The Auswine Forum

Hello,

I thought it only appropriate to mention on this forum Ric's latest article about the 100-Point Wine Scale and its matching with the Australian Wine Show Scale as used by Jeremy Oliver and James Halliday... as it seems that my torment made him write it.
http://www.torbwine.com/pa/2005/That%20Old%20Hoary%20Chestunt%20Again.htm

It is aptly called "That Old Hoary Chestnut Again".

Kind regards,
Adair

Hello Ric,

Thank you for writing the article. I found it interesting as well as entertaining. With pleasure, I outline below our differences of opinion.

Your biggest issue with the 100 point system seems to be with the explanations used to define each range within the 100 point system. I too find/found this to be a big issue with the 100 point system.

The second major issue that I have with the 100 point scale is that its usage did not allow for enough differentiation in the area that I (and I presume other wine lovers and wine critics) wanted it, that is in the higher/highest quality levels.

However, these are the precise reasons why Jeremy Oliver should be congratulated for what he has done, and why what he has done is of such great benefit.

1) He has used the best understood and most wine critically accepted, at least in Australia, points scale definition/usage, the Australian Wine Show, as the basis for the 100 point scale, and has done so clearly so that every mark on the Australian Wine Show scale correlates to a mark on the 100 point scale. Furthermore, the 100 point scale that the Australian Wine Show scale is being pegged to is the most widely used in Australia, that is the one used by our most known and generally respected (the one whose ratings are used to sell the most wines) wine critic, James Halliday. This makes the annoying question, “What 100 point scale definition is that particular rating based upon” easily answered and, most importantly, easily understood.

2) This allows wine lovers like myself, as well as wine critics and wine writers whose points are used to sell wines, enough room at the top end of the wine points scale, as I and the majority of wine writers/critics (especially those who judge at wine shows) would most probably still think in "Australian Wine Show" terms. However, the scale also pleases the wine retailers as any wine of 17/20 and above (Silver medal and above) (still with 30 levels of distinction above it) is easily converted to a mark of 90/100 and above (with 10 levels of quality distinction above it) (see below – Figure 2). Wine critics can “make money” and keep their “ideological conviction”.

Relevant Points:

• I would have liked James Halliday to stick to his old 100 point scale definitions, as it would have provided more room in the higher quality areas, but having the 100 point scale that the general public understands best here in Australia closer aligned to the most known scale in the US is probably not a bad thing.

• The inconsistencies you mention are not inconsistencies, and if they are, they are negligible. The inconsistencies you describe are not inconsistencies because, as you mention, James Halliday changed his 100 point scale upwards so that it was easier for a wine to receive a 90+, and this happened to occur at the same time when he removed mentioning the Australian Wine Show system in his definitions. Comparing the Jeremy Oliver 100 point scale definitions now to James Halliday’s 100 point scale definitions of the past is foolish. I am not arguing that the RPjr. scale is consistent with the most widely accepted 100-point scale here in Australia, although not far apart, especially in the higher levels.

• With regard to your point that an “Outstanding” wine on the new JH scale is 94+, while on the JO scale it is 95+, this shows a small discrepancy in the definition of the word "outstanding", not an issue with the points scales. Further examination shows that this inconsistency is even tinier than it looks on the surface, as 18.3, 18.4 (High Silvers) and 18.5 (Gold) are all 94 points on the 100 point scale, and 18.6 is 95/100. By JO using the definition "95+ : Outstanding. Roughly equivalent to a gold medal 18.5 and above", he shows that he is well aware of the slight discreptancy that you highlight. Maybe he should have stated "Higher levels of 94 plus" instead of "95+", but some would think that overly pedantic without any real benefit, and the use of the word "roughly" would be sufficient.

• The Australian Wine Show system is better than any other system to base the 100 point scale upon (better than university marking, school marking, TORB scale, or whatever else), simply because it is the most well-known and accepted in wine usage terms.

• The fact that it does not use the entire 100 point range is of no consequence. Who really cares? Does it make any real difference? It is simply an aesthetic thing. It makes it easier to look at, easier to understand to the general public and easier to sell wines with. If it makes you feel better, just look at the scale as if a liquid that is not wine, such as water, is not good enough to get above 49/100 on this scale.

• The TORB Scale looks great converted to the 20 point scale (see below – Figure 1). Then obviously TORB’s scale can be converted to the 100 point scale (see below - Figure 2).

• As highlighted above, my only little concern/niggle with the scale/conversion/usage that I am promoting, that stops it from being "perfect" in my mind, is that Bronze and the Bronze to Silver levels have clear point distinctions on the 100 point and 20 point scales, but 18.5/20 (Gold), 18.4/20 and 18.3/20 are all 94/100. This is not as “clean” as I would have ideally liked, but in reality this is of very little consequence. This also results in the final TORB to 100 point scale conversation to not be as “clean” to the same degree.

The 100 point scale here in Australia has taken a while to evolve, but it can now finally provide great service to wine lover, retailer and buyer alike, as long as it is consistently underpinned by the well established Australian Wine Show system. There is no need to hate the 100 point scale for its past indiscretions, or its usage by RPjr.

Kind regards,
Adair

Figure 1: TORB to 20 Point Scale (and to 100 point scale)

Ultimate --------------------- 19.5+ (The Ultimate) -------- 98-100
Outstanding ----------------- 19-19.4 (Trophy) ------------- 96-97
Excellent -------------------- 18.5-18.9 (Gold Medal) ------ 94-95
Highly Recommended ----- 17.0-18.4 (Silver Medal) ----- 90-93
Recommended ------------- 15.5-16.9 (Bronze Medal) ---- 85-89
Agreeable ------------------- 14.5–15.4 --------------------- 80-84
Acceptable ------------------ 13.5–14.4 --------------------- 75-79
Barely Drinkable ----------- 12.5-13.4 ---------------------- 70-74
CatÂ’s Piss ------------------- Less than 12.5 ----------------- Less than 70


Figure 2: 20 to 100 Point Scale Conversion

20 > 100
19.9 > 99
19.8 > 99
19.7 > 98
19.6 > 98
19.5 > 98
19.4 > 97
19.3 > 97
19.2 > 97
19.1 > 96
19 > 96
18.9 > 96
18.8 > 95
18.7 > 95
18.6 > 95
18.5 > 94
18.4 > 94
18.3 > 94
18.2 > 93
18.1 > 93
18 > 93
17.9 > 92
17.8 > 92
17.7 > 92
17.6 > 91
17.5 > 91
17.4 > 91
17.3 > 90
17.2 > 90
17.1 > 90
17 > 90
16.9 > 89
16.8 > 89
16.7 > 89
16.6 > 88
16.5 > 88
16.4 > 88
16.3 > 87
16.2 > 87
16.1 > 87
16 > 87
15.9 > 86
15.8 > 86
15.7 > 86
15.6 > 85
15.5 > 85
15.4 > 84
15.3 > 84
15.2 > 83
15.1 > 83
15 > 82
14.9 > 82
14.8 > 81
14.7 > 81
14.6 > 80
14.5 > 80
14.4 > 79
14.3 > 79
14.2 > 78
14.1 > 78
14 > 77
13.9 > 77
13.8 > 76
13.7 > 76
13.6 > 75
13.5 > 75
13.4 > 74
13.3 > 74
13.2 > 73
13.1 > 73
13 > 72
12.9 > 72
12.8 > 71
12.7 > 71
12.6 > 70
12.5 > 70
12.4 > 69
12.3 > 69
12.2 > 68
12.1 > 68
12 > 67
11.9 > 67
11.8 > 66
11.7 > 66
11.6 > 65
11.5 > 65
11.4 > 64
11.3 > 63
11.2 > 62
11.1 > 61
11 > 60
10.9 > 59
10.8 > 58
10.7 > 57
10.6 > 56
10.5 > 55
10.4 > 54
10.3 > 53
10.2 > 52
10.1 > 51
10 > 50
Less than 10 > Not wine

Adair,

Very thorough, you have way too much spare time on your hands.

Now, all we need is a little Pocket PC program where you can key in the score from one reviewer and it will show you the equivalents for all the others... (No, I'm not going to write one, but I'm sure some Excel wiz. could do one that works on a variety of platforms).

So how does that tie in with the Davo wine scale:-

An ideal gift for someone you don't really like.

A gift for someone okay.

A wine to share with friends/family

and the ultimate score

F off, this is all mine.

Davo wrote:So how does that tie in with the Davo wine scale:-

F off, this is all mine.

Jeez Davo,
I wanted some
MM.

F off, this is all mine ------------------------------------ 19+ ----------- 96-100
A wine to share with friends/family ----------------- 17.0-18.9 ----- 90-95
A gift for someone okay ------------------------------- 14.5-16.9 ----- 80-89
An ideal gift for someone you don't really like ----- 12.5-14.4 ------- 70-79
Very nasty -----------------------------------------------10-12.4 --------50-69



Adair

Adair wrote:F off, this is all mine ------------------------------------ 19+ ----------- 96-100
A wine to share with friends/family ----------------- 17.0-18.9 ----- 90-95
A gift for someone okay ------------------------------- 14.5-16.9 ----- 80-89
An ideal gift for someone you don't really like ----- 12.5-14.4 ------- 70-79
Very nasty -----------------------------------------------10-12.4 --------50-69



Adair

Not sure this will work.

Some 100 point scales seem to start at 80.

Heck I even know one that seems to start at about 92.

Gavin Trott wrote:Not sure this will work.

Remember... "as long as it is consistently underpinned by the well established Australian Wine Show system"

Gavin Trott wrote:Some 100 point scales seem to start at 80.
Heck I even know one that seems to start at about 92.

Gavin hits out!

Adair

Adair wrote:

Gavin Trott wrote:Not sure this will work.

Remember... "as long as it is consistently underpinned by the well established Australian Wine Show system"

Gavin Trott wrote:Some 100 point scales seem to start at 80.
Heck I even know one that seems to start at about 92.

Gavin hits out!

Adair

Mine only goes to 92

Your biggest issue with the 100 point system seems to be with the explanations used to define each range within the 100 point system. I too find/found this to be a big issue with the 100 point system.

The second major issue that I have with the 100 point scale is that its usage did not allow for enough differentiation in the area that I (and I presume other wine lovers and wine critics) wanted it, that is in the higher/highest quality levels.

However, these are the precise reasons why Jeremy Oliver should be congratulated for what he has done, and why what he has done is of such great benefit.

Adair,

There are more problems with the hundred point systems than you can shake a stick at. One of the biggest underlying issue is that in reality there is no single 100 point system. There are a multiplicity of hundred point systems, not just within Australia, but all around the world. As I outlined in my article, Oliver's hundred point system (or HallidayÂ’s for that matter) is certainly not the same as Parker's, yet I am willing to bet you that 95% of wine drinker think that the hundred point system is a single universal one that has been standardised. This is simply not the case.

Oliver was in a difficult position when he decided to convert to the hundred point system and the rationality he has used to convert his points to the hundred point system is sound; but that does not mean that the hundred point system in itself is sound.

1) Furthermore, the 100 point scale that the Australian Wine Show scale is being pegged to is the most widely used in Australia, that is the one used by our most known and generally respected (the one whose ratings are used to sell the most wines) wine critic, James Halliday. This makes the annoying question, “What 100 point scale definition is that particular rating based upon” easily answered and, most importantly, easily understood.

In your example, the way I see it, the hundred point scale is not being pegged to the show scale, the show scale is being pegged to the hundred point system and as I said in my article, whilst Halliday used to peg the two together, his current 100 point scale makes no mention of show marks. You are superimposing Olivers interpretation and added words into Halliday's interpretation. If Halliday thought the show system had a valid conversion, why didn't he include them in his hundred point system instead of removing reference to the show system.

• I would have liked James Halliday to stick to his old 100 point scale definitions, as it would have provided more room in the higher quality areas, but having the 100 point scale that the general public understands best here in Australia closer aligned to the most known scale in the US is probably not a bad thing.

By your own admission, Halliday changed system is a retrograde step. As I have said previously, the scale that we use in Australia and scale they use in the US are different and this further illustrates the complete folly of the hundred point systems, because there is no one singular hundred point system.

• The inconsistencies you mention are not inconsistencies, and if they are, they are negligible. The inconsistencies you describe are not inconsistencies because, as you mention, James Halliday changed his 100 point scale upwards so that it was easier for a wine to receive a 90+, and this happened to occur at the same time when he removed mentioning the Australian Wine Show system in his definitions. Comparing the Jeremy Oliver 100 point scale definitions now to James Halliday’s 100 point scale definitions of the past is foolish. I am not arguing that the RPjr. scale is consistent with the most widely accepted 100-point scale here in Australia, although not far apart, especially in the higher levels.

Adair, you are a great bloke mate but your logic is completely contradictory and flawed. In one paragraph you talk about how wonderful it is that Oliver is using the show system in his hundred point system and a little later you are saying that it doesn't matter that Halliday removed the show system from his definitions; but that is not the biggest point in the above paragraph. By your own admission you agree that RP’s scale is not consistent with the hundred point scale in Australia. Also in the previous paragraph, you mention the advantages of the US and Australian systems “being closely aligned” when in reality, there is a reasonable amount of difference between them.

• The Australian Wine Show system is better than any other system to base the 100 point scale upon (better than university marking, school marking, TORB scale, or whatever else), simply because it is the most well-known and accepted in wine usage terms.

McDonald's are the world's most “well-known and accepted” hamburger, but that certainly doesn't make them the best, merely that they are convenient and easy to obtain. If you have to have a basis for a hundred point system, then the Australian show system could be a reasonable place to start, but that does not mean the base starting point of the hundred point system has to be so ludicrously high which causes congestion, especially at the top end.

One of the best things about the show system is that people don't go, this is an 18.1 point wine and someone else argues, no its 18.3. In that scenario, consumers will look at the wine in the context of a range, i.e. a silver medal wine rather than an absolute objective number for something that is purely subjective in the first place.

• The fact that it does not use the entire 100 point range is of no consequence. Who really cares? Does it make any real difference? It is simply an aesthetic thing. It makes it easier to look at, easier to understand to the general public and easier to sell wines with. If it makes you feel better, just look at the scale as if a liquid that is not wine, such as water, is not good enough to get above 49/100 on this scale.

The problem is that it uses so little of the range and as wine to use your words is “an aesthetic thing” why do you need a narrow banded absolute score to define something that is completely subjective and open to personal interpretation.

• The TORB Scale looks great converted to the 20 point scale (see below – Figure 1). Then obviously TORB’s scale can be converted to the 100 point scale (see below - Figure 2).

If you are going to build a house on soft sand without solid footings, you're never going to have a stable house. As my scale can't be converted to the 20 point scale, by definition it cannot be further extrapolate out to a 100 point scale. Simply put, I do not think in points, I think in bands or broad categories.

The 100 point scale here in Australia has taken a while to evolve, but it can now finally provide great service to wine lover, retailer and buyer alike, as long as it is consistently underpinned by the well established Australian Wine Show system. There is no need to hate the 100 point scale for its past indiscretions, or its usage by RPjr.

That's not why I hate it. As I have said previously, I believe it is complete folly to assign an absolute objective score to something as subjective as one person's taste in wine. Whilst I can see the necessity to do it in the show ring, I do not see it being necessary for the average consumer, or even enthusiasts. If you walk through the National Gallery, would you say “that Jackson Pollack is worth of 94 and it's better than that Stretton which is only worth 92”? The consumption and enjoyment of wine is subjective, not objective and absolute. Wine is about enjoyment; the subtle nuances, the way it opens in the glass, the special moments and bottles shared with friends (even drinking with you and Attilla); even sipping an inexpensive wine with a meal is about the enjoyment of what is in the glass and how it goes with the food. It is not about, “this is a 92 point wine; no it's not it's a 91 point wine.”

And those are the reasons I hate all point systems that pretend to be absolute and precision driven.

Love the 100 point system.
I also love the 20 point system, but I get into trouble with other judges.

I use the full range and give 6 points through to 20, not just 15 points no award through to 18.5 gold. Which is only 7 points of difference.Mine using 0.5 point increments is 24.

It also spreads my top points so I can easily point to my top wines.

Cheers
Smithy

The second major issue that I have with the 100 point scale is that its usage did not allow for enough differentiation in the area that I (and I presume other wine lovers and wine critics) wanted it, that is in the higher/highest quality levels.

This is why www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz will soon move to the 10000 point system (no we arent joking on this point - just to take the piss cos we at least do that well)

It surely is the greatest wine rating system ever devised

Secondly we are develping a palate calibration machine that will make everyones tastes identical to corner the market completely

Thirdly we will invent a bottling procedure that guarantees every bottle is 100% identical

Forthly we will lobby govenment to legislate that all wine must be consumed 500 days after release to prevent development differences on drinking

Fourthly we will ensure everyone drinks out of the same glassware, in the same atmosphere, with the same company, same temperature bla bla bla

You see what im getting at



C.

I think that the hundred point system is a bit of a joke, other than if it is based on a specified criteria such as in shows. It is only my opinion but having read many of Torbs TNs I find his rating system much easier to understand given that one somewhat understands his personal preferences in wine. I know that a highly recommended wine will be rock solid but an excellent wine will be something more special.
I must also admit that I have had a number of 95 pointers that were without doubt 3% better than the 92 pointers.

Why do wine critics use precise scores such as out of 100 or 20?

Surely a good tasting note and a grade (A, B, C etc) or points range would be just as, if not more, useful for the average punter.

Craig(NZ) wrote:

The second major issue that I have with the 100 point scale is that its usage did not allow for enough differentiation in the area that I (and I presume other wine lovers and wine critics) wanted it, that is in the higher/highest quality levels.

This is why www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz will soon move to the 10000 point system (no we arent joking on this point - just to take the piss cos we at least do that well)

It surely is the greatest wine rating system ever devised

C.

Will you start at 9,900 or 9,980? + 3 dec places of course.

Craig(NZ) wrote:You see what im getting at

You can't possibly hope to compare two different persons scores, especially from different bottles at different times 'cos there are too many variables? So point scores are largely irrelevant, only the TN really matters and even then it's of doubtful value?

Hypnotoad wrote:Why do wine critics use precise scores such as out of 100 or 20?

Surely a good tasting note and a grade (A, B, C etc) or points range would be just as, if not more, useful for the average punter.

Congratulations Toady, go to the top of the class. Clear thinking from a newbie that has not has his judgement clouded by all that pseudo scientific vinous bovine manure.

Because of absolute necessity, wine shows have to be scored which is fair enough, but the professional writers have jumped on the band wagon and have pigged out on to much of a good thing.

The 100 point thingy was started by Parker for, what at that time, was a very unsophisticated wine market. Whilst most people who were new to wine at that time in the US may not have understood the difference between a Cabernet and Chardonnay, those that went to school understood that 90 out of a hundred was pretty good.

Unfortunately it was a case of "there are no failures" and every child wins a prize, as you got 60 points for having the word "wine" on the label. Now being very important and busy people, these winelovers did not have time to absorb the importance of tasting notes and hired a consultant to tell them what they liked. His name was Mr Parker and he was very successful. Because the US has such a huge economic and social impact on the world and is the arbiter of good taste; you only have to look at people wearing baseball caps backwards for poof of this, the 100 point system became "the in thing."

The industry also loved it as its a great marketing tool. Forget the tasting notes, you will love this wine it got 95 points.

Please forgive my very flippant rant, but whilst it is a little exaggerated, much of it is true.

Jusy an FYI on who started 100 point scoring. It was not Parker. Parker first published The Wine Advocate in 1978. Dan Murphy published his little book A Guide to Wine Tasting in 1977. In that book are listed a number of scoring systems, some of which are 100 point systems; they are very cumbersome. From memory I believe at least one is French but I don't have the book here at work to confirm that.

The reason that Parker used the 100 points is, as Ric has said, because its very easily understood by the American consumer. Parker is, I understand, the first critic to use a 100 point system in consumer directed descriptions of wine. I doubt that anyone, including Parker, could have predicted how popular it would become. What could have been predicted is that as others have adopted the 100 point system they would try to make it in their own image. So I don't think anyone should be surprised by the current confusion.

Mike

KMP wrote: So I don't think anyone should be surprised by the current confusion.

Thanks Mike, Confusion, what CoNFuSion
It looks perfectly clear to me.

smithy wrote:8)
Love the 100 point system.
I also love the 20 point system, but I get into trouble with other judges.

I use the full range and give 6 points through to 20, not just 15 points no award through to 18.5 gold. Which is only 7 points of difference.Mine using 0.5 point increments is 24.

It also spreads my top points so I can easily point to my top wines.

Cheers
Smithy

Speaking of the 20 point system and using the full range you should get a copy of Judgment of Paris by George Taber. It's about the 1976 tasting between US and French wines which was won by the US. As an appendix it has the scores made by each of the judges (all of which were French) and some used the full 20 points going as low as 1 in at least one case.

BTW it is an excellnt book, probably the best I have read on California wine as it gives quite a bit of the histroy of the Napa scene leading up to the "revolution".

Mike

I agree with Ric's side of the argument here.

Adair, the 20 point "show" system does not grade in 0.1 increments - 0.5 is the go. The 20 point system JO uses/used is in fact a 200 point scale. The 20 point "show" system is in fact a 40 "tier" scale (if you get my drift).

Competent assessment and precise descriptions is all I need in a tasting note.

Ric, I agree that there are a muliplicity of 100 point scales out there, but I don't think it matters. It simply reflects the fact that perceptions are individual. Allow me to elaborate.

Parker (or Halliday, or me, or anyone else) uses only ONE 100 point scale: his or her own. It's up to the consumer to judge how well that scale matches their own palate. Same with the scale you yourself use: it's only your scale, as only you can speak for how you judge the wine. It's up to the consumer to a) read your assessment and/or b) agree with your assessment if they taste the wine. It doesn't mastter if it's a 20 point or 100 point, or (like your system) 'no point' scoring. Each system is equally flawed.

So critiquing any one scoring system is fruitless, I think. They are all both 100% correct and absolute (for the assessor) and thus necessarily flawed for everybody else, although we can agree with many comments/scores. Some assessors more than others, of course!

JDSJDS wrote: It doesn't mastter if it's a 20 point or 100 point, or (like your system) 'no point' scoring. Each system is equally flawed...... They are all both 100% correct and absolute (for the assessor) and thus necessarily flawed for everybody else,

JDS, I agree with most of what you say, but at least my system does not pretend to be "precise" and absolute. The biggest problem with an absolute numerical score is that it assigns an "objective absolute" to something that's completely subjective, and thats the biggest flaw of the numerical systems.

So critiquing any one scoring system is fruitless, I think.

You been drinking those terroir filled wines again.

Are wine ratings based on one tasting or on multiple tastings which are then averaged?

Thanks,

Craig.

Hypnotoad wrote:Are wine ratings based on one tasting or on multiple tastings which are then averaged?
Thanks,
Craig.

Depends on whether you have tasted the wine once or multiple times, and if you have tasted multiple times, whether you want to average them. It is totally subjective.

Adair

So I guess the best way to approach reviews is to find critics who have similar tastes as yourself and place more value on their judgements?

Sorry if I'm taking this a little OT.

Thanks,

Craig.

Ric,

I believe the main reason for our disagreement is that you have an issue using numbers to represent something subjective. If you think that this is “prostituting” the experience, that is up to you and absolutely fine with me. Maybe you were not a fan of mathematics at school. Attila also does not like representing experiences with numbers, but even he occasionally tells me in conversation that a certain wine provided a “100 point experience” or a near 100 point experience.

I donÂ’t have an issue with assigning a score to an experience, not matter how personal, be it a painting, a wine, a meal, or whatever in order to compare that experience to another painting, wine or meal. To illustrate the point, I do not see the difference between a points system and assigning ranges, as those ranges themselves can be numbers. For example, applying this reason to the scale that you use, I donÂ’t see why the TORB Rating System canÂ’t be otherwise known as the TORB 9-Point Scale:

CatÂ’s Piss = 1
Barely Drinkable = 2
Acceptable = 3
Agreeable = 4
Recommended = 5
Highly Recommended = 6
Excellent = 7
Outstanding = 8
Ultimate = 9

No one is arguing that wine tasting, preferences or rankings are not totally subjective. This is the case even when show judges are analysing the same wine, from the same bottle, in the same conditions, at the same time, using the Australian Wine Show system. Even JO writes in his 2005 Annual "Neither of us (JO & JH) are worried if our marks happen to differ on individual wines". However, it provides another tool for palate calibration.

So yes, I totally agree with you that in reality there is no single 100 point system. Even if they were all based on the Australian Wine Show system, which has the advantage of many, many years of usage, each person’s application of that system causes there not to be a single 20 or 100 point system (using your definition of what constitutes a single points system). However, like the use and creation of common law in our legal system, the use of the Australian Wine Show system as a basis provides as close a situation as practically possible for “apples to be compared with apples”.

I am not going to concern myself with how retailers manipulate consumers with the use of numbers to sell wines. If consumers donÂ’t realise that a number assigned to a wine is totally another personÂ’s opinion other than themselves, and they donÂ’t go out of their way to find out more about that person, then I canÂ’t help them. They can be easily led by most/any unscrupulous wine retailer, real estate agent, car or accounting software salesman until they learn.

Kind regards,
Adair

Hypnotoad wrote:So I guess the best way to approach reviews is to find critics who have similar tastes as yourself and place more value on their judgements?

Yes.

Hypnotoad wrote:Sorry if I'm taking this a little OT.

In some threads it is possible to take things over the top. However, this thread is not one of them.

Adair

Hypnotoad wrote:So I guess the best way to approach reviews is to find critics who have similar tastes as yourself and place more value on their judgements?
Craig.

Got it in one! It's a process of trial and error, there are always wines where you disagree strongly with your otherwise favourite reviewer, so take care in buying based on reviews only, trying it yourself wherever possible is the best strategy.

Ric and I have pretty similar tastes, but we even differ significantly between our respective opinions on a wine on a number of occasion. For example, Ric is more sensitive to a bit of char character in the oak maturation of a wine, I'm more tolerant of that if the fruit is good enough.

Of the main reviewers, I find I agree with Jeremy Oliver most and find most of his drinking window estimates pretty close to my preferences, therefor I subscribe to his Onwine site.

Craig(NZ) wrote:This is why www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz will soon move to the 10000 point system (no we arent joking on this point - just to take the piss cos we at least do that well)

I'm going to the other extreme and promoting the RB Binary System (or RB B/S for short).

Two values:
1 = Buy (or Buy if I had the money/room in the cellar)
0 = No Buy (even if I had the money/room in the cellar)

Hi all

Sorry folks but I think all this tells me is that no number can ever reflect anymore than a subjective experience

which brings me to the point why bother scoring at all if you are not a show judge or conducting a large comparative tasting, where you might achieve at the most some internal consistency but no more.

FWIW a good tasting note will always tell you more than a mere number about what a wine really is worth

I am however impressed at some of the mathematical lengths and logic arguments some of you have gone to.

I however would rather spend my time drinking it rather than worry about scoring it so just about to start cooking lunch for the leftover 03 Meerea Park Shiraz Viognier I couldnt finsih last night. A cracker of a wine or about a 18.8, 9580 or 93 for all you others

thanks for entertaining me - the forum has definitely gotten better lately

regards

NN