I did a small amount of semi-serious stirring on Winorama when I noticed the same reviewer gave 92 points to the 2002 Peter Lehmann Mentor (around $32 street price) and 85 points to a 2004 Rousseau Burgundy costing $190.
My version of QPR ended up like this: "On reflection, since the 100pt scale is in reality probably a 25pt scale for all practical purposes, the example QPR scores could be expressed as 17/32 = .531 for the Mentor and 10/190 = .053 for the Burgundy, or exactly 1 tenth that of the Mentor."
One response (correctly but simplistically) pointed out that QPR is zero if you don't like the taste of the wine, leading me to wonder whether people think there is any correlation between point scores and whether the reviewer liked the wine or not.
(Yes, it's crisp cool morning in Canberra and I'm just filling in time waiting for it to warm up a little before I take the dogs for their daily walk.)
The old Point-scoring can of worms
The old Point-scoring can of worms
Cheers
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
Brian
Life's too short to drink white wine and red wine is better for you too! :-)
-
Billy Bolonski
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 10:39 pm
- Location: Sydney
RB
I think you can be objective, I don't like it but it is a good example of the style. etc.
However, I personally think the whole point scoring is pointless, useless and very problematic.
I never liked maths, even at school. I am not going to bring maths into a part of my life that I enjoy so much.
Billy B
I think you can be objective, I don't like it but it is a good example of the style. etc.
However, I personally think the whole point scoring is pointless, useless and very problematic.
I never liked maths, even at school. I am not going to bring maths into a part of my life that I enjoy so much.
Billy B
Philosophy, I'm in it for the money.
This is what happens when you try to wrap with scientific legitimacy something which just doesn't lend itself to a simple analysis. For my personal use I use Broadbent's 5* system, with brackets for expected improvement, but the point is that it simply reflects my enjoyment of the wine in question, and is really of no use to anyone else. I'll likely never give a pinot gris *****, but I don't have to pretend to be objective, or evaluate arbitrarily-defined peers groups, or agonise that I'm scoring too many wines at 89-90, or divide my score by the $ the wine cost, or any of that rubbish. 
cheers,
Graeme
cheers,
Graeme
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
I don't use points. The only notes I make are did I like it, does it need more time, would I buy it again at the same price/lower price/higher price.
Whenever I read reviews with points I take it to be a rating of the wine in the category it falls into.
ie: $600 first growths vs other $600 first growths. $10 Chardonnays vs $10 Chardonnays.
Even though I know reviewers say they don't rate wines like that, it's just pure quality, such a limited points range makes it difficult to make fair comparisons between a $8 Riverland wine of good quality and a top notch Burgundy.
I'm sure most 82-85 point awarded Burgundies are actually much better wines than an 88 point South East Australia Chardonnay.
Whenever I read reviews with points I take it to be a rating of the wine in the category it falls into.
ie: $600 first growths vs other $600 first growths. $10 Chardonnays vs $10 Chardonnays.
Even though I know reviewers say they don't rate wines like that, it's just pure quality, such a limited points range makes it difficult to make fair comparisons between a $8 Riverland wine of good quality and a top notch Burgundy.
I'm sure most 82-85 point awarded Burgundies are actually much better wines than an 88 point South East Australia Chardonnay.
-
Grey Ghost
- Posts: 46
- Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 8:28 pm
- Location: NZ
I hope the dogs enjoyed their walk.
We have to rank many things in our lives and while I completely agree with the thrust of the comments that GraemeG makes - ranking things is none the less a necessary reality. When drinking wine with a meal however - I simply just enjoy.
In awarding points I was trained at Wagga to use the old 20 point scale. Of course nothing that came under 12 points was considered potable - therefore the reality was that all wines were scored from 11 (reject) to 20 - a nine point scale. As inane as the 100 point scale (out of 15 ... 85 to 100).
If ranking several wines at a tasting here is a system that the the late Graham Gregory (then State Viticulturist for NSW Dept. Ag.), taught me 30 years ago.
Quickly separate then into four classes on their nose (five if you have a reject class) - potable - good - very good - excellent (and GraemeG will rightly say 1* to 4*).
Next, rank each wine within its own class, defining each wine by decimals.
This is the period that you spend time on making an assessment of each wine by both nose and palate. I spend more time defining the top group first, less in the middle groups and very quickly assess the lowest groups.
The system is quick and accurate. What nomclature you decide on (the 20 point, the 100 point or the star system) is still valid and can be grafted on to your results.
GG
We have to rank many things in our lives and while I completely agree with the thrust of the comments that GraemeG makes - ranking things is none the less a necessary reality. When drinking wine with a meal however - I simply just enjoy.
In awarding points I was trained at Wagga to use the old 20 point scale. Of course nothing that came under 12 points was considered potable - therefore the reality was that all wines were scored from 11 (reject) to 20 - a nine point scale. As inane as the 100 point scale (out of 15 ... 85 to 100).
If ranking several wines at a tasting here is a system that the the late Graham Gregory (then State Viticulturist for NSW Dept. Ag.), taught me 30 years ago.
Quickly separate then into four classes on their nose (five if you have a reject class) - potable - good - very good - excellent (and GraemeG will rightly say 1* to 4*).
Next, rank each wine within its own class, defining each wine by decimals.
This is the period that you spend time on making an assessment of each wine by both nose and palate. I spend more time defining the top group first, less in the middle groups and very quickly assess the lowest groups.
The system is quick and accurate. What nomclature you decide on (the 20 point, the 100 point or the star system) is still valid and can be grafted on to your results.
GG
I'm crap at using descriptors (a reason why I don't post as often as I should) and giving points is pointless. Interpreting other people's points is only possible when they have a track record to provide a context.
I use comments like very pleasant, delicious, excellent, etc. It's rare that I don't find a wine drinkable and I have a very wide range of tastes (I think both Warrabilla and pinot-like Hunter Shiraz are both great wine styles that I enjoy immensely). OK is usually as low as I go unless the wine is seriously faulty.
I lurk around these forums a lot to get the views of others and often decide on the basis of multiple positive comments - some are points; some are just descriptors.
I use comments like very pleasant, delicious, excellent, etc. It's rare that I don't find a wine drinkable and I have a very wide range of tastes (I think both Warrabilla and pinot-like Hunter Shiraz are both great wine styles that I enjoy immensely). OK is usually as low as I go unless the wine is seriously faulty.
I lurk around these forums a lot to get the views of others and often decide on the basis of multiple positive comments - some are points; some are just descriptors.
All very valid and reasonable points (c'mon guys, put some 'troll' into it! 
).
I don't score wines, but do try to write tasting notes which I'm sure reflect something about whether I liked it a little, a lot, or not at all.
Critics on the other hand don't have a lot of choice but to offer a score. Just like rating restaurants, plays or movies, it's their opinion you're buying into (ideally with supporting arguments as to why they liked it). For wine drinkers, critics points alone are useless, and even if accompanied by a Tasting note, the points tend to shout louder than any words (especially to the casual/lazy reader). For those selling wine, the points alone can be everything and I suspect the vast majority of merchants have stocked wine they don't like themselves, because if it's highly pointed then it will sell. I'm not criticising them - it's good business sense.
regards
Ian
).
I don't score wines, but do try to write tasting notes which I'm sure reflect something about whether I liked it a little, a lot, or not at all.
Critics on the other hand don't have a lot of choice but to offer a score. Just like rating restaurants, plays or movies, it's their opinion you're buying into (ideally with supporting arguments as to why they liked it). For wine drinkers, critics points alone are useless, and even if accompanied by a Tasting note, the points tend to shout louder than any words (especially to the casual/lazy reader). For those selling wine, the points alone can be everything and I suspect the vast majority of merchants have stocked wine they don't like themselves, because if it's highly pointed then it will sell. I'm not criticising them - it's good business sense.
regards
Ian
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
I’m planning on going to a tasting tonight called Big Names Big Prices, and its described as “This will be a tasting of wines you might not buy because of the price but you have always wanted to try. Chapoutier, Lewis Reserve, Pavie and more.â€Â
These monthly tastings are single blind with the tasting notes and scores of critics provided. There is usually just one note per wine, and they are usually from the Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator, or Steve Tanzer. A consistent occurrence at these events is that during and after the tasting there will be (informal) comparison of the supplied tasting notes with those of individuals in the group. There is (almost always) little agreement. (Yes, some smell and taste descriptors will ring true with some in the room, but most descriptors will not.)
The wines will be rated, based on scores for each taster’s top three wines. The wines that receive the least number of votes will be considered (by some) to be inferior wines because they received a small number of votes, even though these wines will all have big reputations and critical acclaim, both in tasting note and score. The relationship between the group’s judgment of the wine and its price also plays a role in discussions, and when an inexpensive wine does well people will leave the room to be first in line to buy it; even if they did not vote for that wine.
The people that attend these events run the gambit from the significant other/spouse who has been dragged along to build up numbers to serious wine connoisseurs with the pocket book to buy all the wines listed without even breaking a sweat. Most of the serious winos will take notes and score the wines for their own use. Usually there is not much discussion about what score you might have given a wine, its more where the wine placed in the 8 or so wines and what did you think about it relative to the other wines, vintage, region, etc.
But invariably there will be some who will want to know whether the wine really is a 95-pointer simply because the critic’s tasting note is so far from their perceptions of the wine. And there will be others who will criticize the score that a critic has give a wine simply because it does agree with their impression of what is a 95 point wine.
I always come away from such events even more determined to write tasting notes and score the wines I drink/taste. Why? Because there is never a general consensus either within the group or between individuals. Yes, some individuals will agree they prefer one wine over another but that agreement will not be consistent over all the wines. Thus your own impressions are what should guide you not what others may say or write.
Mike
These monthly tastings are single blind with the tasting notes and scores of critics provided. There is usually just one note per wine, and they are usually from the Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator, or Steve Tanzer. A consistent occurrence at these events is that during and after the tasting there will be (informal) comparison of the supplied tasting notes with those of individuals in the group. There is (almost always) little agreement. (Yes, some smell and taste descriptors will ring true with some in the room, but most descriptors will not.)
The wines will be rated, based on scores for each taster’s top three wines. The wines that receive the least number of votes will be considered (by some) to be inferior wines because they received a small number of votes, even though these wines will all have big reputations and critical acclaim, both in tasting note and score. The relationship between the group’s judgment of the wine and its price also plays a role in discussions, and when an inexpensive wine does well people will leave the room to be first in line to buy it; even if they did not vote for that wine.
The people that attend these events run the gambit from the significant other/spouse who has been dragged along to build up numbers to serious wine connoisseurs with the pocket book to buy all the wines listed without even breaking a sweat. Most of the serious winos will take notes and score the wines for their own use. Usually there is not much discussion about what score you might have given a wine, its more where the wine placed in the 8 or so wines and what did you think about it relative to the other wines, vintage, region, etc.
But invariably there will be some who will want to know whether the wine really is a 95-pointer simply because the critic’s tasting note is so far from their perceptions of the wine. And there will be others who will criticize the score that a critic has give a wine simply because it does agree with their impression of what is a 95 point wine.
I always come away from such events even more determined to write tasting notes and score the wines I drink/taste. Why? Because there is never a general consensus either within the group or between individuals. Yes, some individuals will agree they prefer one wine over another but that agreement will not be consistent over all the wines. Thus your own impressions are what should guide you not what others may say or write.
Mike
whether people think there is any correlation between point scores and whether the reviewer liked the wine or not.
I'd prefer to adjust the question to say whether you like the wine's style or not which I think is the key here.
A number of the wines I review are not of the style that I prefer to drink, however I will give these wines high scores/reviews if they warrant them by vrtue of quality fruit/oak/making/structure.
for example
Murray, in an old tasting note wrote:Take a large canteloupe, or rockmelon if you prefer, inject it with steroids until it is the size of a medicine ball. Then peel the skin off, soak in a mixture of pulped mango, peach and mandarin for a week. Now paint it with the reduced essence of three oak trees from Yosemite Valley, wait to dry, and repeat five times. Wait until it ferments for a while. Hire a Barry Plant extending crane, attach the fermented, marinated, oak soaked, steroided cantaloupe and raise it to a height of 35 metres. Position a Jason Recliner squarely underneath the raised object, sit down, extend the footrest, lay back, and say to the crane operator; "Geronimo"....
.... and you'll get someway close to the taste of the Rutherford Hill Chardonnay 2002.
and I rated it Excellent (92).
Would I drink it again? no, did I like the style? No. Was it a well-structured wine with all factors in balance? Yes. Did it warrant the score? yes!
I think reviewers should declare their bias if they don't like the style of the wine they're reviewing, but it shouldn't correlat to it's rating; particularly for published reviews.
Murray Almond
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
Wine Critics Don't Know Anything. Well at least that is what Lenn Thompson of lenndevours blog fame has written recently in Hamptons.com. Its an interesting read if only to see how Lenn paints himself into a corner because he is a wine writer/critic. Oh, and Parker serves as the whipping horse for all critics - wonder why that always seems to be the case!
Mike
Mike
Murray wrote:whether people think there is any correlation between point scores and whether the reviewer liked the wine or not.
I'd prefer to adjust the question to say whether you like the wine's style or not which I think is the key here.
A number of the wines I review are not of the style that I prefer to drink, however I will give these wines high scores/reviews if they warrant them by vrtue of quality fruit/oak/making/structure.
for exampleMurray, in an old tasting note wrote:Take a large canteloupe, or rockmelon if you prefer, inject it with steroids until it is the size of a medicine ball. Then peel the skin off, soak in a mixture of pulped mango, peach and mandarin for a week. Now paint it with the reduced essence of three oak trees from Yosemite Valley, wait to dry, and repeat five times. Wait until it ferments for a while. Hire a Barry Plant extending crane, attach the fermented, marinated, oak soaked, steroided cantaloupe and raise it to a height of 35 metres. Position a Jason Recliner squarely underneath the raised object, sit down, extend the footrest, lay back, and say to the crane operator; "Geronimo"....
.... and you'll get someway close to the taste of the Rutherford Hill Chardonnay 2002.
and I rated it Excellent (92).
Would I drink it again? no, did I like the style? No. Was it a well-structured wine with all factors in balance? Yes. Did it warrant the score? yes!
I think reviewers should declare their bias if they don't like the style of the wine they're reviewing, but it shouldn't correlat to it's rating; particularly for published reviews.
Muzz is spot on here. Ask any of the pros, and they will tell you that a good reviewer puts prejudice and personal likes and dislikes aside (as much as humanly possible) and rates what is in the glass based on a predetermined scale, not on how much they like or dislike the wine.
When I dislike a style, I always declare my personal taste has got in the way.
-
Ratcatcher
- Posts: 374
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 1:01 pm
- Location: Hobart
I'm not intending to single out Lincoln from Winorama, I'm sure we could find examples from all reviewers but I can't believe that in raw quality terms without taking QPR into consideration that Deen De Bortoli Vat 8 Shiraz is a 2 point better wine than the 2004 Rousseau Burgundy Brian referred to in the first post.
IMHO you have to categorise a wine before allocating points.
I'd be interested in someone doing a rating system of:
Basic Quaffer 75-100
Up market quaffers 75 - 100
Quality wine 75-100
Serious wine 75-100
Flagships 75-100
Then you can give a good vintage of Windy Peak Chardonnay 96 points and not look stupid when you give a slightly off par Burgundy 93 points.
IMHO you have to categorise a wine before allocating points.
I'd be interested in someone doing a rating system of:
Basic Quaffer 75-100
Up market quaffers 75 - 100
Quality wine 75-100
Serious wine 75-100
Flagships 75-100
Then you can give a good vintage of Windy Peak Chardonnay 96 points and not look stupid when you give a slightly off par Burgundy 93 points.
Ratcatcher wrote:I'm not intending to single out Lincoln from Winorama, I'm sure we could find examples from all reviewers but I can't believe that in raw quality terms without taking QPR into consideration that Deen De Bortoli Vat 8 Shiraz is a 2 point better wine than the 2004 Rousseau Burgundy Brian referred to in the first post.
IMHO you have to categorise a wine before allocating points.
I'd be interested in someone doing a rating system of:
Basic Quaffer 75-100
Up market quaffers 75 - 100
Quality wine 75-100
Serious wine 75-100
Flagships 75-100
Then you can give a good vintage of Windy Peak Chardonnay 96 points and not look stupid when you give a slightly off par Burgundy 93 points.
Some reviewers state (I think Lincoln does for instance) that the score is relative not absolute. This means that the score is given relative to a benchmark wine of its type. Hence the artificial comparison where some bargain wines punching above their weight score higher than a Burgundy that under-performs.
Having said that, its hard when just the score is published and I think that any reviewer that provides scores should realise that the scores may be used in this way. I DON'T think they can say the above caveat is sufficient neccesarily. They should say WHAT they are scoring against as a benchmark every time or at least when they publish unexpected results.
As an aside, I have always liked the Penguin Wine Guide with the dual quality and value rating system personally. Gave me a good indication of where the wine was sitting. I am disappointed that several writers decrying the Parker 100 point scale and its influence on the wine world have now starting using it themselves (I can think of two high-profile Australian reviewers straight off the bat). The Penguin system was similar to what you were proposing Ratcatcher except the quality was still out of 5 stars instead of a 100 point scale.
Now for some lunch!
love
Carl
Bartenders are supposed to have people skills. Or was it people are supposed to have bartending skills?
Of course! If you are reviewing a wine you can't just hammer it because you don't like the style. That is hardly fair when you know that it is a quality wine and lots of people will love it. You can usually always include enough information in the TN to put this in context. I have long been thinking about including an additional dimension in a review to include something along the lines of a 'personal taste approval' sort of thing. Still trying to think of how best to do this. i.e. would I buy or not buy. Then all bases are covered. Points are excellent and necessary when there are so many wines and you need a data point to go by. As long as you are consistent with your own usage then there is no problem at all. People just get way too hung up on scores. All rating systems have more use than no rating system. Even the simple five star system is better than nothing...
GW
GW