The Auswine Forum

If you make tasting notes do you also score the wine ? What system do you use ?

yourNme wrote:If you make tasting notes do you also score the wine ? What system do you use ?

I use a system similar to TORB's but maybe with slightly different definitions. I should document this.

The terms: Recommended, Excellent, Outstanding, etc. relate to the "experience" I had with the wine (sounds a bit weird) more than being a hard line "quality" analysis. I see wine more like a piece of great art than most people, although quality analysis is absolutely definitely a huge part of my consideration.

How many points would you give the Mona Lisa or one of the Tom Roberts' greats?

Despite stating this, typically, I give the wine a score out of 20 as if I was a show judge, but I do not publish this. I seem to like the out of 20 score much better than the 100 point score as there are so bloody many definitions of a rating on the 100 point scale... and so many are used for marketing purposes... and for some reason, there are many, many more wines that get 95+ on the 100 point scale than 19+ on the 20 point "show scale". To me, it gives the show scale more credibility... and the huge anomalies than can be found with people who use the 100 point scale do not occur as much.

Adair

to 2 decimal places. This is by far the most accurate and fool proof way to score wine

death to all other methods

I don't believe in wine scoring system. I tend to read the note than reling on score.

Rob wrote:I don't believe in wine scoring system. I tend to read the note than reling on score.

Are you saying you don't read or note the score?
I suggest that's not true.

Michael wrote:Are you saying you don't read or note the score?
I suggest that's not true.

Hi Michael,

I only glance over the score rather than reading it. The score has no weight in my decision making process. Just because Parker or Holliday said the wine is only worth 85 points it does not mean it is a bad wine. It only means the wine style does not suit them. Parker like big /oaky wines, but I don't, so his score means nothing to me.

I tend to read the note from various reviews and from that I determine if I will like it or not. If I have tasted the wine before, I won't even bother to look at the score. I merely read the note to see if my impression on the wine is similar to the reviews.

I trust my own palate than someone elses because I am the one who is going to drink it.

Cheers
Rob

No I don't score the wines I have drunk. They are too different to be compared. I think it is important to appreciate the different characteristics of a wine rather than to generalize it as a number.
My notes do the job for me.
You can generally remember how good a wine was anyway; if you forget, maybe the bottle was not any good!

I normally only score if I'm tasting a flight of wines, but I try to keep tasting notes on all the wines I drink. In the dim dark past I used a scoring system from Braodbent's little book. When I started doing tasting here in San Diego the wine shop had a system that they wanted you to use. I reluctantly adopted it, but now I use it all the time. Its 20 points with 2 for clarity, 2 for color, 5 for smell and 11 for taste. The way I use it gives almost all wines a score 4/4 for clarity and color, and the 11 points for taste includes all aspects of how a wine feels and smells (retronasal) in the mouth. The most useful aspect of scoring for me is that I can rate the wines, and then retaste them from lowest to highest score and as I do so the quality of the wines should improve.

Mike

Anonymous wrote:I normally only score if I'm tasting a flight of wines, but I try to keep tasting notes on all the wines I drink. In the dim dark past I used a scoring system from Broadbent's little book. When I started doing tasting here in San Diego the wine shop had a system that they wanted you to use. I reluctantly adopted it, but now I use it all the time. Its 20 points with 2 for clarity, 2 for color, 5 for smell and 11 for taste. The way I use it gives almost all wines a score 4/4 for clarity and color, and the 11 points for taste includes all aspects of how a wine feels and smells (retronasal) in the mouth. The most useful aspect of scoring for me is that I can rate the wines, and then retaste them from lowest to highest score and as I do so the quality of the wines should improve.

Mike

Jeez, I hate that this forum doesn't ask you to sign in to post. I feel so anonymous. But then that may be a good thing!

Mike

Rob wrote:I don't believe in wine scoring system. I tend to read the note than reling on score.

Hello Rob,

I understand what you are saying, and agree to a large part, but I think you are taking it to the extreme.

In most situations, such as Halliday or Parker or whoever where many wines are being tasted, the score is usually one way in which they convey the overall quality of the wine. I agree that a score is meaningless on its own but it is not when it is read in consideration with the note. It is part of all the information the writer/taster is trying to convey.

For example, say Huon Hooke (just because people tend to not complain as much about Huon as having biases, unlike the 2 I mentioned above) writes the following 3 tasting notes:

1) "This wine contains masses of ripe black fruit with excellent use of quite apparent French oak. 19/20"
2) "This wine contains masses of ripe black fruit with excellent use of quite apparent French oak. 17/20"
3) "This wine is perfumed, full of aromatic and sappy red fruits on a long and tight structure. 18/20"

If you want a big, ripe wine, the writer is suggesting you try wine 1, but the score of 19 is not suggesting that if you want more complexity and elegance, that you should try wine 1 over wine 3.

Both the score and the note are useful... and as such, if you like big and oaky wines like Parker, you should look at his scores. If not, don't even bother reading Parker. If you like Yarra Valley Pinot Noir, I suggest you read the tasting note and the scores of Halliday.

Just my thoughts,
Adair

Not for my own purposes, but for some reason I do when posting even though I don't think it makes sense considering palates and preferences differ. I quite often have an hour or two later summary (as written to myself) which usually IMO does a better job of describing my enthusiasm.

cheers,

When I make notes - usually for the forum and then only eratically I tend to think back over the impressions remaining a day or two down the track. On the night tends to be the "bottle test": Did the bottle disappear leaving us wanting more? Comfortably finished the bottle? Nice enough drink over two nights? A glass or two with dinner. Cook with. Wouldn't even cook with.

David

Adair wrote:I use a system similar to TORB's but maybe with slightly different definitions.

Adair,

Is that the one with scores out of one hundred?

Jess

Jess wrote:

Adair wrote:I use a system similar to TORB's but maybe with slightly different definitions.

Adair,

Is that the one with scores out of one hundred?

Jess

Hahaha... please, don't get the big guy's blood pressure going again. He needs a rest. That is why he has gone back down to South Australia.

I use a 100 point system for my own reference.

I realise the ambiguities, if I pass on the note and score to others.

The point system evolves and changes with my palate.

I have found, because of my own perceptions and hopes for great wine, that I am less generous than the critics ( a recent line up of Parker 99-100 point wines I rated far less, point wise, due personal idiosyncracies ).

Refined and complex wine, invariably Rhone blends or Australian shiraz, do exceedingly well on my point system.

Fruit purity and varietal definition fair well too.

I totally echo Jamie's comments.

When I first got James Halliday's electronic wine companion & organiser, one of the things he emphasized was when reviewing a wine it's important to give it some kind of a score in points. That advice has been spot-on, as it's quite a guide to see how much my ratings and comments on various wines have changed over the years (and sometimes not at all). However, the points I award are for my own use only, as they would hardly be an accurate guide for the general public.

Cheers
Ian