Could you show us how you implement the system, using a selection of wines within a single vintage? Maybe using some examples which did not make the cut as well as some which did.
To Chris F. : I am sorry but I still do not have access to my source material. I can give you one example from memory which for a while did not make the grade and then later did. THe 2015 Malartic Lagraviere Rouge first got a 94.5 from me but I thought it was likely to improve. THe next time I tried it I gave it a 95. A while later it made a 95.5 (certainly not less). The W.A.V.R. for that year for Pessac Leognan is 96. 196/2 = 98. 98-2.5 =95.5, the lowest possible rating for a âfirst growthâ in a fine year (minimum W.A.V.R. 96). RTPL
I didnât understand one bit of the logic behind anything. It seems to be just full of arbitrary values that work according to a completely unscientific logic.
I can see the math how you can get âthe lowest possible rating for a 1st Growth in a âfine yearââ but I still donât see the logic behind those seemingly arbitrary values which you deduct from the â(score+100)/2â which just seems to be another arbitrary number not really based on anything, only apparently âvery close to Wine Advocate vintage rating averaged over a period of one or more yearsâ.
This looks like just crazy rambling disguised in a seemingly mathematical theory that is just a bunch on numbers not really based on anything, just thrown off the hat because they seem to only reinforce your own scores - which, in turn, are yet another list of arbitrary numbers selected on a whim while tasting wines.
To Otto Forsberg: posts like yours are the reason I now spend more time on Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts than here. The people there are very polite and seem able to reason well. The reasons for the range for each growth category were given
in my posts under âmodern classification of left bank red Bordeauxâ; in them I worked out the range for the âfirst growthsâ myself,
and took the other ranges from an article I called âGrundekenâ. If you are interested please read the (admittedly not very well worded) posts carefully and let me know of any mathematical errors you find. The system was devised to prevent my over-paying for these wines, and I hoped to help at least one other person to do the same. I am very old and had to go by my imperfect memory, not having access to my source material. As for scores I just go my own taste buds, right or wrong (I donât really care which as they seem to work for me-smile). Others should NOT rely on my scores. Regards, RTPL
Generally nobody minds constructive criricism, or different viewpoints if put halfway politely. I would not call such phrases as âcrazy ramblingâ polite, especially if the poster seems to have made little effort to understand what to me is ultimately a very simple system. I do not consider myself thin-skinned and welcome constructive criticism. Helpful suggestions are, of couse, always welcome. I do not say that my system is correct, but it is helpful to me in avoiding overpaying for left bank red Bordeaux, currently my favorite type of wine. Rightly or wrongly (I donât really care which -smile) I go by my own taste buds, but the Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings are obviously NOT mine. I do wonder if certain posters were good at high school maths. I am glad if my postings help anyone. Best wishes to all, RTPL
Since Iâm interested in engaging you on this topic Iâll offer a little bit of constructive criticism to keep things lively.
Your concept of reclassifying chateaux each vintage is likely to be viewed as having little value, even though youâre using a system that was already provided. And while there is extensive discussion of a Modern Classification, people have trouble following the 1855 Classification, let alone a dynamic process that requires mathematics.
Your emphasis seems to be on a system of points analysis, so it may not be apparent that your ultimate purpose is simply deciding if a particular offering is worthwhile to you. Iâm sure a great deal of wine-buying is far more emotional than that.
However, if you created an app for smartphones that did the hard work for them, people might use it. 
To Chris F.: Again many thanks for helping me to get on BWE.
I agree with much of your post, and consider my score for wines much more important than the classification.
To help me to evaluate our âcollectionâ I like to find out the category into which I put our various Bordeaux (the bulk of the âcollectionâ) and here for me the âmodern classificationâ does help. It is not at all as if the maths were hard. I only evaluate wines I contemplate buying or have bought.
Only my score matters in choosing whether or not to buy a wine (using $170 as the maximum to pay for a 100 point wine-laugh) and I realize that wines with relatively low scores can be had for far less than my âguidelinesâ. I do not buy red Bordeaux I score less than 90.5 (âenjoyableâ) at whch score it is very easy to find wines with very reasonable prices. I plan to drink rather than buy wines now (other than replacement whites mainly for my wife}. I quite understand if others want to go by their scores only. All the best to everyone, RTPL
Is this an echo chamber?
Count me as another poster who thinks this is an insane, non-sensical way to find value on wine. None of it makes any sense.
You want to know how to find value? It is easy. Consider the style, character, scarcity, ability to evolve, drink well young or a wines needing to age, the label cachet, what you have in your cellar, or donât. The age of the wine and your age. And your disposable income. That makes sense!
Or make it simple. Buy the wines you want in your glass and to share with friends at a price you are comfortable paying. You will end up with wines you like drinking at prices you can afford.
Now that seems smart to me.
1 Like
To Jeff Leve: It seems that smart people can make posts that I am slightly too polite to call idiotic.
In my previous post I said âOnly my score matters in choosing whether or not to buy a wine.â
The classification is basically to help me evaluate my collection, though it might be of some use in choosing which wines to try.
This forum is certainly rough and tumble compared to BWE. There, unlike here, I have never found rudeness.
I find that I almost welcome the rudeness now as I beginning to enjoy replying, oddly enough.
I do agree with your penultimate paragraph. RTPL
That made sense
The classification is basically to help me evaluate my collection, though it might be of some use in choosing which wines to try.
And none of your facts take into consideration about what the wine is. If that works for you, great.
This forum is certainly rough and tumble compared to BWE. There, unlike here, I have never found rudeness.
I find that I almost welcome the rudeness now as I beginning to enjoy replying, oddly enough.
BWE is a nice, small, friendly community with 10-20 active posters. Here you find 200-500 active posters so itâs a different vibe.
I read most of your posts and others responses. I did not see people being rude. They and I simply do not agree and some folks, including me thinks it makes zero sense and it misses everything important to me on why buy a wine or not.
Further to Jeff Leve: I used to respect you (I consider you a little too rude now, frankly) as you are very informative, even though thinking your scores rather high.
Past posts from Brian Grafstrom and Otto Forsberg have sometimes been very far from polite, in my opinion. Frankly I care about your and their opinions about as much as you and they seem to care for mine. If I now stray from politeness I think it entirely appropriate, but I suppose I should instead turn the other cheek (it is hard to do so when I think the other person might well not be above hitting it also).
Anyway, bring it on. Je mâen fiche. Best wishes to everyone, RTPL
To all: i am nearly 87, back in a medical center with a slightly broken neck, and not in the greatest of moods, so I would much appreciate getting nothing but reasonably polite posts. I feel capable of handling the others (however much I wonder about their simple maths skills) but would appreciate a respite. Thanks in advance. RTPL
In his most recent post to me Jeff Leve wrote (among other things) âAnd none of your facts take into consideration what the wine is. If that works for you, great.â
The first part of my âsystemâ is designed to evaluate what the estimated top score for a rounded average of the (long term) top 2 in an area (St.Estephe/Paullac/St.Julien or Margaux or Pessac Leognan) will be for the area and period in question. Then I deduct 2.5 points to find the lowest score permitted for a âbottom first growthâ, and so on. Wines are only bought in quantity if my taste buds approve them AND they are within my price limitations. I concede that the last 2 considerations are FAR more important than the first, but the latter helps me evaluate the quality of our âcellarâ. To choose which wines to taste I usually estimate their likely score from me by finding on the Farr Vintners website the scores of Neal Martin (score NM) and Antonio Galloni (score AG) and calculate {(NM+2AG)/3}. The result is usually very close to the score I give on tasting the wine. My score for a wine can and does sometimes change when I have it later. RTPL
I know I am making far too many posts, but I have a lot of time on my hands, as the estimated time of recovery from a very small fracture of no. 2 of my cervical verterbrae is 2 to 4 weeks. Here are some quotes from posters re âsensible pricing of left bank red Bordeauxâ : per Otto Forsberg âcrazy, ramblingâ
per Jeff Leve âinsane, non-sensicalâ
and ânone of it makes any senseâ
and âmakes zero senseâ
and posted under âmodern classification of left bank red Bordeauxâ per Brian Grafstrom re Grundeken: âthat otherwise non-sensical and senile-sounding termâ, and
re my system âjust confusing as all hellâ and âterribly confusingâ.
My posts could certainly have been better worded, but to me the system seems VERY simple and the maths exremely easy. I must admit I do wonder about the maths skills of some of the posters. It is possible that I made one or more mathematical errors, and if so I would be grateful if somebody would point it or them in a reasonably polite post. All the best to everyone, RTPL
The math in your system is ridiculously easy and we se no errors there. We are not criticizing the math, but the very logic of the whole system, since there doesnât seem to be much of it. Every single one of us can add, deduct multiply and divide numbers - we just fail to see the logic according to which these numbers are chosen. Yes, some come from Wine Advocate (and some of us might question even the logic behind that one) but most of the other numbers seem quite arbitrary to everyone but you.
And Iâm sorry to say, but if you are in here your very own thread discussing all alone to yourself how groundbreaking your system is and how poor are the math skills of the other users, it really does seem like somebody rambling to himself.
To Otto Forsberg: I apologise for mentally questioning othersâ maths skills. I did not say they were poor. The âproblemâ seems to be with the logic for the âsystemâ.
I wanted to find which category (if any) I should consider appropriate for a left bank red Bordeaux and so I needed a range of scores for each qrowth classification. This was not at all easy and I took a great deal of time and found very few sources to help me. I never have used individual Wine Advocate scores other than some time ago to find wines to try: I go entirely by my own taste buds, right or wrong. I do use the Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings as they cover each sub-area separately. It would be quicker to use the Wine Spectator Vintage Ratings and that would be a little simpler, but I do prefer looking at each sub-area separately.
I can understand that the system does not have to be used in choosing wines to try ( I just use it for evaluating our âcollectionâ) and expect almost but maybe not quite everyone else to ignore it. I do not believe I have ever claimed the system was âground-breakingâ. The maths skills of the posters seem just fine . The maths in my first 2 posts are a little more advanced, and I would appreciate hearing about any maths errors in them. Obviously a
great first growth might occasionally score a little above the systemâs limits ( a âsuper firstâ?), but there is no problem with the fifth growth category.
I could work out a system without using âGrundekenâ, which was (I think) not long on the internet or at all well known. There would be a range of 9 points instead of 10. For 4 categories of growths (in the early 1820s there were âdeuxiemes quatriemesâ) one could use 2.25 for each, and for 5 categories one could use 2/2/2/1.5/1.5 .
I am not saying there was anything wrong with Grundeken. RTPL
To jeff Leve: I respectfully suggest that you look at my most recent post on this subject, giving the logic behind my âsystemâ. Frankly, I think much of it could have been surmised without real difficulty. RTPL
To Otto Forsberg and Brian Grafstrom if they see this: I request that you read my most recent post to Jeff Leve. RTPL
I most admit that I find it REALLY hard to undeRstand how any sensible peron cannot easily grasp how and why I use (if I feel like it) my very simple and unimportant âsystemâ.RTPL