The Auswine Forum

Does anybody feel the same as I do that the points awarded for wines are too high and don't leave room to fully express a clearer judgement on where a particular wine sits in relation to its peers?
Rarely do you see a wine score higher than a 97 or lower than an 80. This leaves a judgement window of only 17%.
If a drinkable but poor wine received say 50 to 60 and a good wine received up to 80 leaving 20 points for the upper quality wines wouldn't this give us/me the ordinary pundit a clearer perspective of where that fine wine sits?
I imagine there would be some pressure upon those that have the recognition and respect of the wine drinking masses to judge wines in that >90 range because that is where I start to take notice of the wine.
I would like to listen to the thoughts of Halliday, Oliver, Walsh and others on this topic. I think it is a good one for debate.
Bill

Bill
I can't really disagree with you. Part of my problem with such scales are that they pander to the wineries and distributors, by having a very intentional unbalanced scale. Far more honest is the old Broadbent 0-5 star scale. When you'd get half marks for pissing into muddy bucket there's something a little awry.

I'll leave it to Craig to explain his 109 point (to 3 d.p) scale which is a good parody of where we've got to.

The one area I'd disagree with you, is letting just 90+ point wines pique your interest. There are many interesting wines that critics don't appreciate, but that you or I might. Points are easy to follow, but in the longer term well written tasting notes offer a better guide to pleasure, though the bottom line is always to follow your own palate where you've experienced that wine or style.

regards

Ian

Bill, Ian - some very good comments.
I can't understand the 100 point system, because one person's 91 might be another's 95. And the points are used so much by wineries and distributors for marketing, without the wine tasting note. What does it mean?
I'd simply like to know whether the taster thinks the wine is gold, silver, bronze or no medal quality and why. I'm happy with the star system too, with half stars thrown in as well. It's far more meaningful to most consumer drinkers than a 91, 92 or 93.
Broadbent did go up to six stars on very rare occasions - when he did you knew the wine was exceptional.
Cheers,
Sue

Rarely do you see a wine score higher than a 97 or lower than an 80.

I score higher than 97 on a reasonably regular basis

I'll leave it to Craig to explain his 109 point (to 3 d.p) scale which is a good parody of where we've got to.

I need say nothing, the message is getting through

I can't understand the 100 point system, because one person's 91 might be another's 95

Again I need say nothing, common sense chimes as a chorus

It is of course obvious to most that the 100 point system is fatally flawed in that it only rates out of a hundred. By using a prime number higher than 100 we know that we will be able to drink regularly 100+ point wines without fear of having to extend our mortgages.

Now off to WineNZ watch for updates!!!

BillMac wrote:Does anybody feel the same as I do that the points awarded for wines are too high and don't leave room to fully express a clearer judgement on where a particular wine sits in relation to its peers?
Rarely do you see a wine score higher than a 97 or lower than an 80. This leaves a judgement window of only 17%.
If a drinkable but poor wine received say 50 to 60 and a good wine received up to 80 leaving 20 points for the upper quality wines wouldn't this give us/me the ordinary pundit a clearer perspective of where that fine wine sits?
I imagine there would be some pressure upon those that have the recognition and respect of the wine drinking masses to judge wines in that >90 range because that is where I start to take notice of the wine.
I would like to listen to the thoughts of Halliday, Oliver, Walsh and others on this topic. I think it is a good one for debate.
Bill

Bill, do a search on the various Australian forums, the 10 point system comes up - repeatedly, passionately, and with no agreement in sight.
Everyones comments so far reflect the absurdity of scoring systems and of expecting any agreement on it.

Myself, I'm tempted to adopt Craigs 109 point system, but I'm sure I would use it differently, and we'd end up fighting over it.

cheers

Andrew

I don’t see any real differences in rating systems that use points (109, 100, 20, 10), stars, puffs, or any other judgment (e.g. excellent, good etc). They are all used to rank wines in comparison to one another. Whether a reviewer can actually differentiate between a 91 and 92, especially on separate occasions, is immaterial because I question if the same reviewer can provide the same tasting notes on a wine on two separate occasions.

In terms of the 100 point system being less than 100 points, this depends on the reviewer. Parker gives a wine 50 points just for being wine in a bottle. But he has scored wines at 50 points, he just does not recommend (i.e. publish tasting notes for) wines that score less that 84-85 points. He says he recommends about 30% of the Aussie wines he tastes. The Wine Spectator 100 point system is like the Parker system, it starts at 50. They may list wines with scores around 80 or so but usually there are no notes. Again, a wine needs to score 85 to be guaranteed a published tasting note. I can’t figure out what Halliday does for his 100 point system; he acknowledges it’s a 20 point system. But he lists 75-79 as the bottom score in the Companion and he lists many more wines than Parker. But does he list all wines he tastes? Does he taste all Australian wines?

Mike

KMP wrote:But does he list all wines he tastes? Does he taste all Australian wines?

I think its well known that if Halliday's rated it he's tasted it, and there are many wines he gives no rating to, so you know what he hasn't had that year.

I find Michael Cooper's 5 star system for kiwi wines more use than the 100 point system to be honest, but even then I don't think any wine gets less than 2 stars, so that's only really a 4 star system.

One persons Gold medal is another persons Silver....all scoring systems are that way. For the record - for me...

88-90 = Bronze
91-93 = Silver
94-96 = Gold

I use this even when doing wine-show style tastings rather than 20 points.

I would also agree that a broader range could be used. I use about 80-100 really...although I have gone 79 every now and then..and also 100 every now and then. Overall I don't really worry about the whole thing.
Lots of people like this scale and (more or less) understand what it means - especially if it is applied consistently. I know what a Halliday 94 means and I know what a Mattinson 94 means..etc. I like the 100 points more than word based scoring (which I just think is weird and obtuse), find the show 20 point thing hard get my head round, and a star system is also OK but not much different to 80-100 points when you break it down.

I'd like to think that you can sell a wine to someone through the text more easily than just the score e.g. a very positive note on 89 point wine and a fairly negative one on 92 points. The score is just another point of reference. It is not a science that bears much close scrutiny - more of a black art really. I also like to think of the 100 point scale as being logarithmic (well not exactly that) gaining more weight as it goes up the scale.

In short I don't really give it much consideration but I really like to see a score out of 100 because it is what I understand without thinking or converting and it just serves to place wines in some sort of qualatitive context for a given reviewer.
GW

rooview wrote:I rate this thread out of 992.

You're a hard marker Rooview.

Bick wrote:

KMP wrote:But does he list all wines he tastes? Does he taste all Australian wines?

I think its well known that if Halliday's rated it he's tasted it, and there are many wines he gives no rating to, so you know what he hasn't had that year.

If its true that Halliday’ Companion gives the scores of all the wines he tastes then his 100 point system has a very narrow range of 75-100. And wines that are in the 75-79 group (wines with some deficiency) are few and far between; You can go pages and not find a wine scoring below 83, but I did find a few 79 pointers while leafing through the 2007 edition. So he is, it seems, scoring the majority of the wines he tastes as anything from everyday wines to outstanding, and tasting very few wines with deficiencies. I find that to be extraordinary. Every time I visit a wine region back in Oz I find wines that simply do not warrant discussion let alone a page in my tasting notebook. And I’m not that hard to please. So either Halliday is discarding wines without talking about them or he is far less critical than I have believed him to be.

As noted Halliday scores from 75-100 (see page 53 of the 2007 edition). He notes that the 100 system is a 20 point system, which I think is an error on his part unless he is referring to his own use of the system. If a reviewer uses Parker’s system then it’s a 50 point system. BUT, if you use Dan Murphy’s (which goes back 25 years before Parker) then you are looking at a more complete use of a 100 point score although I seriously doubt any wine would score zero. For the points purists out there Murphy’s system is nirvana because it not only is more of a complete 100 point system but the scoring is modified for differing attributes of different wine styles.

Mike

Bick wrote:I find Michael Cooper's 5 star system for kiwi wines more use than the 100 point system to be honest, but even then I don't think any wine gets less than 2 stars, so that's only really a 4 star system.

A few years ago, in a review of Michael Cooper's book, I mentioned something similar to your statement, but Michael got in touch with me and pointed out that there were indeed low rated wines, including a no star wine. Was it the one from the organic vineyard in the middle of nowhere? could have been. The wine I tasted was awful.

Cheers,
Sue

A few years ago, in a review of Michael Cooper's book, I mentioned something similar to your statement, but Michael got in touch with me and pointed out that there were indeed low rated wines, including a no star wine. Was it the one from the organic vineyard in the middle of nowhere? could have been. The wine I tasted was awful.

Mind you sue when the 03 awatea gets 4 stars it really means there are only 2 scores that can be given to good wine??

KMP wrote:

Bick wrote:I think its well known that if Halliday's rated it he's tasted it, and there are many wines he gives no rating to, so you know what he hasn't had that year.

If its true that Halliday’ Companion gives the scores of all the wines he tastes then his 100 point system has a very narrow range of 75-100.

Yes fair point, although I believe he's tasted everything he scores, he must leave a lot of poor wine out of the book. Your point is supported by the fact that I think in the 2008 edition there wont be any wine reviewed that gets less than 83! (Sure I read that somewhere). So, he's narrowing down even more from hereon. Shame, as I think its probably more useful to be warned off wasting money on bad wine that to see whether he thinks Hill of Grace deserves 96 or 97 this year. Someone should come out with a book called "Bad wines of the year - top picks of what to avoid".

Bick wrote:

KMP wrote:

Bick wrote:I think its well known that if Halliday's rated it he's tasted it, and there are many wines he gives no rating to, so you know what he hasn't had that year.

If its true that Halliday’ Companion gives the scores of all the wines he tastes then his 100 point system has a very narrow range of 75-100.

Yes fair point, although I believe he's tasted everything he scores, he must leave a lot of poor wine out of the book. Your point is supported by the fact that I think in the 2008 edition there wont be any wine reviewed that gets less than 83! (Sure I read that somewhere). So, he's narrowing down even more from hereon. Shame, as I think its probably more useful to be warned off wasting money on bad wine that to see whether he thinks Hill of Grace deserves 96 or 97 this year. Someone should come out with a book called "Bad wines of the year - top picks of what to avoid".

Thoroughly agree. My favourite part of the old winepros website was the opportunity to see the wines that Halliday has tasted and scored below 80 that he doesn't include in the books. I find faulty wine warnings far more important than good reviews as the difference between good and excellent can often be personal.

cheers

Carl

KMP wrote:Parker gives a wine 50 points just for being wine in a bottle.

Tight arsed Parker we at the www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz give at least 50 points for being alchoholic and a bonus 24 points for pretending to come from grapes.