Where does your personal rating system bottom out?

[Anton_D]

Like the title asks. A wine is totally undrinkable. you hate it. everyone else hates it. what do you rate it?

also the flip side. whats it take to be a 100 point, 20/20 wine to you? does it have to be a WOTY? wine of a lifetime? best wine ever made?

I’ll try and run through your questions in order. Note: I rate wines for benchmarking purposes and future references only. I don’t rate every wine I drink - far from it.

My rating system bottoms out at 75, however IMO anything below an 80 is undrinkable for me. I’m rarely exposed to wines that poor in quality. Low to Mid-80’s are typically monochromatic - one dimensional. They offer up little in the way of bouquet, are unbalanced on the palate with little discernible fruit and they have no secondary or tertiary notes. Wines in the upper 80’s have more discernible characteristics both on the nose and palate, with a bit more complexity, but they may exhibit flaws that hold them back. 90-94 are well made wines that have good balance, character, aging capability and offer interesting bouquets and complexity with lingering finishes. 95-97 are classics with very high levels of expression for the varietal or blend. They are wines you will remember and bring something unique to the table. Once I get past 97 it gets tough, because history enters the picture and I start comparing to other wines I’ve had at this rare level.

I try not to let others influence me when I’m evaluating a wine. I know what I like and what I don’t.

To me 100 point wines are as rare as they are subjective. Having said that, to be a 100 point wine it must represent the fullest expression of the varietal or blend (ex. Bordeaux, CdP etc.). It must be in perfect harmony and balance and the structure has to be near perfect. On the nose I have to discern primary, secondary and tertiary notes and be able to explain them. On the palate it has to drive the same level of complexity, bring something unique in texture (mouth feel) and have a long memorable finish. The wine has to take you on a journey with each sample providing new hidden treasures. A 100 point wine should be an epiphany and something you never forget. It does not have to be WOTY, because one may be exposed to more than one 100 point wine in a year.

In 2015 I was exposed to a Northern Rhone Syrah that I’ll never forget. I’ll be chasing that experience for the rest of my life.

I love this topic, and these questions are not meant adversarily…

Can a grape you don’t care for score 100 points on your scale?

Do you think you can step outside your own palate to rate a wine?

Example: Parker never rated a sauvignon blanc 100 points, but he practically sweats 100 point cabernets out his pores. (I think he’s ‘100 pointed’ a couple of French Bordeaux Blancs, but they were blends.) So, has there never been a sauvginon blanc that represented the fullest expression of the varietal? Parker would tell us there has not!

One the one hand, I could see where Parker would say that you don’t send a Metallica fan to review a Norah Jones concert, hence he rates some varietals lower because he himself can’t fully appreciate them. On the other hand, is that fair? Shouldn’t we expect these critics to be better able to judge more varieties of wine than what exists in their wheelhouse? If not, why bother to allow their ratings for other wines to be published?

I don’t typically like Austrailian Shiraz. How would I score a ‘perfect’ one properly?

It’s all so personal, I guess. That’s the tough part about these rating scales, for me.

Again, not being disagreeable, just chatting about the process.

[Dave_McCloskey]

Like the title asks. A wine is totally undrinkable. you hate it. everyone else hates it. what do you rate it?

also the flip side. whats it take to be a 100 point, 20/20 wine to you? does it have to be a WOTY? wine of a lifetime? best wine ever made?

I’ll try and run through your questions in order. Note: I rate wines for benchmarking purposes and future references only. I don’t rate every wine I drink - far from it.

My rating system bottoms out at 75, however IMO anything below an 80 is undrinkable for me. I’m rarely exposed to wines that poor in quality. Low to Mid-80’s are typically monochromatic - one dimensional. They offer up little in the way of bouquet, are unbalanced on the palate with little discernible fruit and they have no secondary or tertiary notes. Wines in the upper 80’s have more discernible characteristics both on the nose and palate, with a bit more complexity, but they may exhibit flaws that hold them back. 90-94 are well made wines that have good balance, character, aging capability and offer interesting bouquets and complexity with lingering finishes. 95-97 are classics with very high levels of expression for the varietal or blend. They are wines you will remember and bring something unique to the table. Once I get past 97 it gets tough, because history enters the picture and I start comparing to other wines I’ve had at this rare level.

I try not to let others influence me when I’m evaluating a wine. I know what I like and what I don’t.

To me 100 point wines are as rare as they are subjective. Having said that, to be a 100 point wine it must represent the fullest expression of the varietal or blend (ex. Bordeaux, CdP etc.). It must be in perfect harmony and balance and the structure has to be near perfect. On the nose I have to discern primary, secondary and tertiary notes and be able to explain them. On the palate it has to drive the same level of complexity, bring something unique in texture (mouth feel) and have a long memorable finish. The wine has to take you on a journey with each sample providing new hidden treasures. A 100 point wine should be an epiphany and something you never forget. It does not have to be WOTY, because one may be exposed to more than one 100 point wine in a year.

In 2015 I was exposed to a Northern Rhone Syrah that I’ll never forget. I’ll be chasing that experience for the rest of my life.

I love this topic, and these questions are not meant adversarily…

Can a grape you don’t care for score 100 points on your scale?

Do you think you can step outside your own palate to rate a wine?

Example: Parker never rated a sauvignon blanc 100 points, but he practically sweats 100 point cabernets out his pores. (I think he’s ‘100 pointed’ a couple of French Bordeaux Blancs, but they were blends.) So, has there never been a sauvginon blanc that represented the fullest expression of the varietal? Parker would tell us there has not!

One the one hand, I could see where Parker would say that you don’t send a Metallica fan to review a Norah Jones concert, hence he rates some varietals lower because he himself can’t fully appreciate them. On the other hand, is that fair? Shouldn’t we expect these critics to be better able to judge more varieties of wine than what exists in their wheelhouse? If not, why bother to allow their ratings for other wines to be published?

I don’t typically like Austrailian Shiraz. How would I score a ‘perfect’ one properly?

It’s all so personal, I guess. That’s the tough part about these rating scales, for me.

Again, not being disagreeable, just chatting about the process.

Can a grape you don’t care for score 100 points on your scale?

My scale goes from 75-100 points, which is not out of the wine enthusiasts norm. If I’m not familiar with a varietal, blend, region or don’t like something, I simply wouldn’t rate it. For example I like dry Rieslings, but I have limited exposure to them. Therefore, I wouldn’t rate the wine only give my general impressions.

Do you think you can step outside your own palate to rate a wine?

In general I think one’s palate will always imprint some type of impression of a wine. Having said that somebody who does this for a living may be able to pull it off.

So, has there never been a sauvginon blanc that represented the fullest expression of the varietal?

I don’t believe there has and it’s a shame. I’m not experienced enough in Sav Blancs to determine whether one deserves a 98-100 score.

Shouldn’t we expect these critics to be better able to judge more varieties of wine than what exists in their wheelhouse?

I think too much is made of wine critics. They serve a limited purpose and one should leverage their experiences in conjunction with other sources of information.

I don’t typically like Austrailian Shiraz. How would I score a ‘perfect’ one properly?

I don’t imagine you would score it properly if A., you don’t like it and B., you haven’t been broadly exposed to them.

Shouldn’t we expect these critics to be better able to judge more varieties of wine than what exists in their wheelhouse?

I’m not sure… I’m not a professional wine critic.

[Karl_K]

I am with Jay and Otto on the 50-100 scale.

[Mike_Grammer]

Gotta page Bruce Leiserowitz to get on here. His “yum-plus”, “wow wine” and “ay carumba” is part of my personal favourite scoring system. I like Shon’s here too, especially “I told you not to put it in your mouth”.

I rarely score unless prompted to it as an extra TN descriptor. I do think I’ve given a 64 or so to something once. Mercifully, forgot what it was. I have only scored–and ever had—one perfect wine in all my time, that being my first taste of 2001 D’Yquem (a subsequent taste was 99+). I did and do believe it may get even better, but was perfect over the 4 nights I tasted it.

I do consider myself a pretty strict grader and if I’m prompted to give something a 90 or above, it truly is an outstanding wine. As reference, the top point score I’ve given this year is a 97 to the 2015 Meo Camuzet Corton Charlie. If I’d added a point descriptor to the 2004 Dagueneau Pur Sang I had in February, it would probably be a 95. I guess in answer to the OP question, a 100-pointer would have to be something that mesmerizes me and takes me to the time, place, smell, taste and feel of it years later when I think of it. That is the case with that first halfsie of 01 D’Yquem.

For the bottom end, my own personal descriptor is “yuck with face”.

[Bruce_Beaudin]

I think it has a lot to do with what you can afford. When I first got interested in wine, about 1977, I was living in the Virginia suburbs of D.C. and Robert Parker was the wine writer for the Washington Post. Every week he would write his article with recommendations rated (as a budget analyst or bean counter–take your pick–I was hooked). Many of the wine stores would then have followup ads in the Post with many of those rated wines on sale (think they got advance notice of the wines rated). I would head downtown maybe once every two months and buy a mixed case or two on my meager budget. At that time 82 was my lower limit and 84 was my expectation. I didn’t even dream about 90. Times have changed–the quality of wine has improved almost beyond measure. I give Parker much of the credit for that improvement. You won’t find too many 84 point wines rated today. Today I shop in the 90-93 range but the wine market is less efficient than the stock market–there are very good 88s out there if you can close your eyes and try them. I am thinking there are very many overpriced 95s out there too.