Craig(NZ) wrote:I think everyone is well aware of the failings of rating a wine using a numerical or broadband scoring system. The one thing it does do though is tell the reader what the taster thought of the wine compared to the next wine he tasted and rated. Which one did he personally 'prefer'? That question is answered.
This is about the only justification I can see for the use of scores. And, even then only in context. If you're doing a horizontal of 89 Paulliacs, or a vertical of Mt Edelstone. I still think the delineation is a bit silly even then - there's nothing wrong with saying "
x was the wine of the tasting, just ahead of
y and
z in quality, with a large gap to a less distinguished group of
a, b and
c." I suppose listing 96, then 95, 95, followed by 93, 92, 92, accomplishes much the same thing.
Still, for those who issue points, if you tasted 10 vintages of Mt Edelstone and ranked them by points, then did exactly the same exercise the following day, would the points and the ranking be the same?
I supppose Robert Parker & supporters would claim that his are. Hmmm. But unless you could support this, it does claim a degree of accuracy for points which I don't believe exists.
But giving a Trimbach riesling "91" and a Tyrrells semillon "93" implies a degree of comparability that simply doesn't exist between the two wines. Especially if they were tasted three months apart, under different circumstances. When I record TNs, I do give a Broadbent-like 'star-rating' (which I never reveal to anyone else) merely as a shorthand reflection of how much I enjoyed the wine. I have likes and dislikes, and the stars don't say why I enjoyed it or not. I can't see how they'd be of value to anyone other than me.
I value critics far more for their ability to accurately convey the characteristics of the wine, not whether they personally like the thing or not. And you don't do that with a number.
The notion of 'finding a critic whose palate agrees with yours' and then using their ratings to guide your purchases, I can accept only to the extent that someone is a wine novice. With a few years tasting experience and a modicom of curiosity, anyone should be using their own mind and palate to ascertain their preferences. Talk about outsourcing drinking pleasure! And which critics will admit to aiming at novices only?
I don't really think the accountability excuse holds water. You're not tasting the same bottle at the same time. The critic calls it as they see it. The defence is "That's what I thought at the time." How can that be disproved?
And, incidentally, when I read reputable restaurant reviews (thinking about the Sydney Morning Herald, or the Good Food Guide) they are almost always the result of numerous visits, at different times, and tasting many different dishes. The best you can hope for from most professional wine critics, it seems, is a second tasting the next day of the same bottle. Hardly in the same league. As for massed tastings of the new vintage out of barrel - how can anyone take those kinds of tastings and scores seriously?
Unless wine really isn't a complex as we all like to think...
cheers,
Graeme
)? I don't know a "points chaser", but if I did I would try not to judge them (I hope). Who knows, one day they might be offered a wine that didn't score highly that they absolutely love and, like a frog turning into a prince, they will be cured of their ignorance.
(Ok that joke is getting a little tired now isnt it??)
My goodness me..
