The Auswine Forum

...and one more post before I hopefully put this hoary chestnut to bed again for another few months (except for the regular torment I give Ric via email )

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

Yet I am always very keen to see a score from your tasting notes as I respect your palate and believe I understand it fairly well.

Lolly wrote: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).

I realised this when I first read the results of wine shows.

...and the TORB related quote:

TORB wrote: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 use of a particular scale does not make one more pedantic. When I taste many wines in a short period of time, I go back to thinking in a range: Trophy, Gold, High Silver, Silver, Low Silver, High Bronze, etc., similar/exactly as it is done in a wine show. Maybe when I think something is a Low Silver wine I should quote 17-17.4, instead of simply "17" or "17.2", but as you indicate, this is going overboard and who really cares?

However, when I have time and have 2 very similar quality wines (yes, in my opinion), I find it helpful to use the Australian Wine Show scale to 0.1 points to differential the wines.

TORB wrote:Simply put, I do not think in points, I think in bands or broad categories.

I have no issues with this, but when you have 2 wines in front of you, say in the Highly Recommended range, do you not ever think that although both are "Highly Recommended", one is slightly better than the other. Maybe not, but I find it useful for my own enjoyment and fun. Similarly, have you ever bought one wine and not the other, when both wines were the same price and you rated them the same on the TORB wine scale?

TORB wrote: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 suspect this is due to his want to align himself more with RPjr's usage, correctly or incorrectly, it does not matter to be. History does not invalidate the present (in this case).

TORB wrote: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.

If this is true, I can't use the TORB 9-Point Scale (like you do).

Kind regards,
Adair

Adair wrote: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

Adair,

Now we are getting down to the nitty gritty in our philosophical difference.

For a start, the TORB rating (which I believe just forms a tiny part of the TN) is totally subjective and does not attempt to put an absolute definable objective number in a box. For the sake or discussion lets say it was a nine point system (which it is not); the Parker system is essentially a 40 pint system that attempts to be very accurate to the exact point. So, if you superimposed my system, my 9 positions would have a range of 4.5 points per position. It is not attempting to be a definitive absolute precise number; itÂ’s attempting to give a general, rough idea of the perceived quality. There in lies the biggest difference. Even in shows, the focus in the results are on the medal groups (or range of points,) rather than the absolute number of 18.5 or what ever it was.

As for scoring a painting…. I won’t even comment. Why not just enjoy it (wine) for its nuances and character rather than being obsessed with “this is a 94 pointer” and someone else says “no I think it’s a 92.” You see it all the time on US wine forums (and others.)

rooview wrote:The answer is: 42.

You got it.

Scoring wines is an inexact art of no real foundation. To me all scoring systems are the same: numbers, words, letters, it is all semantics, and all are as indefensible or defensible as one another. I also think that tasting notes fall into the same category. Writer Ben Canaider wrote in The Age a year back that most tasting notes were a kind of fancy footwork fiction, and that all this rubbish about all kinds of fruits and whatnot means very little at all. For evidence of the ridiculous nature of tasting notes, see the annual sydney top 100 tasting notes (not scores, notes). Most tasting notes are so varied from one another as to be meaningless.

What both scores and tasting notes are, though is entertainment. Which is why I love them both. I like all kinds of scores, notes, grades etc, as long as they are about wine, and have been written in good faith.

Jeff. 2.

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

Until we starting putting wine through computer senses that rank wines based on some human/subjective criteria, I believe you are 100% correct.

Neville Nessuno wrote: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.

If that is how you feel, then there is no need to score. I score because I enjoy doing so. I enjoy, as you put it, "some internal consistency".

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

Absolutely, but I believe that a score also helps another get an even better impression of the wine, if the reader understands the definition of that score and also has experience with the tasting note author's use of the score. I believe this is something we have here at this forum, but it seems that many consumers do not when they buy at retail level and retailers can exploit this.

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

Thank you... I think

Neville Nessuno wrote:I however would rather spend my time drinking it rather than worry about scoring it

I agree but I can't do so at work.

Neville Nessuno wrote: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

I rated it 91/100, 17.5/20, Silver, and Highly Recommended (6 out of 9) on the TORB scale although I don't think Ric would rate this Hunter Shiraz that high.

Kind regards,
Adair

TORB wrote:For a start, the TORB rating (which I believe just forms a tiny part of the TN) is totally subjective and does not attempt to put an absolute definable objective number in a box. For the sake or discussion lets say it was a nine point system (which it is not); the Parker system is essentially a 40 pint system that attempts to be very accurate to the exact point. So, if you superimposed my system, my 9 positions would have a range of 4.5 points per position. It is not attempting to be a definitive absolute precise number; itÂ’s attempting to give a general, rough idea of the perceived quality. There in lies the biggest difference. Even in shows, the focus in the results are on the medal groups (or range of points,) rather than the absolute number of 18.5 or what ever it was.

You view a number as an absolute in terms of judging wine, I do not. This is a difference in opinion and I don't have any right to say that you are wrong.

I do not see 17.1, 17.2, 17.3 as absolutes. As there are millions (maybe 100s of 1000s) of wines produced each year, and no 2 wines the same, I would probably even need much more than 10000 point system that Craig is proposing for http://www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz to think that the numbers are absolutes. Actually probably not as I will not taste 10000 wines too quickly.

TORB wrote:Why not just enjoy it (wine) for its nuances and character rather than being obsessed with “this is a 94 pointer” and someone else says “no I think it’s a 92.” You see it all the time on US wine forums (and others.)

Agreed. But as I am sure you know, even though I am written many words in this thread, I do not do so in the same heart/spirit as those on the US forums. And this is exactly why sometimes both of us put down our pens and just enjoy what is in the glass.

Kind regards,
Adair

Adair wrote:...and one more post before I hopefully put this hoary chestnut to bed again for another few months (except for the regular torment I give Ric via email )

As we were posting at the same time, I will answer this one too, and then hopefully that will be it for this round (and I will put your email on the block list so I donÂ’t have nightmares.)

this is going overboard and who really cares?

Exactly!

I have no issues with this, but when you have 2 wines in front of you, say in the Highly Recommended range, do you not ever think that although both are "Highly Recommended", one is slightly better than the other. Maybe not, but I find it useful for my own enjoyment and fun. Similarly, have you ever bought one wine and not the other, when both wines were the same price and you rated them the same on the TORB wine scale?

Sometimes I will say wine one is a bit better than wine two but itÂ’s a non issue and I donÂ’t care. As to which one I buy, its not which one is better that is the issue, itÂ’s the one I like better. Higher points (or rating) does not mean more enjoyment.

And this is exactly why sometimes both of us put down our pens and just enjoy what is in the glass.

ThatÂ’s the best idea you had for ages. Pass the bottle!

rooview wrote:Colour of red with a hint of green at the edges. Nose of sour grapes and onions with a hint of elitism. Long diatribes around the point to avoid pain. Flavours revisited again and again. Finishes long but don't see this improving with time.
Rating: Recommended / 16.1 / 87

Gee Mr. Rooview, a bit harsh! You don't have to read this admitted buffoonery if you don't want.

Adair

I think everyone is getting too hot under the collar. It's a favourite topic around the world, Parker bashing and 100 point bashing, which as has been said is 50 point scoring. I say who gives a toss?? It's whatever you are comfortable with, and who is giving the scores if you are looking at buying on a journalists score.
No one is right no-one is wrong. It's as subjective as the wibe itself. I think it is an argument that can never be won. I use 100 points in blind tasting, but now give no actual score when posting tasting notes. The note itself says all about the wine and my thoughts without the need of scoring it. As Parker has always said the tasting note is more important than the points (though we know it's points that win prizes!!!).
Lighten up and trust your own palate, and trust critics/colleagues palates you trust rather than just scores...