Wine rating systems

Keep in mind, wine is rated on the Lake Wobegon scale.

3 Likes

If you are writing with the intention to contribute to the community and thus for others to read, I’d encourage you to do what best communicates your impressions and opinions to those likely to read your notes. Communication is the key word.

If a score, star system, letter grade or whatever helps you do that, however imperfectly, go ahead.

If you think scores it would be unhelpful or counterproductive, then don’t use them.

And feel free to experiment and see what seems best for you.

1 Like

I find this to correlate (mostly) to Cellartracker scores for pinot/nebbiolo/bordeaux, but not Napa cabs (need to subtract 2-3pt from the average Napa cab score to match this).

97 = Other people’s 100 (emotional perfection)
95 = A perfect wine, with minor quibbles
93 = Very Good, without glaring deficiency
91 = Enjoyable, with glaring deficiencies
89 = OK/good table wine
87 = What I perceive an weak table wine to be
85 = What I perceive an bad table wine to be
83 = Will not swallow

3 Likes

It is an interesting phenomenon, that different categories of wine seem to operate on different rating scales. As a practical matter. On CT, but also among professional critics.

A 93 point $200 1er Cru Burgundy is usually very high praise, but a 93 point $200 Napa cab or a 93 point $100 Paso Syrah would be signaling modest enthusiasm for the wine.

A professional critic giving a 90 score to a Sauternes would be almost slamming it. For some reason, the professionals start RS wines like German riesling, Port and Sauternes at a very high floor. A solidly competent $35 Spatlese usually starts at 91 or 92.

And so forth. Which, I’m sure @Frank_Murray_III and others would say, is further evidence of why it’s better to avoid scores. I’m more agnostic about it, I think if it helps you communicate, go ahead, if it doesn’t, then skip it.

0-50: It was so bad, that my muscles reflexively spit the wine out of my mouth to avoid damaging my esophagus by swallowing it.

I have posted about the scale I use from the 100 point to the 20 point. Not because I think it that much better, but it has not been subjected to the abuse of the 100 point one.

That’s true throughout our culture today. Uber drivers are differentiated by being 4.95 or 4.85 on the 5 point scale. The average GPA at Yale is over 3.8 now. Fine dining restaurants on Yelp mostly are on a 3.8-4.8 scale out of 5. And so forth.

You could ask why there aren’t expensive NYC restaurants that get 0.9 or 1.2 stars on Yelp, or why there aren’t students getting Ds at Yale.

It’s far from the perfect way to do it, but we all know on some level what these things really mean, so you just live in the world that exists rather than the one that could ideally be. [Though advocating for something better is simultaneously a good thing to do, too.]

I remember reading a thread discussing why Burg drinkers are so harsh in scoring on WB, but I think this has a lot to do with who drink those wines. This could even start from cultural difference between US and other countries. I received education in the US, Asia and Nordics, but by far, US education gives highest scores for an average student overall. B+ was a mediocre score at a US college I attended while that’s a pretty good score in non US institutions I’ve attended.

Frankly speaking, I suspect Burg reviews and Napa cab reviews on CT are largely written by different groups of people without too much overlaps.

When critics are catering to different groups of drinkers, it seems pretty natural to me that the critics adjust their scoring based on the audience’s standards.

2 Likes

1=Wish I had more of this
2=Why did I buy this

1 Like

Thatā€˜s my scale - and I would say how most people use Cellartracker (+/-):

100 points: extremely perfect experiences which rarely happen
98-99 points: near perfection (could be perfect right time/setting)
97+ points: exceptional, singular wines
95-96 points: world class wines
90-94 points: good to very good wines
85-89 points: mediocre to ok wines
<85 points: wines I don’t like or which have faults

1 Like

This is pretty much where I’ve landed. I used the 100 point system when I scored wines, and still use that system on the rare occasion I score a wine these days. I curtailed the exercise once I realized my ā€œgut impression scoreā€ was almost always within 1 or 2 points of a more carefully analyzed score. In other words, over time, the exercise of scoring wines was of increasingly less utility to me. That having been said, I actually would recommend that folks getting into wine engage in the activity in a thoughtful and regimented manner on a regular basis, as it forces one to be more thougthful, and in return yields greater learning. At least that’s how it worked for me. YMMV.

3 Likes