Major Rating System Change by Grand Jury Europeen

WINE TALK
1

Relevance of 100 point scale going forward

  • It’s the only way to go
  • Imperfect, but the best out there
  • 20 point, European scale is best
  • It’s time for a new perspective
  • 100 has no relevance going forward

0 voters

"Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it"
(Charles Dudley Warner, with Mark Twain [S.L.Clemens])

Many of us have questioned the best way to rate and rank wines and it seems the highly regarded François Mauss, founder of the Grand Jury Europeen and the World Wine Symposium has taken up the challenge admirably with a system being refined at this moment. I have included here my translation of his introduction as well as the 7-tier scale, itself. My advance apologies for interpretation errors, but I think it gets the ideas across…
Mauss:

While this is certainly not original, but the evolution of things we ordered: the system of 100 points is more satisfying. We have already spoken, it has matured and it will grow again, no doubt.

What is the problem?
We all know that the genius of Robert Parker has been noted and that the wines tasted are rated on a base 100 system, the standard of scoring in American education. It was the era of paper, already in a time when speed was compelling and he realized before anyone else that the amateur enthusiast has no time (or will not, or do not want to) inquire further about a product. He is content to be told: “This wine is better than that one”.
So when I created the GJE in 1996, and basically in order to compare notes with those of GJE, Parker or Wine Spectator, I wanted the same system, keeping in mind in Europe, it is often on a base 20.
It was not easy, because everyone understands that between one Michel Dovaz or Didier Bureau who did not hesitate to open their scores from 40 to 95 and a wise, very wise, Dr. Bonobo who is happy in the range 82/92, the impact of each on the final grade is consistent. This is obviously to counter this inequity in the respective weight of tasters. I also took into account the rank and all aspects above, discussing with Bernard Burtschy, statistician by trade, of a tool for smoothing these differences “weight” with aspects unjust and harmful.
As and when the entry of the Internet in our daily (LPV style forums, blogs), We quickly realized that this system was not only subject to many ambiguities, but was largely insufficient. There is no mention of the importance of the texts (read what Parker said on Sociando and notes “politically correct” that gives the wine), nothing worked. A wine with more than 95 points (yes, yes, inflation is also on rating wines) was virtually sold while a 99 or a 100 became an object of speculation with nothing to do with quality content. And during that time, the thought to 82/85 points were languishing in sales, although they have very real qualities.
Here is the project I intend to submit my colleagues, hoping that they will welcome:

R for Reference Point: A wine almost perfect which provides a real emotion and offers an anthology of length and shows a clear potential. The wine’s balance is impeccable.

E for Excellent: Immediate qualities, great balance and length, remarkable natural class. Above the rest with potential, sensitivity; a beautiful landmark wine.

VG for Very Good: No defects. Beautiful obvious qualities. Great length and Balance. One is in love with the wine. An international class wine.

B for Good : The qualities are superior to any small defects that are evident but only moderately alter real pleasure. A wine to share with friends.

MO for Middle : The defects are sensitive (or evident) but do not hide some qualities that could display or evolve better if more care were made in the vineyard and / or winemaking.

Poor for Poor : The defects are dominant, obvious and suggest a wine that should not be bottled.

D for Failure : a technical failuresuch as: corked, TCA, bad taste, oxidation, acidity… “We should try another bottle”.

Besides I like the figure of 7 possible ranks, you’ll tell me: "Nope, it’s like putting 100 points R, 97/99 to EEtc … ".
No, just with words, is quite another thing because it will force the taster to choose more rigorously and also have more consistency between them. Indeed, for some, 90 was a note almost supreme, the best of the best, while for others it represented a good / very good wine, but nothing exceptional or reference.
With these definitions, in addition, readers of our results have a much clearer picture of the value of a wine, because the category where there will be much better defined.
I talked to Bernard Burtschy who, naturally, will tailor its presentation to the new results for what I will give each wine, the total “R"Means"TB"Means"B”… Etc. obtained by wine. By early December when we have two sessions at Lawrence (1 and 2) it will have time to prepare something.

Of course, like any self-respecting dictatorship, I will accept other formulations of these 7 concepts if the burning need to revisit my copy with required evidence.
It is still shooting the question of assessing the potential of wine even though we do not have the label to add a few strokes of thumb that usually gives its reputation, its history, its culture, the same type . It must remain modest: it is fundamental.
It is also well felt the weight of the blind in the session of December 2 ("1 December is a vertical: only info that is communicated). We may repeat the session if discussion warrants such as where Reignac was raised without any difficulty among the big names.
This will be a half-blind, that my colleagues know that:

  • There will be the same raw element
  • But in a vintage more “mature” and the 1998 which, among lords Bordeaux, but should taste better than the 2001
  • But by adding more raw style LLC, VCC, Pavia, Poujeaux, Phelan-Segur, Pape-Clement, Haut Condissas, Fleur Cardinale, D’Aiguilhe, Rollan de By, Sociando Palmer to reach a total of 24/26 wines.
  • Perhaps with one or two wines “pirates”, Californian or Italian style, perhaps with the same wine served 2 or even 3 times: Charles will know, what I am capable!
    How will they react when there previously was a total blind? Of course, chances are they are a bit more “cautious” though I doubt it, knowing their enthusiasm and little importance they attach to a false respect of false hierarchies. All tasters of this famous session promised to be me again to that of December 2.
    To nip in the bud false debates m’horripilent a bit: no wine can come from the property, all will be acquired by GJE or offered by my friends. I was filming the debriefing and together we will decide who will release the results of calculations - will be done by Burtschy - will be explained in our report as usual.
    Anyway, I am now totally convinced that those who do not believe in our honesty believe there ever bailiff or not, as they hold some truth. And therefore, our results will address only those who accept our method of work is presented here for ages. There is no business model behind our tasting, if not a passion for great wine.
    Once and for all, we clearly understand that this is not to “destroy” anyone but simply to give the opportunity for other wines, in addition to existing hierarchies, to be known where they are placed compared to current or historical references. This does not seem clear to everyone, so be it. Take It Or Leave It.
    I have also invited European journalists to attend the tasting and debriefing. They will testify.
    I am still awaiting a Parker or Wine Spectator etc, in public with immediate delivery of the notes without rewriting them in the privacy of an office.
    For the moment we are only communicating and I hope very much that this method which seems as close as possible objectivity, to spread elsewhere.
    And finally, of course, our next job will be a blind tasting, but at the table. There, I also expect some profound changes. -end translation-
2

If I were going to design a rating system from scratch I would want to get away from the paradigm where everything has to be rated on the same univariate scale no matter what it is and what it tries to be. Maybe a 5-star scale with a twist, where a wine might rate 4 stars out of 4 for being a perfect example of what it is and 5 stars out of 5 for being a perfect example of something more ambitious.

Awhile ago I grabbed a random bottle from the everyday cheapies section of my cave - never had it before and didn’t know what to expect. It turned out the wine was one of the most beautiful I’d had in recent memory. I passed a glass to my wife and said, “You have to try this” - she took a sip and her response was, “Wow, that’s just perfect.” Because she does not devote her time to reading threads on wine boards, she did not know that the term “perfect” is pretty much a term of art connoting 100 points out of 100 on the Robert M. Parker, Jr. or Wine Spectator™ 100-point scale and was instead using the term in its ordinary English meaning. I gave it a half-second of thought and had to agree - the wine was absolutely perfect and would never in a million years score 100 points out of 100 on anybody’s scale, including mine. It was not perfect in the same way that one might consider a 1945 Romanee-Conti perfect, but it would demean the wine to dock points from it because it is not a 1945 Romanee-Conti. And any system of rating wines that lacks the capacity to convey the beauty and perfection of that wine is useless at best - more often actively misleading and deceptive.

3

Very good points, indeed!

My first take of the “Mauss Scale” was to take the terms:
• R for Reference Point
• E for Excellent
• VG for Very Good
• B for Good
• MO for Middle
• Poor for Poor
• D for Failure

and change them to letter grades or stock-type ratings, where the categories would be:
• A++ (or AAA)
• A+ (or AA)
• A
• B
• C
• D
• F
But, as I re-read and studied Mssr. Mauss’ reasoning in the paragraphs following the scale, I see his objective appears to be more than a stagnant grade, indeed a living evaluation that allows for development and degradation…

4

It’s a good start. I like how the top grade “Reference Point” actually tries to describe some quality about the wine other than merely saying it’s better than the grade below it. But in operation, is an R wine supposed to always be better than an E? There might be a wine that’s better than excellent but not a reference point (e.g., because it’s atypical), or a wine that’s a reference point but not very good (because it’s not such a special type of wine in the first place). Perhaps better to come up with more descriptive categories but not purport to place them in a hierarchy where a certain categorization is always better or worse than another.

5

I might also feel obliged to mention that calling a grade “Middle” or “Average” is a bit of a misnomer if there are 4 grades above it but only 2 below it…

6

Mr. Levenberg’s observations are spot-on with my thoughts relating to a multi-level chessboard:

  1. “A range of Perfect to Poor for what it is, in terms of value”
  2. “A range of Perfect to Poor relevant to the standard of the genre”
  3. “A range of Perfect to Poor amongst all wine, for all time (the fantasy football scale [FFS})”
    I’ll give Parker, Mauss, Audouze and Daniel Fahrenheit their props if I get cred for FFS.
    neener

–dang (itb)

7

First you have to learn how to spell pour. [wink.gif]

8

"D for Failure : a technical failuresuch as: corked, TCA, bad taste, oxidation, acidity… “We should try another bottle”.


Acidity is now a FAILURE?!?!? No thank you, try again.

How about giving a detailed projection of just how the style of wine would be best enjoyed: aperitif, cocktail or specific food reccos…

9

You’re making this much too complicated for me. Should I only buy “R” and “E” wines, or can I buy “VG” wines as well? [basic-smile.gif]

10

No points or shorthand, e.g. the letter system mentioned above.

I want prose covering:
How it presented to the reviewer.
Educated guesses on bottle development.
Price.

Most people can figure out then if the wine fits with their drinking and spending plans.

11

I think the 100 point scale, on its face, is great.

I do not rate wines, myself, but I can appreciate making life easier for a consumer, so slapping a number on a wine COMBINED with a THOROUGH tasting note, sounds great to me. THe problem is, that the “creator” of the 100 point system, has gotten away from what he set out to you, when it was first put out there.

Parker, himself, now rates numerous wines with no TNs (ie Sauternes). Jay Miller, then mastered this technique, with ludicrous scores, and often times, no tasting note, or one that barely resembled one.

Back, in the now republished Decanter article with Parker in 1999, Parker had this to say…

“(I)n my scoring system, the last 10 points are allocated on the potential of the wine to improve (rather than age) in the bottle. That means the wine must be measured superior at age 10 or 15 than it was when it was two years old.”

How could this possibly be true today? We have 92 point wines from Bob himself, that are supposed to be consumed within 3 years of release.

If Bob followed his own “scale,” which could easily be followed, we would not be awash with these discussions. Then we would be drinking $15 82 point wine and be happy with it. Instead we refer to “death” as an 89 point score. Death of a wine should be a 60 point score.

12

• R for Reference Point
• E for Excellent
• VG for Very Good
• B for Good
• MO for Middle
• Poor for Poor
• D for Failure

Shouldn’t it be “G” for Good?

And then the D would stand for Damn bad.

Other than that, I think the actual scoring system doesn’t really matter so much as the intelligence behind it. As Dan points out, the rationale behind the 100 point scores is easy to follow. The key is that the reviewer has to follow it. Same with any system really.

The other problem is that you are fighting an uphill battle. Rather than becoming less embedded in the wine market, the 100 pt system is becoming the default. Customers see a shelf talker with a score and pick up the wine. If they had to actually read the material, I think they’d be more likely to pass and instead grab the bottle with the number.

For people who frequent chat rooms and look at scores and ratings there, the verbiage will be less important than the reputation of the reviewer.

13

B=Bueno or Bien=Good! pepsi

14

[notworthy.gif] [notworthy.gif] [notworthy.gif]

15

Can’t really agree with that. Rating systems function as a sort of rudimentary language, intended to convey some kind of information. Some convey more information than others. Some distort the information more than others. And some come with baggage, conveying perhaps a little more information than was intended. The 100-point scale is intended to serve as a simple quality ranking but in its deliberate mimicry of the system for grading in school, it encourages people to treat the wines they drink like pupils submitting their work for the teacher’s approval. I think approaching wine that way changes the experience somewhat - lots of baggage in that little number.

16

Let me reach Villa d’Este from Beaujolais (superb Daniel Bouland wines) for the first edition of the Davos of Wine, and I will come with some comments tonite about this thread.

Huge thanks to Daniel for putting that on this forum since, obviously, your comments will enter in the final definition we will do for the ± seven grades of this new rating system.

Thanks to all !

17

So, here I am at Villa d’Este for the first edition of the Davos of Wine to be held this coming WE.

In fact, we will discuss in lenght this new approach of ranking wine since, myself, I just do not give anymore any value to any TN since, IMHO, they depend too much from local circumstances, surroundings, who, when, how, with who, etc…

More : in 95 % in my life, a wine is dedicated to share a meal with friends and, in this case, an opinion done in “technical” analysis circumstances has a poor value for me. At a table, I am looking for the emotional factors of a cru, not its defaults or qualities.

So, how I may speak like that as the founder of GJE ? Simply : GJE is for me a tool in order to offer to some “unknown” wines the possibility to be compared in some fair conditions, to the references of their AOC or DOC, something nobody else is doing in the journalist’ world.

18

Every rating system is flawed so it doesn’t matter what you pick. Consistency will help smooth out the flaws. Any system works if you are intimate with the taster’s predilections.

19

To what end are the wines being judged?
Who is the intended target audience?
Who will be reading, assimilating, and using these ratings?
I think the answers to these questions would be imperative to formulating the best system of evaluation.

In the lead-off post of this thread the author has invoked the “amateur enthusiast”.
That term probably covers a lot of ground. Everything from “I had a really great bottle of wine at a dinner party last week… it was called ‘Merlot’… I want to know more” to people with cellar valuations exceeding USD$100,000.
To my mind, any attempt at codifying quality from the consumer POV will be of undeniable value to two types of consumers: the newbie, and the collector (especially one with an eye towards wine as an investment). With any other group, furthering a wine education is usually (or at least SHOULD be) synonymous with a move away from dependence upon the pronouncements of wine critics. This is simply because any appreciation of the finer points of wine carries with it the revelation that all systems of wine scoring are open to the same criticisms. “Easy to understand”, a pre-requisite for any viable scoring system, is simply not appropriate to wine apprecation, nor to any field where aesthetics have been so finely developed over such a long period of time.

With regard to the new system being proposed here, I applaud the GJE’s move away from point scores, as the use of numerics implies a precision that is just not there, and falsely conveys a sense of something being objectively measured. Yet, while applauding such a development, I can’t help wonder if such a move would actually make it harder for those who most need such guidance to understand published results. “98 points” is probably easier to understand than “E, quite possibly R”.
If the new system is an attempt to introduce more nuance into the grading of wine quality, I’d wonder if there is much merit in such a thing. Having a Bettane or a Mauss say “I had a damn fine bottle of wine from an unexpected source yesterday, and that bottle was…” would mean as much to me as a “Bettane: VG+” shelf-talker ever could.


[As an aside, François… does your statistics expert have anything to say about the open de-briefing at the end of each tasting? From a sensory testing perspective the practice is somewhat problematic, since it would encourage what is known as the “alpha dog” phenomenon (aka the “alpha male” phenomenon, but that’s not so PC, especially in light of the fact that you have several female judges in your group").]

Regards,

20

I assumed that the “acidity” comment was a mis-translation of “volatile acidity”, Roberto.