TORB, you gonna love this one

[Serge Birbrair]

What's the point
is sacrelige and I love the way it was put!

[KMP]

Part of the VinoFictions article includes this In any event, the fellow who devised the well-known 100-point scoring system to rate wine entered grade school a year or two after I had, so he surely must have been influenced by the grading system—or maybe not. We all know this is about the Parker 100 point scoring system

Serge

I believe Vinofictions may be a frined of yours, so please pass on this because I am just plain tired of correcting people.

Robert Parker, Jr. made the 100-point scoring system popular. He did NOT invent, introduce, or in any way originate the use of 100 points in the scoring of wine. To confirm this all you have to do is look at a copy of Dan Murphy’s A Guide to Wine Tasting (Sun Books, Melbourne, 1977). Chapter Fourteen is devoted to Score Cards. In discussing examples of existing score cards, Dan writes “Many judges in various countries think that a scale of 100 has its value, since a judge may include far more individual facets of the wines and allot points (or subtract them) accordingly. This may help his accuracy and consistency.”

He then goes on, in Figures 7 through 13, to show “a series of score cards which I have used in my business for twenty-five years and which I find useful also for scoring wines at shows.”

Unlike Parker’s simple allocation of 100 points, Murphy’s scoring is different for different wine styles, no doubt one reason why it is not in popular use today. But let’s give credit where it is due. Robert Parker, Jr. made popular something that existed at least a quarter of a century before he began the Wine Advocate. He may have massaged it a bit to make it suit his style, but he did not invent, introduce, or in any way originate the use of 100 points in the scoring of wine.

Mike

[TORB]

Serge,

Yawn.

If people want to use a system that makes no sense and is completely flawed, that their right.

[Serge Birbrair]

Mike, I am with you, and I recall the argument on WS board regarding the matter. Parker hasn't invented the 100 points scale.

Mike,
I passed your message across:
http://winetalk.com/forum/showpost.php? ... ostcount=5
Thanks!

Thomas, MIke, this concludes my "message brokerage", feel free to reg here, there and retort if you feel so inclined.

[Red Bigot]

Serge,

Ric didn't say anything about anybody's right to write about use of "100" points systems, his only comment was about the flawed nature of the system. Maybe the yawn implied there was nothing new here (this topic has been done to death here over the years), it didn't denigrate the article or the author.

[Craig(NZ)]

Serge,

Yawn.

If people want to use a system that makes no sense and is completely flawed, that their right.

Serge I have to agree with TORB here. The 100 point system is fundamentaly flawed and makes no logical sense. Thats why I use the 109 point system

[Serge Birbrair]

RB, sorry, my bad, I misunderstood Ric's post and the misunderstanding has been deleted.

Craig, 109 point system is not presize enough. Have you tried "New and Improved 109+" system?

[Red Bigot]

RB, sorry, my bad, I misunderstood Ric's post and the misunderstanding has been deleted.

Craig, 109 point system is not presize enough. Have you tried "New and Improved 109+" system?

Thanks Serge.

The binary system works for me - Do I like it enough to buy or not, at the price offered. (Regardless of whether I actually buy it or not, funds and cellar are limiting factors.)

[Craig(NZ)]

Serge

You are just so wrong. 109 points is way enough. You have to remember we plan to use it to 3 decimal places

Nothing like a 107.125 point wine!

[Serge Birbrair]

RB, sorry, my bad, I misunderstood Ric's post and the misunderstanding has been deleted.

Craig, 109 point system is not presize enough. Have you tried "New and Improved 109+" system?

Thanks Serge.

The binary system works for me - Do I like it enough to buy or not, at the price offered. (Regardless of whether I actually buy it or not, funds and cellar are limiting factors.)

RB,
the binary system is the ONLY system I trust!

I know somebody who ONLY uses binary system to a great results!

http://elegantwine.com

My only regret is that our palates are not 100% compatable.

Craig,
you should have told me from the start that you are using
"109 points sytem, Version 921B, 2007"
and I wouldn't make fool of myself with stupid improvements suggestions!

[TORB]

Craig,
you should have told me from the start that you are using
"109 points sytem, Version 921B, 2007"
and I wouldn't make fool of myself with stupid improvements suggestions!

Serge,

... but how many glasses does Craig's system get for value?

(Brian nailed my thoughts on my first post in this thread. i.e. nothing new and its been done to death, but that still does not stop the stupidity of using a flawed system.)

[Ratcatcher]

I've decided on my own private 100 point system that rates a wine on quality relative to price bracket.

Therefore I rate $9 Chardonnays against other $8 - $12 Chardonnays so if I like my Windy Peak Chardonnay I'll give it 100 points.

If I am slightly disappointed with my Seppelt St Peters I will give it 89 points. I still know that the St Peters is a better wine but it failed to measure up to my expectations.

This saves me having to give a separate rating for quality and another for value. I just know I'm rating in relation to what the wine is meant to be.

I find it hard to fathom when people give an $15 wine 93 points and a $150 wine 95 points.

[Serge Birbrair]

Ratcatcher, is your board name related in any way to the Scottish movie with the same name?

TORB,
you havbe good friends who know you well and saved me from embaracement. I'd drink to that and rate the drink in Craig's system

[D.I]

Giving scores according to the price it is not make sense for me. The wine should get a score only because of its quality, and if a particular wine score 88 and on sell for $9 its maybe better then 89 for $20.
Any way even the 100 scale is not consistent, and there are lot of different in the
Way its divided such as:
Appearance - 10
Colour – 5
Nose - 30
Flavour -15
Acidity – 10
Defects – 10
General quality 20
Total = 100
And that only one way….. any one can divided the 100 scale different, and 88 score by one "critic" is not the 88 score by the other critic and goes on and on.
Because of that differential the most important thing is the description of the wine – not the score.

[Ratcatcher]

DI, I disagree. I can't see how you can rate a lesser vintage of Grange like 95 or 97 as equivalent to a good vintage of Blackwell Shiraz for example.

I'm sure most people would rather drink a 94 rated Grange than a 94 rated Blackwell. (even thought the Blackwell is an excellent drink) and I'm sure people would rather be given a bottle of the Halliday 96 point 2001 Grange than a bottle of the 96 rated Chain of Ponds Ledge Shiraz. You can't tell me that the Grange would not be a superior wine. So while the current 100 point scale has such a small range to differentiate between a good example of a commercial wine and a lesser example of a great wine it is useless to me.

I'm not rating according to price I'm rating on how well a wine performs in the category of what it is intended to be.

So if a wine is the perfect example of a $9 Riesling I'll give it 99 or 100 points.

If I open a bottle of Graveyard and am disappointed I'll give it 86 points. If I like the Graveyard style and intend to buy and drink it again in the future I'll know immediately from my points to give that vintage a miss in future but if I've rated it 92 because even though I didn't think it was a great Graveyard it was still better than the Long Flat Shiraz I gave 91 points to the other night that went down a treat with my pizza.

If your points range between a great Grange and a poor Grange is limited to only 94-97 because you need the 87 - 90 range to rate good versions of $15 wines and the 91 - 95 range to rate the good $25 - $40 wines then how do you really differentiate between one Grange and the next? What's the difference really between a 95 rated Grange and a 96 rated Grange?Obviously the answer is written notes but then that makes points superfluous anyway.

[Ratcatcher]

Serge, I've never seen the movie. I'll have to look for it now.

The name is a fairly boring story. One of my mates on another forum years ago used to say that a previous captain of the Indian Cricket Team looked like a caricature of a village ratcacther.

I think because my first name (Rodney) comes up on most spellcheckers with the replacement option of Rodent and a few people called me that it just stuck. even though I look nothing like him.

[D.I]

Hi Ratcatcher.
We do not have to agree on the scoring system, and some times scores are not reflecting the wine quality. As I know all the wine critics are rating wines with no connection to the price, in most cases there is a direct correlation between the price and the score.
As I mention before I believe that the scores are not as important as the tasting notes, because a wine can get 92 points but when you read the tasting notes you find that the wine has horses' sweat aroma which you do not like……
Some wine critics are giving reference to value for money, which is separate from the scores.
Any how, if you score wines for yourself, and the why you score are the best for your needs - keep the good job.

[Serge Birbrair]

Serge, I've never seen the movie. I'll have to look for it now.

The movie is well made, but rather depressing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/526977.stm

DI, I disagree. I can't see how you can rate a lesser vintage of Grange like 95 or 97 as equivalent to a good vintage of Blackwell Shiraz for example.

Is at the crust of the matter and shows limitations of the rating systems, ALL ratings systems, as ALL of them make PERFECT sense to the rater, and not to the inquisitive recepient.

Rating wines is like rating one's spouse. We all can rate our own and come up with points which make perfect sense to us, and absolutely nothing to them or anybody else for this matter.

[Serge Birbrair]

Craig,
I am glad you implemented the recomendation of including "+" in your 109 points rating system
http://www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz/index. ... &Itemid=41

My wife was also very pleased when I added
"+" to her rating!

(+ - When I stick a plus sign next to a score, it is because I feel the wine will improve and is yet to reach its peak and is packed with potential. )

Legal disclaimer:
109 points sytem is proprietary system of KWFC,
all rights reserved,
UN Registration # TRWI-0028342-72-B

Violators and trespassers will be executed.

[Davo]

Is at the crust of the matter and shows limitations of the rating systems, ALL ratings systems, as ALL of them make PERFECT sense to the rater, and not to the inquisitive recepient.

Or, in this instance, the ratter???

[Murray]

Is at the crust of the matter

You mean crux of the matter don't you?

The crust is on the outer, the crux is at the centre.

(that reminds me, I must get round to that avatar thing)

But back to the point, or the crux, whatever you prefer:

In my opinion good tasting notes have both an objective and subjective component. The objective component tells about the wine; it's primary fruit; tannic and acid; finish, prime points and faults. The subjective component is what the reviewer thinks of the wine. Is it good/bad by whatever measure. The 100 point scale is one of a number I use for subjective assessment and one I have no issue with; an 87 point wine is a Very Good wine in my view as it is within the Very Good (85-89) range in my view. An Excellent wine will be in the 90-95 point range.

In my view adding up particular components (5 for colour, 20 for finish etc) doesn't work; it's the overall impression that counts.

[Serge Birbrair]

Murray,
if all of a sudden I start using King's English,
it would only mean one thing:
hackers or my children got into my acount and use it without permission.


(Thanks for correcting me, I learned more English on the boards than some folks did in high schools)

Now let's dissect what you just posted:

The 100 point scale is one of a number I use for subjective assessment and one I have no issue with; an 87 point wine is a Very Good wine in my view as it is within the Very Good (85-89) range in my view. An Excellent wine will be in the 90-95 point range.

The key words I see are:
in my view.

In our own views everything is objective, even subjective assessments and they are 100% correct as far as WE are concerned.
It's relating OUR assessments to others is where I see the problem, be it 100 points, 50 points, 25 points or even binary points system.

For example:
if I objectively/subjectively like 2010 Dead Arms Pinot and rate it Very Good, it doesn't mean that YOU will think the same way. Us, amateurs, have wide ranges of "good and evil", the professionals are not any different.

[Murray]

The key words I see are:
in my view.

In our own views everything is objective, even subjective assessments and they are 100% correct as far as WE are concerned.
It's relating OUR assessments to others is where I see the problem, be it 100 points, 50 points, 25 points or even binary points system.

For example:
if I objectively/subjectively like 2010 Dead Arms Pinot and rate it Very Good, it doesn't mean that YOU will think the same way. Us, amateurs, have wide ranges of "good and evil", the professionals are not any different.

Of course it's in my view Serge, if I'm not willing to point my name to my assessment of the wine it becomes marketing spin; not a considered assessment. I want to see an assessment on wine in the reviewer's opinion; whether it be a descriptive rating (very good) or one of the numeric/metallic-based systems (85-89; 17/20; silver). Morever and equally importantly I expect to see this supported by the reviewer's notes. If they find fault find it the wine I expect to see the faults describes; likewise the positive point lauded.

If you see the 2010 Dead Arm Pinot in the 85-89 point range on the 100 point scale that's great; although it'll be interesting to see what global warming has to say about the prospects of McLaren Vale Pinots three years hence.

[Serge Birbrair]

Murray,
you say that you like to see reviewer assesment.

Let's get our teeth a bit deeper into this.

"Good" or "bad" are not subjective matters. What is "good" for one is "bad" for another. For John Q Public the "Good" is often misleading, if John Q Public doesn't follow the reviewer closely and has no idea how reviewer's palate correlated to his/hers own.

Why do you think wine boards are so popular? Why don't we just subscribe to a few wine critics and live happily years after?

I believe, the reason we ALL love to talk about wine is because by reading each other notes and assessments, we look for those correlations.
This study takes lots of leg work. Due diligence and leg work helps our buying choices, without it, just "Good" or "bad" from few critics wouldn't work for us, the wine lovers and connoseurs.

I am sorry, but I have to ignore your global warming comments, which is one of my favorite topics of late, despite that neither Australia, nor the USA has signed Kyoto treaty, as if I don't ignore it, this thread might become the longest thread in the history of this board