Scoring based on color: My debate with James Suckling

[Wes_Barton]

@Tim Burnett

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

The problem isn’t the numbers, it’s people giving too much importance to the numbers. It’s just a quantification of one person’s experience with one bottle, at one time, under one set of conditions. So many variables. Change one and it’ll likely get a different rating. Different people sitting around a table drinking the same wine will perceive it differently. The same exact bottle (of some very young wines) under the same exact conditions can taste quite differently a week apart. Two bottles of the same wine, from the same case, opened and served side by side can show quite differently. Etc. etc. etc.

But it’s still a useful expression of how much someone enjoyed a wine or assessed its potential.

[Kyle_Schlachter]

@Wes Barton

The problem isn’t the numbers, it’s people giving too much importance to the numbers. It’s just a quantification of one person’s experience with one bottle, at one time, under one set of conditions.

Exactly.And people not understanding personal preferences when it comes to points and taking those points as if they were carved in stone…

[Tim_Burnett]

@Wes Barton

@Tim Burnett

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

The problem isn’t the numbers, it’s people giving too much importance to the numbers. It’s just a quantification of one person’s experience with one bottle, at one time, under one set of conditions. So many variables. Change one and it’ll likely get a different rating. Different people sitting around a table drinking the same wine will perceive it differently. The same exact bottle (of some very young wines) under the same exact conditions can taste quite differently a week apart. Two bottles of the same wine, from the same case, opened and served side by side can show quite differently. Etc. etc. etc.

But it’s still a useful expression of how much someone enjoyed a wine or assessed its potential.

Oh, I agree, and “fundamental contradiction” might have been a bit strong.

The combination of a tasting note, score, and familiarity with the taster’s preferences/scoring range can be useful in purchasing decisions, or for recreational reading if it’s one’s cup of tea. But I think aside from giving a score too much importance, a number still implies a level of precision that is aspirational. The higher the scale, the more distance between reality and the implied precision.

Regardless of bottle variation, I don’t think a wine rating is any more reliable or authoritative that a movie or music review, and allowing for bottle variation makes it less so (thought I suppose you could have technology variation as to media). Like you said, “one person’s experience with one bottle, at one time, under one set of conditions.”

[Tim_Burnett]

@Evan Dawson

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

Probably so. But someone had to call BS, and I do think this thread would make a fairly hilarious mockumentary scene in the right actors’ hands.

I remember Suckling pondering in a WS blog post whether high end BDX had become a “luxury product.” It was the fall of 2006 IIRC, and the trigger was 2005 Petrus futures hitting $3K a bottle. Someone questioned what else $3K for 750 ml of fermented grape juice could be, to which he said something like “I’ll have to think about that.”

Absurd, but harmless from a wine writer. Suckling can be something of a caricature, but he’s been pretty successful. Good writer, adequate palate, and obviously has a lot of experience (when I’m 54, my wine hobby/obsession/addiction will be 29 years old. I will not have the experience he does now). In any case, he’s pretty middle of the road as a wine critic, so going after his tasting methodology is a stretch.

So yeah, I don’t see a real point to the exchange, other than that for reasons passing understanding he bothered. He’ll learn to be less candid when posting on the internets next time.

[Chris_Blum]

@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 ?

“golf columnist” for Bondage and Discipline Illustrated?

[JBierly]

Well if Parker is only 10 pct but Suckling is 15 pct and UCD a whopping 20 pct - sounds like Parker has this correct. 10 pct seems about right IMHO. Color is important but more important is clarity - nothing more off-putting than a cloudy wine.

Here is a quote from RPs scoring system: “The wine’s general color and appearance merit up to 5 points. Since most wines today are well made, thanks to modern technology and the increased use of professional oenologists, they tend to receive at least 4, often 5 points.”

For me there should be something about appearance in a wine’s rating - usually demerits for me are related to turbidity - not color.

[Evan_Dawson]

@Tim Burnett

@Evan Dawson

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

Probably so. But someone had to call BS, and I do think this thread would make a fairly hilarious mockumentary scene in the right actors’ hands.

I remember Suckling pondering in a WS blog post whether high end BDX had become a “luxury product.” It was the fall of 2006 IIRC, and the trigger was 2005 Petrus futures hitting $3K a bottle. Someone questioned what else $3K for 750 ml of fermented grape juice could be, to which he said something like “I’ll have to think about that.”

Absurd, but harmless from a wine writer. Suckling can be something of a caricature, but he’s been pretty successful. Good writer, adequate palate, and obviously has a lot of experience (when I’m 54, my wine hobby/obsession/addiction will be 29 years old. I will not have the experience he does now). In any case, he’s pretty middle of the road as a wine critic, so going after his tasting methodology is a stretch.

So yeah, I don’t see a real point to the exchange, other than that for reasons passing understanding he bothered. He’ll learn to be less candid when posting on the internets next time.

I do not mean to be rude, but it’s very commonly accepted in wine writing circles that Mr. Suckling is a poor writer. I’m confused as to why you think otherwise. I have no doubt he has other strengths, but writing is not among them. And I tend to doubt he has much editing help at his current site, which is riddled with errors.

Not sure I understand the description of him as “middle of the road” as a critic. His name appears in almost every wine store and he retains a certain amount of power. Discussing his methodology is worthwhile, especially if he is trying to impress that methodology on others. Which he is.

[Rob_Hansult]

Dang,

Almost hate to be adding to this since many here don’t have much respect for Sucklings palate, & neither do I.

Color should be part of the scoring of a wine, that’s obvious too. How much you allocate, points wise, is the rub.

Color is one of the components of the wine, so . . .

15% is obviously too high . . . obviously.

I give ~ 5% to color when reviewing & scoring a wine, along with a written note.

That it needs to be argued that Suckling doesn’t have good aptitude as a wine taster, & that he is off-base giving such a high percentage to color alone while judging a wine are good points.

Big surprise here that Suckling is wrong.

I have never taken his palate seriously.

OK, Show of hands: how many of you here actually thought the Wine Spectator was reviewing wines, & not just “supporting” them?

. . . just sayin’, & curious . . .

[gene_keenan]

@Rob Hansult

OK, Show of hands: how many of you here actually thought the Wine Spectator was reviewing wines, & not just "supporting" them?

For you to say this tells me your not familiar with the way wines are reviewed at Wine Spectator which is always blind. more than you can say for the majority of other “reviewers.” Explain to me how they are “supporting” wines when the wines are reviewed in a blind fashion.

[Rob_Hansult]

@gene keenan

@Rob Hansult

OK, Show of hands: how many of you here actually thought the Wine Spectator was reviewing wines, & not just "supporting" them?

For you to say this tells me your not familiar with the way wines are reviewed at Wine Spectator which is always blind. more than you can say for the majority of other “reviewers.” Explain to me how they are “supporting” wines when the wines are reviewed in a blind fashion.

Gene,

I’m quite familiar with what they claim is their tasting regime. In fact it’s not usually completely blind, but generally a fairly defined category of vino.

It’s obvious to me, someone who both enjoys wine, takes it seriously, & tries to be as objective about it as possible when reviewing & describing it, that the Spectator is a complete joke, with many erroneous & inflated “reviews”.
The erroneous, inaccurate review is almost more the rule than the exception in fact.
In the early days of my love of wine I DID use them occasionally for info on a wine I was interested in that they’d reviewed. It didn’t take long to realize how poorly they performed as wine critics.

Sure, I have disagreements with Parker, Tanzer, & other critics/reviewers, but those are more of an exception than the Spectator.

Those are simply the facts as I see them.

They are quite good at promoting wine, & I’m all for that!

Well . . . except for the fact that they don’t seem to have much of a palate between them, & even if they get a score “right”, cannot seem to accurately describe what sort of liquid it is they’ve tasted.

Just my opinion of course, but as a wine professional, I’d be embarrassed to hawk the promo drivel they do & parade it around as serious critical wine journalism.

I’m hoping you’re not gullible enough to use their “criticism” as the basis for purchases?

Cheers in any case. and can we please get back to bashing Suckling now?

[JBierly]

@gene keenan

@Rob Hansult

OK, Show of hands: how many of you here actually thought the Wine Spectator was reviewing wines, & not just "supporting" them?

For you to say this tells me your not familiar with the way wines are reviewed at Wine Spectator which is always blind. more than you can say for the majority of other “reviewers.” Explain to me how they are “supporting” wines when the wines are reviewed in a blind fashion.

I actually like Spectator - great photos and lots of nice articles relating to a wine lifestyle. But sometimes the advertising seems just a bit too close to the reviews. And I think I am being gentle in my assertion. Nonetheless, their reviews of wines sometimes have some value to me and other times totally worthless.