.
Just my too sense. I have opinions but don’t claim to be right.
With the usual caveat aside, this is absurd. Otherwise, Napa has suddenly eclipsed Bordeaux and Burgundy as the best wine region in the World. Millions of wealthy Asians, Europeans, and other world citizens vote with their money and say otherwise.
In contrast to the Napa fans who support their wanna-believe-ness with citations to R&D, the flip-side is that history has shown that Napa reds don’t evolve in a positive fashion nearly as often and consistently as top Bordeaux and Burgundy. Napa reds can overwhelm the so-called “critic” (maybe they should be called wine “fans”) with all their opulent layers and waves of fruit when young but then they go nowhere other than becoming older versions of the present or worse with age. If you have similar tastes as the wine critic and wish to drink the wine young and find the price reasonable, you’re fine. If not, you’re at peril.
T’was a time when the most respected wine critics were all from England and they rose up the ranks through a long wine education. They had a world-view.
Then came the rise of Parker and the democratization of wine critics. Or should we call them fans?
When I read some of the present critics’ reviews/notes, I think of Patty Hearst posing with her rifle. Stockholm Syndrome.
In Jancis I trust. AM too. Not so much the others.
+1. Although I would add, perhaps, there should be more use of the scale starting at 50 … o.k., o.k., to be real, I’ll amend that to “there should be a much stronger use of the 80 - 89 decile.” If someone has a bunch of scores crammed together at the top end, such that one is forced to differentiate between many wines with the same score (i.e.: thirty 100 pt. scores for 2018 Napa), and actually can, to some extent, discern qualitative differences among them, then some of those scores need to be knocked-down a notch or two. “Use more of the scale” is something most critics would benefit from. Given selection bias, and a myriad of other factors, I feel this is less applicable to avid amateurs, although I would submit amateurs would be well-served to adopt the same philosophy (even if it doesn’t play-out as much as I expect it would with a critic who is tasting far more wines, not of his/her choosing, and frequently under different conditions with different service).
Let’s not forget we’re talking about a 100 point scale. Okay, a 50 point scale, really. Okay, a 20 point scale, insofar as we see most (?) professional publications publish; and pretty much a 15 point scale, as used. As gradations in a scale become more numerous one would expect a re-distribution of sorts. If someone scoring 1600 wines is only using a 10 point scale (no half points), then it makes a lot more sense that there would be a high percentage of perfect/top scores than if that same critic is using a 50 point scale. It’s sad that wines in the 80’s are seemingly dismissed out of hand by so many these days — 80 to 89 is good to very good! But, it seems, consumers have somehow got it in there heads that a wine’s not worth buying if it doesn’t score at least 90 points. Has this way of thinking infected the minds of our professional critics? After all, the critics are human, too. Have consumer behaviors influenced the manner in which critics score wines? Is the tail now wagging the dog?
So, do you think critics are not being honest with their scores, for fear of such reprisal? is this why we see such remarkable grade inflation? Are critics afraid of being banned from cellars because they gave a wine only 95, 96, 97, or 98 points rather than 99 or 100?
My question is whether the 100 score is “100 for this region” or “100 for all wines.” In other words, to what extent is typicity a part of the score? If it’s the former, I can see how it results in a higher number of perfect or near-perfect scores.
Typicity is an opinion and part of a tasting note, or not. Personally, I never think about it. Wines are scored in peer groups, Bordeaux, Rhone, California Red, etc…
There have been many threads where we’ve speculated about the motives for the high scores and unfailingly positive reviews. Certainly, there are fewer defective wines than there were a generation ago. But whether one thinks that there are many more great wines is contentious (particularly in Bordeaux, the Rhone and California), and tends to depend on whether you like bigger, riper wines.
On the high scores, I’m sure in many cases it’s genuine enthusiasm, or an innocent lack of critical capacity. But it’s hard to make money in the subscription business model anymore, particularly if you’re paying a small army of critics to cover different regions. Jeb is in the best position to make the subscription model work because he presumably has low overhead. But for other operations, the business model seems to have shifted, with revenue coming from events or other sources. My own suspicion is that in some cases, the game is to get your reviews quoted on shelf-talkers and in e-mails in order to build up the critic’s/publication’s brand. That, in turn, would be a draw for dinners and conferences and grand tastings, etc., where you can collect large fees. That’s somewhat cynical speculation, but it’s consistent with what I see going on.
It certainly does not help the critic if producers won’t talk to you or send samples.
Here’s William’s answer above re the Wine Advocate:
That’s what Robert Parker always maintained, but if you look at the scores, that’s simply not right. The very best Muscadet or Dornfelder will never get 100 points. Notwithstanding the stated policy, the scores in practice are pretty much on an absolute scale for all wines. (Sorry, William!)
Have the numbers outlived their usefulness? These days I am far more interested in a critic reviewing, in depth, fewer wines and producers that they seem exceptional or especially interesting. They can then give an appropriate “value rating” based on quality, ageability, cost. Jasper Morris has a hybrid model of star rating along with numbers to emphasize wines that he finds compelling. Isn’t it just tiring to wade through endless pages of similar taste profiles and lots of numbers? I feel that this encyclopedia approach is exhausting and mostly useful for compiling a catalogue of market value rather than trying to figure out if this is a wine you might like to drink. (? of lowest cost of 100 point wines in the latest review) maybe, just maybe, the cheapest 100 point wine reviewed by critic X is a wine you really don’t care for? Maybe a 93 point wine with soul would be more satisfying…
![[diablo.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f627e009b8e3ab2f6a76c9424f1156a53afc0e3f.gif "diablo"){kind=small}
