Scoring based on color: My debate with James Suckling

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Glenn L e v i n e

I have no issue with JS and like wine color about as much as he does but how come every time he is challenged about anything we get to hear how he has been tasting wine for 29 years (praise God can this become a nice round thirty soon) as if this is cogent?

I am near 50 and have been tasting for close to 35 years, is that inherently better than 29?

Depends upon how dark you are when you taste…

[Larry_P]

@Wes Barton

Well, since he gives a wine 14 points on color, just for showing up, what are his floors for the other components? What is his effective minimum score?

14+22+22+32 = 90 points

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Evan Dawson

James Suckling
What do you do? Do you have anything better to do today…or is it a slow news day?

Evan Dawson
Just honestly curious. If a wine’s color is 15% of its score, why judge in conditions that don’t let you see it optimally?

James Suckling
May be you use your daylight flashlight when you visit cellars to taste? Can _get one?

Evan Dawson
Ha! That would be great. But perhaps another reminder that assessing color for points is questionable.

Evan Dawson
And yes, I confess that I think it’s strange to put so much weight on a wine’s color. But your mileage may vary!

James Suckling
But just to be polite and answer your question. I have been tasting for 29 years. I know how to judge color.

Evan Dawson
A wine can go from 92 to 89 pretty easily all because you judged the score in artificial/lesser lighting. That matters!

James Suckling
Giving points for color works for me, UC Davis and lots of people.
\

Given how easily color is manipulated, I’m surprised it’s still evaluated for score at all. Am I wrong?

My thanks to writer and critic Thor Iverson for stacking up the conversation.

oenoLogic: Color me surprised" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;_

Evan, you should have asked the arrogant little shit what HE does (other than unintentional stand-up comedy videos) since he quit his day job and is currently unemployed, and if HE didn’t have anything better to do than tweet insults at you. You asked a legitimate question, and tried to pursue it in a gentlemanly way. You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud. All 29 year’s worth. And only an idiot would defend his position with “UC Davis too”. Given the damage done by UC Davis with color, descriptor wheels and formulae for industrial plonk, it is sort of like citing Rush Limbaugh as the conservative voice of reason in a world gone mad, eh? He is lucky that I don’t tweet. I would have taken his frigging head off in your shoes…

[gene_keenan]

@Larry P

@Wes Barton

Well, since he gives a wine 14 points on color, just for showing up, what are his floors for the other components? What is his effective minimum score?

14+22+22+32 = 90 points

that appears to be the minimum score for anyone buying wine so I think that 10 point scale works well.

[Jim_Brennan]

@Bill Klapp

You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud.

Bill, I thought this thread was about Suckling.

[gene_keenan]

@Bill Klapp

@Evan Dawson

James Suckling
What do you do? Do you have anything better to do today…or is it a slow news day?

Evan Dawson
Just honestly curious. If a wine’s color is 15% of its score, why judge in conditions that don’t let you see it optimally?

James Suckling
May be you use your daylight flashlight when you visit cellars to taste? Can _get one?

Evan Dawson
Ha! That would be great. But perhaps another reminder that assessing color for points is questionable.

Evan Dawson
And yes, I confess that I think it’s strange to put so much weight on a wine’s color. But your mileage may vary!

James Suckling
But just to be polite and answer your question. I have been tasting for 29 years. I know how to judge color.

Evan Dawson
A wine can go from 92 to 89 pretty easily all because you judged the score in artificial/lesser lighting. That matters!

James Suckling
Giving points for color works for me, UC Davis and lots of people.
\

Given how easily color is manipulated, I’m surprised it’s still evaluated for score at all. Am I wrong?

My thanks to writer and critic Thor Iverson for stacking up the conversation.

oenoLogic: Color me surprised" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;_

Evan, you should have asked the arrogant little shit what HE does (other than stand-up comedy videos) since he quit his day job and is currently unemployed, and if HE didn’t have anything better to do than tweet insults at you. You asked a legitimate question, and tried to pursue it in a gentlemanly way. You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud. And only an idiot would defend his position with “UC Davis too”. Given the damage done by UC Davis with color, descriptor wheels and formulae for industrial plonk, it is sort of like citing Rush Limbaugh as the conservative voice of reason in a world gone mad, eh? He is lucky that I don’t tweet. I would have taken his frigging head off in your shoes…

Pretty strong response Bill; tell us how you really feel.

The point of pointing out UC davis or any other scoring system is to show the general idiocy of all the scoring systems and the bigger idiocy of singling out Suckling when he is doing the same stupid thing as all of the other critics do albeit to a larger degree based on his larger proportion to color.

[Evan_Dawson]

@Bill Klapp

@Evan Dawson

James Suckling
What do you do? Do you have anything better to do today…or is it a slow news day?

Evan Dawson
Just honestly curious. If a wine’s color is 15% of its score, why judge in conditions that don’t let you see it optimally?

James Suckling
May be you use your daylight flashlight when you visit cellars to taste? Can _get one?

Evan Dawson
Ha! That would be great. But perhaps another reminder that assessing color for points is questionable.

Evan Dawson
And yes, I confess that I think it’s strange to put so much weight on a wine’s color. But your mileage may vary!

James Suckling
But just to be polite and answer your question. I have been tasting for 29 years. I know how to judge color.

Evan Dawson
A wine can go from 92 to 89 pretty easily all because you judged the score in artificial/lesser lighting. That matters!

James Suckling
Giving points for color works for me, UC Davis and lots of people.
\

Given how easily color is manipulated, I’m surprised it’s still evaluated for score at all. Am I wrong?

My thanks to writer and critic Thor Iverson for stacking up the conversation.

oenoLogic: Color me surprised" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;_

Evan, you should have asked the arrogant little shit what HE does (other than unintentional stand-up comedy videos) since he quit his day job and is currently unemployed, and if HE didn’t have anything better to do than tweet insults at you. You asked a legitimate question, and tried to pursue it in a gentlemanly way. You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud. All 29 year’s worth. And only an idiot would defend his position with “UC Davis too”. Given the damage done by UC Davis with color, descriptor wheels and formulae for industrial plonk, it is sort of like citing Rush Limbaugh as the conservative voice of reason in a world gone mad, eh? He is lucky that I don’t tweet. I would have taken his frigging head off in your shoes…

Some rib me for being a bit of a Suckling scourge, but I try to ask questions in courteous, honest fashion. And he doesn’t have to answer them. At least there is an opportunity for dialog, which I appreciate. He could choose to ignore questions.

He is not a nobody, despite what some may wish and despite what seem deserving of karma. So as far as I’m concerned, if he’s waxing on about color and judging wines in weird settings and spitting out scores within seconds, it’s fair to ask him about it.

But as far as his comments to me, I took them in good-natured humor. They gave me a laugh. And laughter is good for you.

[Bob_Wood]

@Bill Klapp

You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud.

I’ll thank you to take your Leve comments over to the Leve thread, Mr. Bill.

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@K V a s t o l a

@Larry P

@K V a s t o l a

15 points is a lot more. Recall that 50 points is automatic, so it’s really a 50-point scale. That means that for Parker, color is 10% of his real score, while for Suckling color is 30% of his real score.

Ken, if you watch the Suckling video on component scoring, he doesn’t give 50 free points, it was a 15+25+25+35 so 15 points is 15% of the score.

I did not know that. But has he ever given a wine less than 50 points? I don’t recall ever seeing a rating the Spectator less that 50 points.

Me, either, but WS (alas, probably pre-Suckling and by nameless, faceless committee) awarded the 1985 Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva a 77, the 1990 Barbaresco Gallina and the 1985 Barolo Collina Rionda 86s, the 1989 Barolo Collina Rionda Riserva a 78, the 1990 Barolo Falletto Riserva a 55+ and the 1989 Falletto Riserva an 84, and then finished with what I like to call the Barolo Villero trifecta, giving the 1990 a 78, the 1989 an 81 and the 1988 a 70. Thus, Ken, like the old Mafia “I have no son” when a kid brings dishonor to the family, it is safe to say that “you have no Wine Spectator”! Credibility is far more important to you than it is to that sorry rag…

[Bill_Klapp_deactivated]

@Bob Wood

@Bill Klapp

You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud.

I’ll thank you to take your Leve comments over to the Leve thread, Mr. Bill.

Bob, if you go look on the Leve thread (although I am not sure why you would want to at this point), you will see that my pact with the devils that run this board is that I would lay off Leve, but not Suckling. And if I discover that Leve and Suckling are representative of the state of wine knowledge in Los Angeles and not just outlying abberations, I am going after the city next…

[Paul_Jaouen]

@Bill Klapp

Bob, if you go look on the Leve thread (although I am not sure why you would want to at this point), you will see that my pact with the devils that run this board is that I would lay off Leve, but not Suckling.

They got to you, eh! At least Suckling has some credibility.

[Jeff_Lewis]

I think formulaic scoring can NEVER work for something where there is art involved. I used to be a panelist rating golf course architecture for one of the magazines. They had us fill out a survey for each course with a score for each component they deemed significant. Somehow courses I didn’t really like at all kept getting higher overall scores from me from ones I really enjoyed. I now work with a different magazine that simply asks us to tell them which courses we like better. That’s it. And when one looks at the lists, one magazine salutes courses that lack charm, quirk or anything unusual. Guess which one?

[Jim_Brennan]

@Bill Klapp

@Bob Wood

@Bill Klapp

You got bullied by the 21st century’s leading wine nobody, and a total fraud.

I’ll thank you to take your Leve comments over to the Leve thread, Mr. Bill.

Bob, if you go look on the Leve thread (although I am not sure why you would want to at this point), you will see that my pact with the devils that run this board is that I would lay off Leve, but not Suckling. And if I discover that Leve and Suckling are representative of the state of wine knowledge in Los Angeles and not just outlying abberations, I am going after the city next…

Should Suckling befriend the powers that be?

[john_holdredge]

“debate”? Really Evan?

Lincoln and Douglas are rolling over in their graves.

[Ken_V]

@Bill Klapp

@K V a s t o l a

@Larry P

Ken, if you watch the Suckling video on component scoring, he doesn’t give 50 free points, it was a 15+25+25+35 so 15 points is 15% of the score.

I did not know that. But has he ever given a wine less than 50 points? I don’t recall ever seeing a rating the Spectator less that 50 points.

Me, either, but WS (alas, probably pre-Suckling and by nameless, faceless committee) awarded the 1985 Giacosa Barbaresco Santo Stefano Riserva a 77, the 1990 Barbaresco Gallina and the 1985 Barolo Collina Rionda 86s, the 1989 Barolo Collina Rionda Riserva a 78, the 1990 Barolo Falletto Riserva a 55+ and the 1989 Falletto Riserva an 84, and then finished with what I like to call the Barolo Villero trifecta, giving the 1990 a 78, the 1989 an 81 and the 1988 a 70. Thus, Ken, like the old Mafia “I have no son” when a kid brings dishonor to the family, it is safe to say that “you have no Wine Spectator”! Credibility is far more important to you than it is to that sorry rag…

I did think of those scores when I wrote that post. The 89 Rionda Riserva is my all-time favorite wine. The only wine to get a score over 100 from me.

[PaulM]

@dave cuneo

Next time please ask him what happens if a wine has a half point in the score, like 89.5. Does it get bumped up or down?

Personally I can’t imagine he actually uses that system - the dude sniffs, slurps and spits and “I’m 92 on that”, boom. dc.

Yeah. Whereas when I’m asked to score a wine, I break out the calculator, round .500 up but .499 down, and NEVER give more than 12.375 points for color.

So the main point of this thread seems to be that point scales are approximate, not scientific, and they all fall apart when you pick too hard at the purportedly objective methodology.

[Tim_Burnett]

1. 15% of a score to color? Not what I attach to it but if most wines get 14, not sure whether its worth caring about.

2. So, niche wine writer goes after established wine writer, more news at 11.

3. Really points out the fundamental contradiction in attempting to reduce wine appreciation to a number.

4. Most of all, this is the type of thread someone should send to Christopher Guest, as we currently look more eccentric and absorbed than community theater performers, dog show handlers, or folk musicians. Who would Eugene Levy play in Tasting Notes, the movie?

[Reese_Ferry]

@Jeff Lewis

I think formulaic scoring can NEVER work for something where there is art involved. I used to be a panelist rating golf course architecture for one of the magazines. They had us fill out a survey for each course with a score for each component they deemed significant. Somehow courses I didn’t really like at all kept getting higher overall scores from me from ones I really enjoyed. I now work with a different magazine that simply asks us to tell them which courses we like better. That’s it. And when one looks at the lists, one magazine salutes courses that lack charm, quirk or anything unusual. Guess which one?

Golf Course Enthusiast ?

[Kyle_Schlachter]

With all the hubbub on this site (and others) surrounding the different wine rating systems and discussion about the extent different factors play a part of them, I’ve decided to update the system. This new system incorporates every aspect of experiencing a wine (price, label, sight, aroma, etc…). This system is a first draft and I urge everyone to please help me renovate and improve the 100-point system.

I tried to copy and paste it from my blog, but it didn’t work so well. I don’t want to be that guy who is trying to promote his own worthless blog, so please don’t rag on me for directing you there. Read it if want. Ignore it if you want. Here it is.

[Evan_Dawson]

@Tim Burnett

1. 15% of a score to color? Not what I attach to it but if most wines get 14, not sure whether its worth caring about.

2. So, niche wine writer goes after established wine writer, more news at 11.

3. Really points out the fundamental contradiction in attempting to reduce wine appreciation to a number.

4. Most of all, this is the type of thread someone should send to Christopher Guest, as we currently look more eccentric and absorbed than community theater performers, dog show handlers, or folk musicians. Who would Eugene Levy play in Tasting Notes, the movie?

I am, of course, a tad biased. But I think this is less clever than you were hoping.