Post RP hangover

[Rick_Gregory]

@AKuehn

@Rick Gregory

You realize you agreed with me on sales effect, yes?

Yep.

@Rick Gregory

On the rest…who are YOU to redefine a critic’s published scoring definitions?

Actually, I didn’t. I just pointed out that 87 is, in fact, a near-average published score. The critic can SAY they define it however they like, but actions speak louder than words. If wine reviewers never publish the lousy scores, then the average will continue to creep up, regardless of what critics say they are doing. If I understand it correctly, range creep is at the heart of your entire complaint. Don’t blame me for that. The only scores I publish are on CellarTracker, and I actually do post the lousy ones.

Up to this point, the only dispute I really had was your characterization of buyer behavior as “silly”. In fact, that behavior is an entirely predictable consequence of the existing, actual score structure.

@Rick Gregory

Don’t confuse your opinion with ‘simple facts’.

So you are saying that you think an IWC review with a published score of 87 actually does describe a wine that the publication intends to regard as “Very Good to Excellent” (i.e. significantly better than average)? And, therefore, that an IWC rating of 77 really is intended to describe an “average” wine, per their range definitions? If so, then why do you agree with me on the sales effect? Shouldn’t an actual “Very Good to Excellent” rating differentiate a wine from the average and boost sales? How else do you account for your agreement that it does not?

Even WA redefined their score verbiage so that 80-89 now broadly describes wines that are “Barely above average to very good” although they never actually define “average” and their actual published average is well above 79. It seems to me that a buyer - to the extent they pay attention to a score range at all - should pay attention to the ACTUAL range of the scores, not whatever marketing drivel the publications use to describe their scores.

Once again, you’re ignoring that critics only publish 85 and up scores. Your conclusions are wrong because your logic assumes that the published scores = the universe of wine - they don’t. Published TNs don’t encompass the entire universe of wines. They are the universe of RECOMMENDED wines. By their nature, TWA, IWC and the like are saying that every single wine they publish a TN on hits the Good mark. The rest of your argument collapses once you realize this. An 87 is, in fact, intended precisely as what you say… a Very Good to Excellent wine. You’ve fallen into the trap of not paying attention to what they say, but instead of telling them what they really mean.

[M_Dildine]

@Rick Gregory

Once again, you’re ignoring that critics only publish 85 and up scores. Your conclusions are wrong because your logic assumes that the published scores = the universe of wine - they don’t. Published TNs don’t encompass the entire universe of wines. They are the universe of RECOMMENDED wines. By their nature, TWA, IWC and the like are saying that every single wine they publish a TN on hits the Good mark. The rest of your argument collapses once you realize this. An 87 is, in fact, intended precisely as what you say… a Very Good to Excellent wine. You’ve fallen into the trap of not paying attention to what they say, but instead of telling them what they really mean.

I have to agree. The subset of wines included in TWA, IWC, etc. reviews is a tiny fraction of the wine universe. The tip of the wine pyramid.

[Roberto_Rogness]

“The tip of the wine pyramid.”

Well, that Sierra Carche stuff and a few other highly touted bottlings are pretty near the base.

[Wes_Barton]

The 100 point system was modeled after our grading system as something easy for the public to grasp. A wine getting a ‘B’ has something wrong with it or some sort of hindrance (from the perspective of the reviewer). Maybe that’s good enough, maybe not. Maybe a simple easy drinking non-flawed wine is all you want on a summer afternoon, even if you’d rate it in the 70s. At the same time, maybe a wine with all the right pedigree that falls short of its potential is a failure at 87. If I took a class I was struggling in and managed an 87 I might e happy. If I took a class of particular interest to me and put in a serious effort I would not be happy with a 96.

[AKuehn]

@Rick Gregory

Once again, you’re ignoring that critics only publish 85 and up scores. Your conclusions are wrong because your logic assumes that the published scores = the universe of wine - they don’t. Published TNs don’t encompass the entire universe of wines. They are the universe of RECOMMENDED wines. By their nature, TWA, IWC and the like are saying that every single wine they publish a TN on hits the Good mark. The rest of your argument collapses once you realize this. An 87 is, in fact, intended precisely as what you say… a Very Good to Excellent wine. You’ve fallen into the trap of not paying attention to what they say, but instead of telling them what they really mean.

A quick search of the Wine Spectator site showed over 80,000 scores of 84 and below (out of 259,000). Moreover, their website indicates the following:

@Wine Spectator

Tasting Philosophy
What do we review each year?

Each year, more than 15,000 wines from around the world are blind-tasted by our editors.

The majority of these reviews are published in issues throughout the year, in the Buying Guide section of the magazine.

Additional reviews are posted exclusively on our website.

Note that they don’t say they taste 30,000 wines and publish only 15,000 of them, which is what they would have to do in order to leave all “average” and below wines off the table. They say they taste 15,000 and publish the majority of “these reviews”, clearly equating a tasting with a review.

I don’t subscribe to TWA or IWC, so I can’t comment directly on their available score databases. I will say that I can’t see much economic sense in leaving a minimum of half your reviewers’ work product out of the revenue stream. However, after a diligent search on eBob, I can’t find any statement at all of how many wines they taste but don’t review, or equating tastings with published reviews, so I can’t properly evaluate your claims for that publication.

For Spectator, your claim appears to be simply incorrect.

[Wes_Barton]

@AKuehn

Note that they don’t say they taste 30,000 wines and publish only 15,000 of them, which is what they would have to do in order to leave all “average” and below wines off the table. They say they taste 15,000 and publish the majority of “these reviews”, clearly equating a tasting with a review.

Umm, 15,001 is a majority of 30,000.

[AKuehn]

@Wes Barton

@AKuehn

Note that they don’t say they taste 30,000 wines and publish only 15,000 of them, which is what they would have to do in order to leave all “average” and below wines off the table. They say they taste 15,000 and publish the majority of “these reviews”, clearly equating a tasting with a review.

Umm, 15,001 is a majority of 30,000.

Obviously. Read that last sentence again.

[K_John_Joseph]

@AKuehn

@Rick Gregory

Once again, you’re ignoring that critics only publish 85 and up scores. Your conclusions are wrong because your logic assumes that the published scores = the universe of wine - they don’t. Published TNs don’t encompass the entire universe of wines. They are the universe of RECOMMENDED wines. By their nature, TWA, IWC and the like are saying that every single wine they publish a TN on hits the Good mark. The rest of your argument collapses once you realize this. An 87 is, in fact, intended precisely as what you say… a Very Good to Excellent wine. You’ve fallen into the trap of not paying attention to what they say, but instead of telling them what they really mean.

A quick search of the Wine Spectator site showed over 80,000 scores of 84 and below (out of 259,000). Moreover, their website indicates the following:

@Wine Spectator

Tasting Philosophy
What do we review each year?

Each year, more than 15,000 wines from around the world are blind-tasted by our editors.

The majority of these reviews are published in issues throughout the year, in the Buying Guide section of the magazine.

Additional reviews are posted exclusively on our website.

Note that they don’t say they taste 30,000 wines and publish only 15,000 of them, which is what they would have to do in order to leave all “average” and below wines off the table. They say they taste 15,000 and publish the majority of “these reviews”, clearly equating a tasting with a review.

I don’t subscribe to TWA or IWC, so I can’t comment directly on their available score databases. I will say that I can’t see much economic sense in leaving a minimum of half your reviewers’ work product out of the revenue stream. However, after a diligent search on eBob, I can’t find any statement at all of how many wines they taste but don’t review, or equating tastings with published reviews, so I can’t properly evaluate your claims for that publication.

For Spectator, your claim appears to be simply incorrect.

Nice post. I subscribe to WS, and didn’t know they’ve published so many sub-85 scores. It would be interesting to see what percentage of those are for wines tasted in the last 8 years. Frankly, it seems that each year their disclosure of % wines ranked 90 or higher increases to close to 50% of all wines tasted.

[AlexS]

Well, might be good to also qualify that while WS publishes many “reviews,” they’re typically relegated to the end of a tasting category and the actual note isn’t even shown (!). So “review” is certainly meant as different from “tasting note.”

And certainly, WS has to publish these “reviews” as even the 85-88 point scores are used on many a shelf-talker for the sub-$15 wines produced by many of their advertisers. We may scoff at an 85, but if the wine is only $7 it’s usually one that still gets noticed.