Why can't we have threads like this?

I am scrolling through a Squires at a friend’s house who subscribes, and came across a thread from someone complaining that scores between reviewers are diffferent, and even the same reviewer may score barrel samples and the final in bottle wines differently. Worse still, he is not upset because he wants to flip the wines (financial consequences, like a bad stock pick) but he has no idea what he his tasting, even with the bottle open in front of him. This quote encapsulates the poor man’s dilemma.

"For example
I would like to know, is Scarecrow 93pts or what?
I don’t know if it dropped by cause, or by change in reviewers.
If I knew there was some sort of calibration in effect, where a room full of tasters all agreed, this is 90, this is 95, than I would know know, Scarecrow is 93.
In the past, I assumed there was some correlation.
As for Scarecrow, it matters, I don’t find it attractive at 93 points for $285, my delivered cost, its no longer a wise purchase.
If RP is drinking it and saying yumm, 100 pts, it is a wise purchase.
Someone complaining that there is not that "

I suppose it is one of the consequences of not subscribing, but I miss the train wreck threads started by people, who by paying their money to the Advocate expect others to think for them and the trains to run on time.

Mark,
It does sound absurd but is it really different than admiring DRCs, Henri Jayer, Rousseau and etc or finding the 99 Red Burgs more attractive than the 01s? Perhaps for some folks, knowing that it is a 100 point wine make the wine taste better.

BTW, happy holidays!

To be fair, most posters over there are somewhat berating the fellow as well. It is far from group-think. It seems to be a Lost in Translation moment as far as I can tell or perhaps more of a Wizard of Oz moment where the poster just wants to click his heels three times and have everything be the same with RMP rating everything.

Because the evil empire is contracting, charges admission and it’s just not as much fun using light sabers on each other. Nostalgia aside, their new train wrecks aren’t as epic as the old ones.

RT

I believe I may have suggested he had posted from another planet. Most of the posts in the thread are similar in PoV, if perhaps less colorful.

It is a really odd thread.

I was laughing so hard I was crying. There were a few killjoys patiently trying to explain that wine, like the real world, was not totally rational, but fortunately, the OPs, sense of entitlement was so strong, that he continued to argue, and then, to my delight, there were a few, who agreed with him. Wonderfully entertaining, but like all good things during the holidays, I will ration it to once a year.

I have to say, I am almost the opposite. Being told, a modernist California wine has just got 100 points, means it is almost certainly a wine I will not want to drink. .

Happy Holidays to you too.

Just a silly position. Why wouldn’t you want to taste it at least?

This is great. Anyone who wants to email or PM the thread to me will be my hero for the day!

I think the point behind that thread was that if one can’t taste a wine, like Scarecrow, before one buys it, we need critics to help us know if it is worth the money. If one doesn’t like Scarecrow then sub any $200+ wine in an area that you do like. The question is still, how do you know, if tasting prior is not an option, whether to purchase? One suggestion is to find a critic that you like. OK, so the OP likes Parker, aligns with his palate, and buys Scarecrow (or Meadows on some Burg, etc.) and is generally pleased. Now, comes a new critic and instead of the wine being a 96-100 its a 93 point experience. This is for a wine that is not released that will be very expensive. Wouldn’t that factor into your buying decision? A wine in that price range should hopefully be better than that (unless of course, its from Burgundy [stirthepothal.gif] ).

So, the issue arises, is it possible to for the WA to “standardize” its scores. I actually think it probably is. Certainly many people on this BB having been saying for years they know exactly what Parker looked for in a wine. If that is true, then there is a certain logic to the proposition that all WA reviews be the same regardless of who is tasting.

I am not saying I agree, but it comes down to whether you are buying a review from Parker, Galloni or the Wine Advocate. The same holds true for WS or Tanzer too.

Fine. However this transition has been going on for 5 years, and he is just noticing it now? I guess he only cares about Cali.

Disclaimer, I am friends with the OP. Yes, his tastes run to Cal, Washington, and Australia (hes been getting away from that) and likes wines that are big, large and accessible for the most part. I doubt he spent much time reviewing or tasting AG’s or Thomasses before him, notes on Italy or DS’s on Burgundy either.

Now now, we’ll have none of that.

Loren,
Can the OP consistently rate the wines within ±3 points range when tasted blind? Some folks seem to blindly follow their favorite critics.

I remember a thread over there two or three years ago (when I was still a subscriber) that went on endlessly about how to make different critic’s scores be consistent (to within one point IIRC). I tried to object that the whole thing was somewhat subjective, and what would be gained by doing that anyway. No use, most of the posters seemed to be obsessed with the idea that each wine has a “true” score, and great efforts should be made to find it. Only much later did I realize how nonsensical that idea is.

So you are saying he is not a lunatic, just a bad communicator? [scratch.gif]

He is pretty consistent in what he likes, so maybe, although I seem to recall you saying pretty much no one can do this and I am inclined to think that without seeing a label people are less inclined to score a wine above 96 points.

As anyone on the wine bb’s know, the two are not mutually exclusive. [cheers.gif]

Frankly, I think the writing, grammar, typing, and spelling are funnier than the substance. It’s like those pictures where they ask you to find the 20 mistakes.