Score creep
Re: Score creep
Polymer, I think the 100 point scale and its use at any stage to be ridiculous. I cannot see the point of a scale where only 20% is used. I have my own 100 point scale where 55points is a pretty ordinary wine but still drinkable (a solid D!!!). I just like coming at most things from every side......
Re: Score creep
I'll add a couple of points and leave it there.
Some critics, and some very much in particular, ratings are HIGHLY influenced by who makes the wine, and the current status of their relationship with them. I think both Wine Companion and Wine Front are good at keeping these issues out of the rating.
Second, at least on winefront 88,89 etc = bronze medal which means good wine. They are not to be over-looked, especially if at a good price. Quite a few of the wines I'd go 88-89, I'd drink in preference to more weighty heavy going items that might get 93-94. It's just a scale. A quick reference to add a data point. People get SO hung up about, and I don't know why. Also, it's foolishness to compare one critics score with another as it's not a universal system, although to the consumer it may appear that way. It's relative to one critic only really.
Some critics, and some very much in particular, ratings are HIGHLY influenced by who makes the wine, and the current status of their relationship with them. I think both Wine Companion and Wine Front are good at keeping these issues out of the rating.
Second, at least on winefront 88,89 etc = bronze medal which means good wine. They are not to be over-looked, especially if at a good price. Quite a few of the wines I'd go 88-89, I'd drink in preference to more weighty heavy going items that might get 93-94. It's just a scale. A quick reference to add a data point. People get SO hung up about, and I don't know why. Also, it's foolishness to compare one critics score with another as it's not a universal system, although to the consumer it may appear that way. It's relative to one critic only really.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
dingozegan
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:38 pm
- Location: Sydney
Re: Score creep
Gary W wrote:it's foolishness to compare one critics score with another as it's not a universal system, although to the consumer it may appear that way. It's relative to one critic only really.
I think the use of numerical scores for rating wine is a bit silly (some would say foolish), and that this is particularly the case with the "100 point" scale (which is practically a 20-25 point scale!). But I disagree that comparison of one critic's score with another's is foolish.
If critics are willing to put numerical standards on wine, then those numerical standards can be held up for comparison. I agree that a 92 from one critic is not the same as a 92 from another critic, and that is exactly where the kind of analysis in this OP comes to bear: for example, if 20% of all wines scored by critic A are scored 92 or above, this is equivalent to a score of 94 for critic B whose scoring shows 20% of all wines to be 94 or above.
Re: Score creep
Pretty sure a Halliday score is irrespective of price right? Other than the subconscious influence that might give it a higher score...
Not that I care too much about scoring...but if you're going to score, you can't take price into consideration because makes your scale impossible to follow...on the surface it might make sense to do so..but in reality, it absolutely does not.
The 100 point scale is common in the US for schools so it was a very easy translation for people..whereas a 20 point scale meant you needed to understand how the scale was built..90points translates easily into an "A" in the US. Not that the entire scale is used but from that standpoint, it was easy for the US consumer (which was RP's customer base) to understand...I don't think it is any better from a granularity standpoint than a 20 point scale that uses half points, etc...but has a very obvious demarcation point for people.
Not that I care too much about scoring...but if you're going to score, you can't take price into consideration because makes your scale impossible to follow...on the surface it might make sense to do so..but in reality, it absolutely does not.
The 100 point scale is common in the US for schools so it was a very easy translation for people..whereas a 20 point scale meant you needed to understand how the scale was built..90points translates easily into an "A" in the US. Not that the entire scale is used but from that standpoint, it was easy for the US consumer (which was RP's customer base) to understand...I don't think it is any better from a granularity standpoint than a 20 point scale that uses half points, etc...but has a very obvious demarcation point for people.
-
Waiters Friend
- Posts: 2786
- Joined: Mon May 02, 2005 4:09 am
- Location: Perth WA
Re: Score creep
Excellent commentary, Sean, and thanks for presenting the balanced viewpoint. Cheers Allan
Wine, women and song. Ideally, you can experience all three at once.
Re: Score creep
Sean wrote:The refrain that usually comes from wine critics is it is what's in the glass that matters, nothing else. The basis for judging a wine is only what is presented to them in that glass, so the history or pedigree of that wine should have no bearing on how it is judged.
A completely facile way to judge wine, particularly if the wine is presented blind.
A bit like car manufacturers presenting the new model at the race track for the journos to drive (blindfolded if they could). Sure, smart writers will comment how it will goes around a smooth race track, but sensible later reports will indicate that the suspension is too firm for day-to-day driving, or there's no luggage space, or the maker's gearboxes have a tendency to explode after 20,000km.
Blind tasting has its place, but it's usually to judge the taster, not the wine.
As often presented, it takes the form of a claim that "serve me ten wines anonymously, and I can tell you which one I like best".
Big deal.
cheers,
Graeme