Wine scorers: Absolute or Relative to "Class" ?

[Barry_L_i_p_t_o_n]

The fact that statistically it doesn’t seem that people are rating it on an absolute basis doesn’t mean theiy aren’t trying to.

To do it otherwise renders the comparison meaningless, as in general you cannot distinguish class from price (chablis Village vs premier cru or Zinfandel vs. Cabernet). And if you try you adjust your store score for price value, you take one metric, quality and adjust it for another metric, value with the result that nobody understands your scoring because one subjective metric is hard enough to evaluate but a metric that is really too subjective metrics built into one is impossible to understand.

In order to get value from the absolute scores one needs to know the scorers palate. For price adjusted scored, I don’t see how I could do that unless the scorer was someone I tasted with regularly and had money discussions as well.

[Wes_Barton]

I think you’re right - mostly because I’m bemused when I come across a critic’s note that reads something like “Showing absolutely nothing, reticent, will be magnificent in time but as of now completely inexpressive…93+.”

Isn’t that part of why people look to critics? They have the experience to examine a wine that’s effectively undrinkable on release and have reasonable accuracy in predicting what it will become. Experience tasting numerous verticals, following wines over time as they evolve, evaluating the impacts of vintage conditions, wine making decisions and techniques, etc.

You left out a drinking window in your fictitious example. But, you either trust a particular critic or not. If the note effectively says you will not enjoy this wine now. It needs 25 years to start showing well, and will start getting really impressive perhaps 40 years from now. That’s not clear? Sounds like a wine you should either not buy, or should consider for your old age and for your children and grandchildren.

[Roberto_Cusato]

How does Wine Spectator rate? To me it’s puzzling that for instance this year Oregon whites or California chardonnays have more 90+ points than White Burgundies. No offense to Cali whites which I enjoy - but they are on different categories of quality altogether.

This may be controversial, but I don’t see them in the same category, so I wouldn’t expect the ratings to be California Chardonnay ‘against‘ White Burgundy.


Like comparing dollars to ‘francs.’

That’s how I interpret those things.

That’s exactly how I see it as well. I would rate a Macon-Village in the same scale of a Montrachet, but a 95 Napa Chardonnay would not signify that the wine is better than a 93 White Burgundy. Terroir, complexity, approachability at a young age, etc. make things very difficult to compare.

[Roberto_Cusato]

Great question. Sometimes I think varietal is a factor. There have been countless Napa Cabs that have scored 100 points but I don’t recall ever seeing a Zinfandel get 100 points. Why is that? Is Zinfandel at its very best only worth of 98 points?

Tom

I’ve always found this one of the biggest flaws in scoring wine, at least for most critics. There should be a “perfect” example of any type of wine. But you’ll never see anyone rate the most delicious Soave or Kerner possible 100 points, no matter how great it might be. When I score wine, it’s by what that type of wine should be in my mind. So while I’ve never tried a wine I would consider totally perfect, theoretically I could have a 100 point Soave, Morgon, or Zinfandel.

The other flaw with most critics is giving points for “future potential” or other such garbage. You should only rate the wine on what it is showing when you taste it, not a guess as to what it might become. There are so many 95+ wines now that it means absolutely nothing (if you think it ever did), as all of these are factoring in what the wine might become, not what it actually is. It would be like a teacher grading a “B” paper an “A” because the student might learn to write better papers.

I disagree. A Pinot grigio will never be perfect. Some relativity is still warranted.

[Roberto_Cusato]

How does Wine Spectator rate? To me it’s puzzling that for instance this year Oregon whites or California chardonnays have more 90+ points than White Burgundies. No offense to Cali whites which I enjoy - but they are on different categories of quality altogether.

I think generalizations like this are inaccurate. There are some California Chardonnays that are world class and some white burgs that are quite ordinary.

That is very true. However Burgundy does a fairly good job with vineyard classification in letting you know that a village Chardonnay is probably not going to be as complex and as good as a $100 Chardonnay from California. But comparing a 95 points California Chardonnay with a Burgundy Premier Cru and Grand Cru is just senseless, as styles, terroir, and complexity are extremely different.

[Roberto_Cusato]

Also, only WS and BH have a somewhat consistent scale in rating wines. JS seems to start from a base of 90 (like, for real!), Decanter and Vinous are somewhat erratic. Still not 100% sure on WA. Also, WS and BH are the most conservatives.

[Johan_R]

I want to be absolute but I don’t think it is possible. There are just so many differences between wines that it is just not possible to capture the truth with scores. I can’t honestly say that I benchmark a 92 point Beaujolais (in my rating) against all wines I drink, be it nebbiolo, chardonnay, champagne, riesling, syrah… in effect I think I only benchmark against that, for exempel, 91 point Beaujolais I had previously, and so forth. But I don’t consider price, other than that I add some room in my scale for probable but not as of yet discovered quality of more expensive wines of the same region. Meaning that I assume that however much I enjoy a burgundy village, surely those Grand Crus and prestige producers I am not drinking must be better so I will assume my lowly wine can’t be 95+ points on my scale if I had access to every wine in the world.

[David_Glasser]

I try to be absolute but am not perfect. One of several reasons I use a poor, average, good, very good, excellent, outstanding scale rather than a 20 or 50 point scale. Too much variability.

[Anthony_C]

Put me at absolute scale, but I also give bonus for a $25 wine that shines and demote a $150 bottle that disappoints.

But the score is about why the one disappointed and the other did not. I’m always looking for balance, depth or layered flavors, and overall feel and finish. While I don’t expect a 20 dollar bottle to hit me with three waves of fruit and have an ethereal finish, if it does, it deserves to score as well as it’s expensive brethren.

[Otto_Forsberg]

I think it is silly to promote/demote wine for its price. Scoring should be as absolute as possible and if a wine is of exceptional / poor value for the price, it should be commented in the description of the wine. When I am scoring wines in tastings, I prefer not to know the prices of the wines until I’ve tasted them just to minimize both the conscious and unconscious impact.

[Andy_Sc]

I score ABSOLUTE only (not withing price range, region, grape variety or anything else. It’s absolute absolute - the cheap 2.5€ Nero d’Avola is judged on the same scale as a La Tache).

I’m with Otto Forsberg. Price should never be part of the scoring (I comment on it, though) as one man’s high price is another man’s low price. Scoring is about quality of the wine, not its relative value.

[Sean_S_y_d_n_e_y]

I think you’re right - mostly because I’m bemused when I come across a critic’s note that reads something like “Showing absolutely nothing, reticent, will be magnificent in time but as of now completely inexpressive…93+.”

Isn’t that part of why people look to critics? They have the experience to examine a wine that’s effectively undrinkable on release and have reasonable accuracy in predicting what it will become. Experience tasting numerous verticals, following wines over time as they evolve, evaluating the impacts of vintage conditions, wine making decisions and techniques, etc.

You left out a drinking window in your fictitious example. But, you either trust a particular critic or not. If the note effectively says you will not enjoy this wine now. It needs 25 years to start showing well, and will start getting really impressive perhaps 40 years from now. That’s not clear? Sounds like a wine you should either not buy, or should consider for your old age and for your children and grandchildren.

I think critics should and do have a more broad frame of reference than I do. I don’t get the chance to taste from barrel in Burgundy very often (note: at all) and I’m not even sure critics should be tasting/scoring that early as far as making judgement calls on a given wine or vintage, but it seems that quite a bit of inference goes on when evaluating a wine as it pertains to track record, the producer’s reputation, etc. I understand that this is a sort of necessary crutch of the biz; nobody is going to take a critic who only scores wines that have been in bottle for a year seriously and you’re just going to get scooped by the next guy who is willing to cast his judgement far and wide at the earliest opportunity. Nothing is certain, but can a critic REALLY give a high score/rating in good faith if the wine as it exists when she or he comes into contact with it just isn’t giving any kind of indication of quality and there isn’t anything tangible to recommend it?

[Wes_Barton]

I think you’re right - mostly because I’m bemused when I come across a critic’s note that reads something like “Showing absolutely nothing, reticent, will be magnificent in time but as of now completely inexpressive…93+.”

Isn’t that part of why people look to critics? They have the experience to examine a wine that’s effectively undrinkable on release and have reasonable accuracy in predicting what it will become. Experience tasting numerous verticals, following wines over time as they evolve, evaluating the impacts of vintage conditions, wine making decisions and techniques, etc.

You left out a drinking window in your fictitious example. But, you either trust a particular critic or not. If the note effectively says you will not enjoy this wine now. It needs 25 years to start showing well, and will start getting really impressive perhaps 40 years from now. That’s not clear? Sounds like a wine you should either not buy, or should consider for your old age and for your children and grandchildren.

I think critics should and do have a more broad frame of reference than I do. I don’t get the chance to taste from barrel in Burgundy very often (note: at all) and I’m not even sure critics should be tasting/scoring that early as far as making judgement calls on a given wine or vintage, but it seems that quite a bit of inference goes on when evaluating a wine as it pertains to track record, the producer’s reputation, etc. I understand that this is a sort of necessary crutch of the biz; nobody is going to take a critic who only scores wines that have been in bottle for a year seriously and you’re just going to get scooped by the next guy who is willing to cast his judgement far and wide at the earliest opportunity. Nothing is certain, but can a critic REALLY give a high score/rating in good faith if the wine as it exists when she or he comes into contact with it just isn’t giving any kind of indication of quality and there isn’t anything tangible to recommend it?

My point would be your premise is wrong, there. Just because you can’t differentiate all the aspects and nuances of a too young wine, doesn’t mean a critic or winemaker who has intimate experience with such a wine can’t. Could you walk a vineyard, taste the grapes and make a good picking decision? It takes a lot of familiarity from doing it over the years to really know what means what, but you can become really good at it. Evaluating wines is pretty much the same thing. Though, just because you understand certain wines of some specific regions and ripeness levels very well, doesn’t mean you can just translate that understanding to other grapes, regions, styles, ripeness levels. Like, people say Parker lost it, but he didn’t. Many wines changed on him, and he tried using parameters that didn’t translate. So, he made some disastrous calls on some overripe wines. But, judging traditionally ripe Bdx type wines he remained spot-on.

[RichardFlack]

The answer to both of you is that the critics who do use a future prediction in there scores should say something like “92 currently, with possibility of a 6 point improvement with 15 years cellaring.” I totally understand that many wines (and many of the wines I enjoy) need cellaring of 10-30 years, but it’s simply IMPOSSIBLE to give an accurate, firm score to a wine’s development that hasn’t happened yet. Otherwise every wine could possibly be 100 points…you never know, right? Of course maybe that explains the “score creep” over the past 30 years ?

I think you’re right - mostly because I’m bemused when I come across a critic’s note that reads something like “Showing absolutely nothing, reticent, will be magnificent in time but as of now completely inexpressive…93+.”

And if it said “ Showing absolutely nothing, reticent, will be magnificent in time but as of now completely inexpressive…80” would you buy it?
For wines meant to age I really don’t care too much about what it tastes like now.

[HoosJustinG]

If scoring is about the quality of the wine without regard for any other aspect, has anyone ever scored a Pinot Grigio 100 points? What would you score the best PG (let’s say best by a mile) you’ve ever had?

For me, when I score on CT or for myself, I think I partially handicap the wine “for what it is.” In other words, a 93 point NZ Pinot may not be as good as a 93 point red Burgundy objectively speaking. However, I don’t think I’ll ever score a NZ Pinot 100 points.

[Otto_Forsberg]

If scoring is about the quality of the wine without regard for any other aspect, has anyone ever scored a Pinot Grigio 100 points? What would you score the best PG (let’s say best by a mile) you’ve ever had?

For me, when I score on CT or for myself, I think I partially handicap the wine “for what it is.” In other words, a 93 point NZ Pinot may not be as good as a 93 point red Burgundy objectively speaking. However, I don’t think I’ll ever score a NZ Pinot 100 points.

Basically I never give 100 points to any wines, 99s occasionally. However, there is a good handful of PGs I’ve rated at 95-98.

[Andy_Sc]

If scoring is about the quality of the wine without regard for any other aspect, has anyone ever scored a Pinot Grigio 100 points? What would you score the best PG (let’s say best by a mile) you’ve ever had?

For me, when I score on CT or for myself, I think I partially handicap the wine “for what it is.” In other words, a 93 point NZ Pinot may not be as good as a 93 point red Burgundy objectively speaking. However, I don’t think I’ll ever score a NZ Pinot 100 points.

Scoring is confusing if everybody uses different scales and systems. My NZ Pinot gets scored on the same rating system as anyother Pinot, as every other wine. I think that is the purest and best understandable approach. Then again, your scores always have the highest value for yourself. Your scoring “library” will help you the most. Hence, as long as you’re consistent in your scoring, your scores will be a big help for you.

To your question: There are several 100 points scores for Pinot Grigio on Cellartracker but looking at the scores these reviewers gave to other wines, I wouldn’t follow their advice. Then again, I don’t drink Pinot Grigio at all.

[J_Rock]

Absolute, based on how much I enjoy the wine at the moment I consume it (and I may note if I think there’s a lot of upside). I want to be able to look back fairly quickly and see which wines I liked the most or generally liked more than others, regardless of class (e.g., varietal, region, price point). If I’m looking for a particular varietal, region, price, etc., I can filter my spreadsheet by that criteria.

[Paul_abbott]

I don’t use the 100 point scale. With variations in food, temperature, mood etc I don’t think I’m that reliable. The scale below with half points and +s when I think there is potential for improvement does for me
0 - faulty

• • dull
    ** - its okay
    *** - I like this
    **** - I wish I had another case
    ***** - Who do I have to dispose of to get another case

Most wines I drink are ***, simply because I don’t buy those below that again.

[S_Rash]

Great question. Sometimes I think varietal is a factor. There have been countless Napa Cabs that have scored 100 points but I don’t recall ever seeing a Zinfandel get 100 points. Why is that? Is Zinfandel at its very best only worth of 98 points?

Tom

I’ve always found this one of the biggest flaws in scoring wine, at least for most critics. There should be a “perfect” example of any type of wine. But you’ll never see anyone rate the most delicious Soave or Kerner possible 100 points, no matter how great it might be. When I score wine, it’s by what that type of wine should be in my mind. So while I’ve never tried a wine I would consider totally perfect, theoretically I could have a 100 point Soave, Morgon, or Zinfandel.

The other flaw with most critics is giving points for “future potential” or other such garbage. You should only rate the wine on what it is showing when you taste it, not a guess as to what it might become. There are so many 95+ wines now that it means absolutely nothing (if you think it ever did), as all of these are factoring in what the wine might become, not what it actually is. It would be like a teacher grading a “B” paper an “A” because the student might learn to write better papers.

This!