The Auswine Forum

Michael McNally wrote:What is the difference between someone’s subjective assessment in the words “lovely cigar box and pencil shavings on the nose” and someone’s subjective assessment in terms of a points ranking?

Because the former is a subjective opinion whilst the latter is trying to place an absolute measurement on a subject opinion.

This Jackson Pollock is a 97 pointer and that Rembrant is a 94. Sound silly? That's cause it is; looking at art is like tasting wine, its subjective, not science.

The insinuation seems to be that points chasers don’t deserve to drink all that good plonk – it should be saved for the real wine experts. Such snobbery and elitism. “Let them drink Grange!” (with apologies to Marie Antionette).

The other side of that coin is many of those points chasers are only after the urinal bragging rights that goes with high point wine.

When I read reviews these days, I look for new labels new regions, new styles.
I realised long ago that points and single wine reviews are nothing more than curios. they mean virtually nothing to my drinking experience.
If anythingI prefer them after Ive drunk the wine to gain further perspective, but as guidance they are practically useless to me
Grain of salt

TORB wrote:

Michael McNally wrote:What is the difference between someone’s subjective assessment in the words “lovely cigar box and pencil shavings on the nose” and someone’s subjective assessment in terms of a points ranking?

Because the former is a subjective opinion whilst the latter is trying to place an absolute measurement on a subject opinion.

This Jackson Pollock is a 97 pointer and that Rembrant is a 94. Sound silly? That's cause it is; looking at art is like tasting wine, its subjective, not science.

Some semantic gymnastics there TORB. What is the difference between Recommended and Highly Recommended? What takes a wine from the former to the latter? Could it be say the difference between a 85 point wine and a 90 point wine? Surely assigning points to a wine is simply an attempt at establishing where within these broader categories of assessment the reviewer places the wine. That Monet is Highly Recommended, that Streeton is Recommended. Sound better?

I am not saying that people must assign points to a review (I would never presume to give more than my impressions of a wine as my palate is not that experienced/refined). But those experienced reviewers and forumites who choose to try to be a little more specific by reaching a points score should be applauded for doing so rather than denigrated. Anyone who takes that point score as some sort of absolute measurement rather than an indication of one person's subjective (albeit possibly experienced) judgement is misguided at worst.

TORB wrote:

Michael McNally wrote:The insinuation seems to be that points chasers don’t deserve to drink all that good plonk – it should be saved for the real wine experts. Such snobbery and elitism. “Let them drink Grange!” (with apologies to Marie Antionette).

The other side of that coin is many of those points chasers are only after the urinal bragging rights that goes with high point wine.

Why does this mythical person bragging about the wine they have consumed offend you so? What urinals are you hanging out at (no not you Ian S )? 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.

Michael

I use all ratings be they "highly recommended", "4.5*s", "18.2/20", "92/100" etc as guides to the quality of a wine, certainly not bragging rights.

daz

Michael McNally wrote:Some semantic gymnastics there TORB. What is the difference between Recommended and Highly Recommended? What takes a wine from the former to the latter? Could it be say the difference between a 85 point wine and a 90 point wine? Surely assigning points to a wine is simply an attempt at establishing where within these broader categories of assessment the reviewer places the wine. That Monet is Highly Recommended, that Streeton is Recommended. Sound better?

Michael,

There is no semantic gymnastics. There is a big difference. One is a totally subjective comment, the other is an absolute measurement. In my case, I use a broad band:-

Barely Drinkable (probably flawed or just plain very ordinary)

Acceptable (ho hum wine)

Agreeable (ok, well and truly drinkable)

Recommended (good quality wines)

Highly Recommended (faultless high quality wines)

Excellent (benchmark wines)

Outstanding (few and far between)

People who use points try to put an exact quantifier on where in each band a wine sits. I could spend pages writing about (and have on my site) about the folly of using absolute points.

But those experienced reviewers and forumites who choose to try to be a little more specific by reaching a points score should be applauded for doing so rather than denigrated.

I am not denigrating the people who use points. I am saying the system is completely floored. There is a big difference. However it is in the industries best interests to use points, so its unlikely to change soon.

Anyone who takes that point score as some sort of absolute measurement rather than an indication of one person's subjective (albeit possibly experienced) judgement is misguided at worst.

Bingo! Snap!! There is the problem. The "average" wine drinker, and they are few and far between around here, do exactly that; they take points as gospel.

Why does this mythical person bragging about the wine they have consumed offend you so?

There is nothing mythical about them. Just have a look at the EBob forum. There are quite a number of them who post there. In addition, I could not begin to count the number of times I have seen posts (on overseas forums) where people say they won't drink 89 point wine. And they are not kidding! Anything less than 90 won't be considered.

n4sir wrote:

Mike_A wrote:Hi

This is a bit of a pet bent of mine. Sorry if it should like I'm preaching.

But I read a number of reviews from wine "experts" who give their opinions on wine and a nice story to match, but no scores.

Surely, a review without a score is just advertising?

What do you guys think?

regards

mike

My pet hate is the emphasis some narrow minded people put on a number, when they should just read between the lines.

I'd rather read a tasting note with substance than just lazily look at a score to get an idea of what someone thought - the former tells you a hell of a lot more and can potentially make the latter pretty redundant, and for the majority of us who are not ITB that should be good enough.

As far as advertising goes, people here are pretty quick to spot a wolf in sheep's clothing - just ask Chuckles/Steely.

My 2c,
Ian

Well eff me. I too my first exam for 25 years today. I got 85/100 & believe me I was mighty proud. My mark will be sent to the Chief of Education W I T H O U T my answers to be added to their statistics – so go figure. To the right people scores mean everything. Notes & scores for me please, that way you really can read between the lines!

Phil Wilkins wrote:

n4sir wrote:

Mike_A wrote:Hi

This is a bit of a pet bent of mine. Sorry if it should like I'm preaching.

But I read a number of reviews from wine "experts" who give their opinions on wine and a nice story to match, but no scores.

Surely, a review without a score is just advertising?

What do you guys think?

regards

mike

My pet hate is the emphasis some narrow minded people put on a number, when they should just read between the lines.

I'd rather read a tasting note with substance than just lazily look at a score to get an idea of what someone thought - the former tells you a hell of a lot more and can potentially make the latter pretty redundant, and for the majority of us who are not ITB that should be good enough.

As far as advertising goes, people here are pretty quick to spot a wolf in sheep's clothing - just ask Chuckles/Steely.

My 2c,
Ian

Well eff me. I too my first exam for 25 years today. I got 85/100 & believe me I was mighty proud. My mark will be sent to the Chief of Education W I T H O U T my answers to be added to their statistics – so go figure. To the right people scores mean everything. Notes & scores for me please, that way you really can read between the lines!

The issue of allocating points will always be a contentious one to stir up an argument, just like the old cork vs screwcap debate on the other forum. If people choose to do so fine, as long as they consistently do so all the time (good and bad) so they at least give some idea of palate callebration. On a personal note I get a lot more out of a TN than a score, and if I'm not familiar with a reviewer's palate/personal taste the score means little to absolutely nothing.

What really pissed me off about the initial post was that it implied that a TN without having a point score amounted to advertising - after the volume of posts I and others have made (many blind tastings with absolutely no possible bias) that amounts to a real slap in the face. As has been mentioned before it's also just plain wrong, as a retailer/winery would just love a high point score to encourage the lemmings out there who buy wine based solely on a number.


Cheers,
Ian

I always think that fine wine=fine art argument is entirely specious.
Wine has much more in common with dining in that there are certain objective standards that can be measured
Good grapes = good ingredients
Good cooking = good winemaking
Too much salt = too much oak (or fruit to balance)
Too sweet = too much sugar (or acid to balance)
etc
etc.

So there are objective criteria one can rate - with or without a number but there is also the subjective dimension. One person may hate the taste of coriander (say charry oak) or oysters (say pinot gris) but if the dish is quality then you can still be objective.

I think that about flattens the old Beethoven/Brahms nonsense analogies.

GW

Gary W wrote:I always think that fine wine=fine art argument is entirely specious.
Wine has much more in common with dining in that there are certain objective standards that can be measured
Good grapes = good ingredients
Good cooking = good winemaking
Too much salt = too much oak (or fruit to balance)
Too sweet = too much sugar (or acid to balance)
etc
etc.

So there are objective criteria one can rate - with or without a number but there is also the subjective dimension. One person may hate the taste of coriander (say charry oak) or oysters (say pinot gris) but if the dish is quality then you can still be objective.

I think that about flattens the old Beethoven/Brahms nonsense analogies.

GW

A second analogy (and a good one) doesn't negate the value of the first

cheers

Carl

Of course it does. A bad analogy is just that. Bad. Like bad wine. To draw another one from my quiver.
GW

And just piling on. What about corked wine? Is that like bad art or art gone bad? What of those people who can't taste TCA and hold that an entirely accurate objective assesment by someone who can taste TCA is incorrect? Here we move into the realms of personal reality and experience rather than objective appraisal. I'll leave that one to the sophists amongst us..
GW

Gary W wrote:And just piling on. What about corked wine? Is that like bad art or art gone bad? What of those people who can't taste TCA and hold that an entirely accurate objective assesment by someone who can taste TCA is incorrect? Here we move into the realms of personal reality and experience rather than objective appraisal. I'll leave that one to the sophists amongst us..
GW

He he. To try to use the classical music analogy then.

The score is the fruit i.e.
Good score = good fruit
Good musicians = Good winemaking
Good instruments = oak
Good environment = good glassware

TCA is difficult. I think it is the equivalent to have an instrument poorly tuned. Some people are tonedeaf and some are exquisitely sensitive

As for the analogy that wine as an investment = art as an investment I think this far more apt than cooking as an investment (although a reservation at El Bulli may count!) so cooking falls down there but I agree that cooking is more appropriate than art as an analogy for wine as a drink. It just doesn't encompass the collecting/investment of wine very well.

More of a Friday post but it is the long weekend

cheers

Carl

Gary W wrote:Oh yes. Quite obviously without any humour - it's patently clear to all and sundry from your comments that you are indeed a beat boy and a toilet trader of the highest order. Sheesh
GW

Not impressed by this, nor your previous post. To be honest I've found both of them offensive.

Yes. And I'm equally unimpressed with your 'Toilet Wall Scribble About Ladies' old school sexist Benny Hill non-humour which added exactly zero to the debate. So Boom Boom and lets move on eh.
GW

PS. For something you find offensive you seem to take perverse pleasure in quoting it!

This thread is like the meeting of the flat earth society. As soon as you guys all realise the 109 point system is the only perfect system in the universe the better (Ok that joke is getting a little tired now isnt it??)

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.

Even that argument though has its flaws as tasting wines apart over time can cause innacurate comparison but hey its a start

I think we are also well aware of the points lemmens types. While in queenstown I was in a shop where 90 wines were available for tasting. An american with coopers annual in hand was at the counter thumbing through asking the patient assistant for various wines that cooper had rated well. Not bad in itself. if I was in America id probably use some publication to direct me a little. However the point was that the wines he was deciding over he could just taste....they were available so why did he not trust what he liked?? It does make me wonder about the yanks and whether they fear having their own opinion on taste, style and fashion.

The world of 'I like it so you will too' could have a weak corrolation but it is not necessarily a strong one. If I recommend a IMO stellar chardonnay for example 6/10 of you may agree with me that it is tops. 3/10 may think its average and 1/10 may not like it. Its just the world of tastes and opinions my friends (its just the last 4/10 of you are wrong hehe)

However that should not stop anyone from expressing what their opinion is in a numerical sense or otherwise.

Geez, anyone mentions cork taint or point scores and the world explodes.

Wizz wrote:Geez, anyone mentions cork taint or point scores and the world explodes.

I must be getting old, I didn't even feel like joining in on this one.

But I couldn't resist responding to some of the utter b/s in the cork/screwcap epic.

Craig(NZ) wrote:

Code: Select all

But I couldn't resist responding to some of the utter b/s in the cork/screwcap epic. 
_________________[quote]

what?? there is another controversial thread here? where?? where???!!  :lol: [/quote]

Pretty sure he means the 68 odd page thread on the other forum.

Gary W wrote:Yes. And I'm equally unimpressed with your 'Toilet Wall Scribble About Ladies' old school sexist Benny Hill non-humour which added exactly zero to the debate. So Boom Boom and lets move on eh.
GW

PS. For something you find offensive you seem to take perverse pleasure in quoting it!

Gary
Whether you didn't agree with the analogy is one thing - but it was quite some escalation to bring it to the personal level you did. Nice use of 'perverse pleasure' as a wind-up line as well

If that's your style I've got no great desire to engage in discussion with you. In that context happy to move on and I'll avoid bringing this down to the level of abuse you seem happy with.

Well I apologise for not knowing you are actually a toilet trader rather than it being a rather funny throw-away riposte! So profound apologies again for hitting such a raw nerve. I had no idea. My goodness me..
GW

For two blokes with nothing to say to one another you sure do crap on about it

Gary W wrote:I always think that fine wine=fine art argument is entirely specious.
Wine has much more in common with dining in that there are certain objective standards that can be measured
Good grapes = good ingredients
Good cooking = good winemaking
Too much salt = too much oak (or fruit to balance)
Too sweet = too much sugar (or acid to balance)
etc
etc.

So there are objective criteria one can rate - with or without a number but there is also the subjective dimension. One person may hate the taste of coriander (say charry oak) or oysters (say pinot gris) but if the dish is quality then you can still be objective.

I think that about flattens the old Beethoven/Brahms nonsense analogies.

GW

Gary,

The wine vs art argument is Its not nonsense. If we extend your argument to its logical conclusion then food dishes would be rated with numbers. As far as I can tell, they are not.

Restaurant reviews in the paper may mark out of 20, but that's for the whole shooting match, not just for the food content.

The ultimate awards are hats and you get none, one, two or three. You don't get 94 points etc.

If wine can be so clearly measured by objective standards, even allowing for "the subjective dimension," then how come there can be so much disparity between scores by major critics?

It seems to me there are two parallel arguments going on here and both present perfectly agreeable conclusions.

TORB and others seem to be saying that applying points to something that is clearly so subjective and varies so much from one reviewer to another is intrinsically daft. Quite right, of course it is.

Others are arguing that they like points systems and support their use because they provide a good quick indication of relative quality from a particular reviewer and save the time of reading thousands of reviews. Quite right, I like them too, albeit they're a bit daft when you analyse it.

It's still a score TORB whether it be hats, stars or out of 20. I have a conversion between 100/stars/20/medals/word based for my usage

I don't think you'd call McDonalds fine quality food either but a lot of people like it and eat it, and good luck to them. Don't think that improves the quality though. It's junk food..just like there is junk wine.

With recards to major critics there is more often than not broad agreement - certainly on the objective parameters. There are some mavericks who just have too many subjective buttons to press (not naming names but one springs to mind - scores all over the place like a mad womans shit). I think if you put (say) a bottle of 90 Margaux in front of anyone with a clue then they would be unanimous in their praise.

The key thing here is scores provide accountability.

GW

Gary W wrote:It's still a score TORB whether it be hats, stars or out of 20.

True and false. Hats, like my scoring system are a measurement but they don't pretend to be an absolute score.

The key thing here is scores provide accountability.

I don't get it. Accountability?

Not all 100 point systems are the same. For example, those used by Halliday and Oliver are different to the most popular (Parkers) in the world.

It's up to people to look at the tasting note and decide for themselves if they will like the wine, or not. If the tasting note is accurate, then the writer is accountable with the description. A absolute numerical score does not make it more accountable (in my opinion.)

Using any score provides accountability - not specifically the hundred point one. They all amount to the same thing - it's just that the 100 point one is a little more nuanced.
GW

Gary W wrote:Well I apologise for not knowing you are actually a toilet trader rather than it being a rather funny throw-away riposte! So profound apologies again for hitting such a raw nerve. I had no idea. My goodness me..
GW

Gary
As I said, no desire to debate with you, so you can let the baiting drop.

I always felt this forum stayed above such abuse, maybe times change. Not something I'm prepared to tolerate though.

kirragc - difficult to disagree. I'm in a foul mood over this, and in such situations, it's often better to walk away. As such, I'll give posting on the forum a complete break.

regards

Ian

I'd like to please remind both of you (no blame placed either side exclusively) that our policy is that discussions on this forum do not get, or move to the personal.

We agree, we disagree, we debate, but we do not get personal please.

This is not the reason for the forum, its intent or its personality.

Please take the 'personal' out of the discussions, I would appreciate it, as would the forum members I am sure.

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