My new 100 point scale

[Jorge_Henriquez]

I stopped tasting points a few years ago.

[Michael_O_Brien]

Like Jorge, I no longer think it points. I buy what I like and look for it at below market (WS-Pro) prices. I am no hurry to buy at or above market. I have other wine to drink while I wait.

[MikeL238]

Minus 173-00 Moutai

Moutai isn’t so bad!

Yes, it is.
I went to China to do a wine judging. I had once tasted Moutai at a Manhattan restaurant and thought it the most disgusting thing I had ever tasted. That is not hyperbole.

So you can imagine my joy when I was told the first twenty “”wines” would be Moutai. Let me say I was close to throwing up after a couple, and managed to make my way through the remaining ones. The guest judges from Europe and America also had gray/white faces and one actually refused to continue and just marked his sheet with zeroes. I managed to find one that was halfway palatable; it came from a can and some of the tinny odors disguised the worst of the Moutai. I would give this to my worst enemies, the other nineteen not.

The following morning they had flown in the most venerable maker from pre Mao days. Armed with four teeth, a querulous voice and a beautiful ceremonial costume, he was there to tell us about the glorious history and greatness of Moutai. Unfortunately we did not get to hear much. The translator managed to round off each fifteen minute exposition into two sentences. At the end of two hours, I could swear some of the judges were close to sleep. I wanted it to go on forever, as I knew there would be more Moutai afterwards.

Alas it was time, but mercifully this time only fourteen. Things had not got any better. The fourteen were followed by several flights of Chinese grape wines. These are for the most part wines that struggled to get 80 points. That day they did a lot better. The secret for a bad or even a flawed wine to get a high score is to serve a flight of Moutais before it.

Mark, what a story hahaha. I still can’t stop laughing. Reminds me of my first time having it also in China. I’m sorry you had to go through so much pain. I’m surprised though that they classified it as wine. It’s certainly not for everyone, but they sure are super proud of that stuff.

[JMReuter]

There are really three interrelated things going on here - absolute quality, price, and how likely I am to buy something. It reminds me of the graphs in entry-level economics.

+1
In my head, ratings should reflect perceived quality with no adjustments for price. Of course, that means that my purchase decisions ultimately depend on more than just my ratings.

[AndrewH]

Great story. I always heard Moutai was the fruitcake of the alcohol world: the ones made are continually circulated and revered, but never drunk.

Having been to China a few times, I can assure you Moutai is not circulated and never drunk. Quite the opposite!

But how is anyone classifying it as wine? It’s from sorghum. . grappa is closer to wine. Though both IMO are closer to jet fuel than wine.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Whether thinking in terms of points or just words like the key ones in Mark’s scale (magnificent, really great, pretty good, etc.), I think we all classify wines we taste qualitatively by some measure of our level of enjoyment (or perceived and predicted future enjoyment).

Where I differ is thinking about what I’d pay in terms of the market price. If I think a wine is only “pretty good” and its market price is $100, then I’m not a buyer even at half of market price. Now, of course, I don’t want to pay above market prices if I can avoid it, so if a wine I want has a market price of $50, I’m also not going to pay $75 for it at some store with terrible prices just because I like the wine.

But beyond just not wanting to get gouged, I think more along the lines of absolute price rather than price relative to market. So for a “magnificent” wine, I’d consider violating my $100 per bottle limit and maybe spending $125 for it, a “great” wine maybe I’d pay up to $75-$100 for it, and so on down to “pretty good” - I’d pay $15 to $20 for it as a daily drinker.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Moutai isn’t so bad!

Yes, it is.
I went to China to do a wine judging. I had once tasted Moutai at a Manhattan restaurant and thought it the most disgusting thing I had ever tasted. That is not hyperbole.

So you can imagine my joy when I was told the first twenty “”wines” would be Moutai. Let me say I was close to throwing up after a couple, and managed to make my way through the remaining ones. The guest judges from Europe and America also had gray/white faces and one actually refused to continue and just marked his sheet with zeroes. I managed to find one that was halfway palatable; it came from a can and some of the tinny odors disguised the worst of the Moutai. I would give this to my worst enemies, the other nineteen not.

The following morning they had flown in the most venerable maker from pre Mao days. Armed with four teeth, a querulous voice and a beautiful ceremonial costume, he was there to tell us about the glorious history and greatness of Moutai. Unfortunately we did not get to hear much. The translator managed to round off each fifteen minute exposition into two sentences. At the end of two hours, I could swear some of the judges were close to sleep. I wanted it to go on forever, as I knew there would be more Moutai afterwards.

Alas it was time, but mercifully this time only fourteen. Things had not got any better. The fourteen were followed by several flights of Chinese grape wines. These are for the most part wines that struggled to get 80 points. That day they did a lot better. The secret for a bad or even a flawed wine to get a high score is to serve a flight of Moutais before it.

Mark, what a story hahaha. I still can’t stop laughing. Reminds me of my first time having it also in China. I’m sorry you had to go through so much pain. I’m surprised though that they classified it as wine. It’s certainly not for everyone, but they sure are super proud of that stuff.

According to them it was wine. They had paid for us to come, so at least we could do them the courtesy of tasting thirty four samples.

I was told told that we had tasted some of the top Moutais. I suspect since this was at least fifteen years ago, that some of them would now would fetch some serious money. Currently they go for $200-1000, and one auctioned recently for $43,000. The most expensive from 1935 brought $1.35 million.

[Otto_Forsberg]

I think this is a very good scale. Not totally dissimilar from my own and I’m sure many others.

Too many of us are conditioned by the Parker 100-point scale as well as the skew to the upper-bounds in point category. I would like to see a greater acceptance and quantity of wines scored in the range of 65 - 79. Unfortunately I don’t score my wines the way I propose below but it would give greater disparity from the point compression in the high-80s/low-90s we see on cellar tracker and elsewhere.

My proposed scale (using Napa Valley as the context for discussion):

64 and below: Mass produced plonk. The average bottle purchase price of wine in the US is in the $14 range. If we put the average bottle purchased and everything below into this category that still leaves 50% of wines (we’ll skip over mean versus median price for simplicity sake) to occupy the upper 1/3 of points to be scored from 65 - 100.

65-70 points: Mass produced but still drinkable wines and unfortunate private vineyard wines that are not up to snuff.

71-79 points: These would be entry level wines from lower-end but real producers from any wine region. Generically the mean price range is $20 - $25 although we know price does not necessarily translate to quality and vice versa. These are wines your friends who visited Napa once and know enough to be dangerous would buy. They can distinguish between Bronco Wine Co and wines made by actual winemakers and think you will enjoy their selections even though you are just humoring them.

80-87 points: Drinkable wines. Some craftsmanship went into these wines and whether you like them or not is subjective. These would be entry level wine from better producers in a given region. My guess is 75% of private vineyard wines will fall into these last 2 categories (71 - 87 points).

88-92 points: A fine wine. Worthy of home dinner with your significant other. Regular bottlings from top-tier producers as well as the great QPRs many of us often seek out and keep under our hat lest they lose their QPR status due to increased demand. Mean price range $50 - $80.

93-95 points: Fantastic wines worthy of the uneconomic decisions many of us make regarding our wine cellars. Reserve wines. Corkage worthy wines to bring to a restaurant. Wines you selectively pour, not to be stingy, but to pour with those who appreciate the quality and craftsmanship of top end wines.

96-99 points: Pretty much as good as it gets in winemaking. French 1st growth calibre wines and the rarified wines globally that swim in those waters.

100 points: Magical wines that turn your head and create moments you will never forget. Any one of us could hope to drink a handful of these in our lifetimes. It is only for those moments I would reserve a 100 point score.

This is more or less identical to how I use points when I need to employ them in writing TNs.

[Robert_Sand]

99-100 a magnificent wine. I will search for it, and if available, and I can still pay the mortgage, I will buy it.
94-98 A really great wine. I will try and find it at market price
88-93 It’s pretty good, not one I would seek out, but if I see it below market, I might be tempted.
83-87. It’s ok, I would drink it if somebody else was paying.
80-82 a basic event type wine. You only drink it if there is nothing else available.
77-79. You would have to pay me to drink it.
01-76 You couldn’t pay me to drink it
Minus 173-00 Moutai

Worthless without exact definition of quality, and the gap between “really great” and “pretty good” is ridiculous …

[RichardFlack]

Time to revisit my personal favourite which is the Johnson system (no, its not what you think).
Extracted from former edition of Hugh Johnson’s invaluable Pocket Wine Guide

One Sniff: Minimum score, Emphatically, No Thanks.
One Sip: A step up
Two Sips: Faint interest - or disbelief
**A Half Glass:**Slight hesitation
One glass: Tolerance, even general approval
…
Two glasses: You quite like it, or there is nothing else to drink
Three glasses: More than acceptable
Four: : It tickles your fancy
One bottle: : More than satisfaction
Second bottle. :Is the real thumbs up
…
A full case. : You are not going to miss out on this one
…
And ultimately
The Whole Vineyard

[Mark_Golodetz]

99-100 a magnificent wine. I will search for it, and if available, and I can still pay the mortgage, I will buy it.
94-98 A really great wine. I will try and find it at market price
88-93 It’s pretty good, not one I would seek out, but if I see it below market, I might be tempted.
83-87. It’s ok, I would drink it if somebody else was paying.
80-82 a basic event type wine. You only drink it if there is nothing else available.
77-79. You would have to pay me to drink it.
01-76 You couldn’t pay me to drink it
Minus 173-00 Moutai

Worthless without exact definition of quality, and the gap between “really great” and “pretty good” is ridiculous …

Ah, you wanted some form of objectivity. Ain’t going to happen; all scores are by their very nature subjective; I know perfectly well what I mean by pretty good, so for me, it is not worthless but for you it might be.

I would also add that “pretty good” contains as much information as 92 points.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

I don’t think he’s criticizing “pretty good” as being too subjective, I think he’s criticizing “pretty good” and “really great” as too far apart (as most folks would use those terms) to be adjacent categories.

If I were to adapt MG’s adjectives for my own use, I’d accept this criticism and probably do something like this -

99-100 Magnificent
95-98 Really great
92-94 Very good
89-91 Good
86-88 Pretty good
83-85 OK
Etc.

[Robert_Sand]

Here’s my rating scale:

100: The pinnacle of expression for a varietal, blend and region… as good as it gets. It must be exceptionally well balanced, harmonious and unusually complex. The palate must match the nose and visa versa. The finish lasts and lasts. This is a wine you’ll remember the rest of your life.
98 - 99: Almost reaching the fullest potential. A superb wine that’s also well balanced, complex and memorable.
95 - 97 A classic wine that satisfies in almost everywhere, however is missing some type of nuance that prevents it from being in the highest tier.
92 - 94: A wine that’s a joy to consume. It’s balanced, well structured and shows good value for the price. A wine in this point range usually has something unique and interesting to offer.
90 - 91: A very good to excellent wine that may be youthful and showing outstanding potential.
87 -89: Good Tuesday night wine that drinks well for the price and you feel confident in repeat purchases.

I honestly rarely drink anything below an 87 and would not waste my time writing a tasting note on a wine below 87.

This scale seems to be more logical to me - although still a bit “high” - which is the common level here (and elsewhere) over the last years (unfortunately)…

I honestly rarely drink anything below an 87 and would not waste my time writing a tasting note on a wine below 87.<<

You will only know if the wine is worth 87+ points AFTER drinking it - right? (usually it´s not indicated on the label).
I had a 1987 Ch.Margaux recently I rated 86 points, no regrets (but I didn´t pay for it).

FWIW - the rating scale I usually use:(I´m no born English speaker, so my attributes may be not 100% spot on)

Below 70: a totally uninteresting mass production wine with more or less clear flaws and no real qualities, or an unbalanced wine over the hill
70-74: drinkable, but without real pleasure, usually to avoid
75-79: a below avarage to avarage wine without much character, maybe typical for variety and/or region
80-84: a good wine with some character, quality and typicity, an acceptable drink, no more
85-89: a very good to excellent wine with good concentration and complexity, providing real (everyday) pleasure, a bargain when in the low price range
90-94: outstanding wine with clear personality, complexity and depth, usually with fine potential when younger, and 93/94 on the border to greatness
95-99: a great wine in every aspect, really exciting, with singular personality and huge potential (when younger)
100: the very best of its type, great in every aspect, unsurpassable, really rare to meet with

I admit I drink quite a lot in the range of 85-89, and sometimes 80-84 … many German “Gutsrieslinge” are performing in this range, and I rarely regret drinking/buying it when below 10 € … there are also many lower Bordeaux or Cotes-du-Rhone or Languedoc to be found - and also classified Bordeaux or Village Burgundies are often in that range, not higher, e.g. when not from a great vintage.

[Dav3_Dyr0ff]

Robert, that is an admirably pre-grade-inflation scale - similar to what most of the American critics claimed to be using when they started, before the days of “everybody gets an 85.”

[Rich_K0rz_nk0]

I think this is a very good scale. Not totally dissimilar from my own and I’m sure many others.

Too many of us are conditioned by the Parker 100-point scale as well as the skew to the upper-bounds in point category. I would like to see a greater acceptance and quantity of wines scored in the range of 65 - 79. Unfortunately I don’t score my wines the way I propose below but it would give greater disparity from the point compression in the high-80s/low-90s we see on cellar tracker and elsewhere.

My proposed scale (using Napa Valley as the context for discussion):

64 and below: Mass produced plonk. The average bottle purchase price of wine in the US is in the $14 range. If we put the average bottle purchased and everything below into this category that still leaves 50% of wines (we’ll skip over mean versus median price for simplicity sake) to occupy the upper 1/3 of points to be scored from 65 - 100.

65-70 points: Mass produced but still drinkable wines and unfortunate private vineyard wines that are not up to snuff.

71-79 points: These would be entry level wines from lower-end but real producers from any wine region. Generically the mean price range is $20 - $25 although we know price does not necessarily translate to quality and vice versa. These are wines your friends who visited Napa once and know enough to be dangerous would buy. They can distinguish between Bronco Wine Co and wines made by actual winemakers and think you will enjoy their selections even though you are just humoring them.

80-87 points: Drinkable wines. Some craftsmanship went into these wines and whether you like them or not is subjective. These would be entry level wine from better producers in a given region. My guess is 75% of private vineyard wines will fall into these last 2 categories (71 - 87 points).

88-92 points: A fine wine. Worthy of home dinner with your significant other. Regular bottlings from top-tier producers as well as the great QPRs many of us often seek out and keep under our hat lest they lose their QPR status due to increased demand. Mean price range $50 - $80.

93-95 points: Fantastic wines worthy of the uneconomic decisions many of us make regarding our wine cellars. Reserve wines. Corkage worthy wines to bring to a restaurant. Wines you selectively pour, not to be stingy, but to pour with those who appreciate the quality and craftsmanship of top end wines.

96-99 points: Pretty much as good as it gets in winemaking. French 1st growth calibre wines and the rarified wines globally that swim in those waters.

100 points: Magical wines that turn your head and create moments you will never forget. Any one of us could hope to drink a handful of these in our lifetimes. It is only for those moments I would reserve a 100 point score.

This is more or less identical to how I use points when I need to employ them in writing TNs.

Had a similar view, it stack ranks well with the range in quality and craftsmanship. Though Moutai does deserve its own negative spectrum IMO.

[Chris_Seiber]

88-93 It’s pretty good, not one I would seek out, but if I see it below market, I might be tempted.

If you found a really good $25 wine that was 92 points, you wouldn’t buy it unless you found a below-market price for it?

Or does that mean a really good $25 wine would necessarily rate 94 or higher in your scale?

[Laurent_Gibet]

An alternative :

La notation se fait sur une échelle unique. La note sur 20 est comparative et qualitative. Elle n’a pour fonction que de situer les qualités de chaque vin sans tenir compte d’autres critères (prix, réputation, origines, millésimes, etc…)

L’ECHELLE COMPTE 10 NIVEAU
NIVEAUX INFERIEURS

NIVEAU 1 : Inférieur à 10,5 Vin à éviter pour son manque de goût et/ou sa saveur désagréable et/ou son défaut.
NIVEAU 2 : 11-11,5 Petit vin : présente des défauts toutefois non rédhibitoires (amertume, alcool, tanins secs, acidité, manque de fruit). Vin tres simple et très court.
NIVEAU 3 : 12 12,5 Vin moyen : souffre encore de quelques défauts mais mineurs. Vin simple et court offrant un soupçon d’intérêt. Pas de longueur.
NIVEAU 4 : 13 14,5 Assez bon vin : sans défaut, plaisant, de qualité tout à fait correcte, techniquement irréprochable. Petite longueur.

NIVEAUX SUPERIEURS
NIVEAU 5 : 15 15,5 Bon vin : équilibré, mais manquant encore un peu de caractère, de volume et de complexité. Longueur moyenne.
NIVEAU 6 : 16 16,5 Très bon vin : équilibré, le caractère, le volume et la complexité sont présents à des degrés divers. Longueur moyenne à bonne.
NIVEAU 7 : 17 17,5 Excellent vin : du caractère, de la complexité, de l’équilibre, avec du volume en plus. Bonne longueur à très bonne.
NIVEAU 8 : 18 18,5 Grand vin : un caractère affirmé, une belle complexité, un grand volume, une race de classe et un équilibre parfait. Très bonne longueur.
NIVEAU 9 : 19 19,5 Vin exceptionnel : vin vieux parfait qui a confirmé (ou transcendé) ses potentialités, ou vin jeune ou moyennement âgé, parfait, dont les qualités de base et le caractère paraissent extraordinaires.
NIVEAU 10 : 20/20 Mythique : vin à son apogée, unique, admirable, légendaire, historique qui procure une émotion rare de plénitude.

Examples :
Rayas, Châteauneuf-du-Pape rouge, 2005 : 20/20 – 21/4/2019
Krug collection 1964 magnum : 20/20
Cheval-Blanc 1982 : 20/20 (twice)
Petrus 1990 : 20/20

Riesling Scharzhofberger Trockenbeerenauslese Egon Müller 1999 : 19,5/20 – 21/9/11
Riesling Keller Westhofen Brunnenhäuschen Abts E TBA 2009 : 19,5/20 – 21/9/11
Do Noval Porto Nacional 2003 : 19,5/20 (Portugal Juillet 2017)

G. Mascarello Barolo Monprivato Riserva Ca d’Morissio 2003 : 19/20 – 15/6/2019
Alvaro Palacios L’Ermita 2019 : 19/20 – 1/3/2020
Foreau Vouvray moelleux Réserve 1990 : 19/20 – 7/3/2020

Champagne Selosse Initial : 18,5/19 – 13/2/2020

Château-Grillet 2002 : 18,5/20 – 14/2/2021
Trimbach Riesling Frédéric Emile 2008 : 18,5/20 – 12/3/2021
Giuseppe Mascarello Barolo Santo Stefano di Perno 2009 : 18,5/20 – 12/3/2021
Romanée-Conti La Tâche 1999 : 18/20+ – 21/5/2015
Romanée-Conti La Tâche 1990 : 18,5/20 – 21/5/2015

March 2021 :
Williams & Humbert Amontillado Solera Especial 30 anos : 18/20
Berthet-Bondet Château-Chalon 2006 : 18/20

Gaillac Domaine de Brin Vendemia 2019 : 14,5/20 – 9/4/2021
67% duras, 27% braucol, 6% syrah (étiquette) vs 80% duras, 20% merlot (site du domaine). Robe foncée. Mûr pas pas surmûr. Végétal du braucol. Gelée de fruits (cassis et mûres), poivre. Attaque correcte, corps frais mais un peu léger et pas de réelle suite en bouche …

[Kevin_Patrick]

Had a similar view, it stack ranks well with the range in quality and craftsmanship. Though Moutai does deserve its own negative spectrum IMO.

Rich, shot you a PM a few days back. Did you see it? Not offended (seriously) if you weren’t interested.

All the best,
Kevin

[Rich_K0rz_nk0]

Had a similar view, it stack ranks well with the range in quality and craftsmanship. Though Moutai does deserve its own negative spectrum IMO.

Rich, shot you a PM a few days back. Did you see it? Not offended (seriously) if you weren’t interested.

All the best,
Kevin

Sorry Kevin, been sidelined with heavy work and have not been on here much the past few weeks. Wasn’t intentional. I’ll go check PMs.

Cheers

[Kevin_Patrick]

Sorry Kevin, been sidelined with heavy work and have not been on here much the past few weeks. Wasn’t intentional. I’ll go check PMs.

Cheers

No worries at all.