The Auswine Forum

You know rating out of 109 is looking good right now. I can only say "I told you so"

[url]http://www.wineanorak.com/wineblog/uncatego ... -criticism[/url]

Craig, has anyone yet paid you royalties under your patent of this concept?

Well done Craig...the answer to this problem is those who do the scoring are seated at the front of the gravy train
Now there are a few here Gary W, Dave Brookes, who are'nt seduced by the free junkets and feel so obliged...'best wine to ever cross me lips' until the one next week is...and call a wine for what it is
Had the inevitable call, and still trying to work out who gives them my mobile, but after 30 seconds or so and admittedly I had vagued out..."389, 98, 707 99, 28 96"...thought they were tonight's lotto numbers

I know its to suck in the idiots, but if I am buying $10 000 in wine this year, I'm pretty sure its not the numbers that that do it for me

Cheers
Craig

It’s all money & advertising & points
I trust friends & colleagues

Haven't we discussed this before?

swirler wrote:Haven't we discussed this before?

Often

I actually get more interested now when a top winery cops a really bad score - it shows that the critic is not afraid of getting cut off from the winery or importer. For Australia, Jeremy Oliver was/is the best in this regard. Antonio Galloni got himself banned from the Bruno Giacosa winery for nailing their 2008 releases.

Critics declining to review subpar wines for fear of getting the winery or importer offside is one of the key signs a wine critic has moved from being a genuine consumer advocate to being just another industry mouthpiece / spruiker.

Antonio Galloni got himself banned from the Bruno Giacosa winery for nailing their 2008 releases.

Oh I've been tempted to buy 2008's. Was cheap and I've seen a number of die-hard Piedmont drinkers say he's made a wrong call. So I get your comments totally!

tarija wrote:I actually get more interested now when a top winery cops a really bad score - it shows that the critic is not afraid of getting cut off from the winery or importer. For Australia, Jeremy Oliver was/is the best in this regard. Antonio Galloni got himself banned from the Bruno Giacosa winery for nailing their 2008 releases.

Critics declining to review subpar wines for fear of getting the winery or importer offside is one of the key signs a wine critic has moved from being a genuine consumer advocate to being just another industry mouthpiece / spruiker.

+1, beautifully said.
Cheers
Craig

"Look at the Australian situation: it’s probably the worst. Honest but ordinary table wines with 95 points. An Aussie said to me last week that you need 98 points, or else a score just isn’t any use in marketing these days."

So true...although I'd probably say it is 97 or else the score just isn't any use...LOL...

95 = ordinary
97= exceptional...the 3 point Aussie scale..congrats...

I like the idea someone commented to the article ... just take 80 points off every reported score!

Makes 95= 15 or solid, 89 = 9 or just below average....

tarija wrote:Critics declining to review subpar wines for fear of getting the winery or importer offside is one of the key signs a wine critic has moved from being a genuine consumer advocate to being just another industry mouthpiece / spruiker.

One would also think that if a winemaker was confident in their product that they wouldn't shy away any critic.

Pertinant to this discussion on points is a recent BBC radio segment on Jancis Robinson that was posted on another wine forum:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b09d9tsd/episodes/player

Basically, "a necessary evil" or who needs them.

Cheers ............... Mahmoud.

From email offer to me today: "The 2017 Duke's Vineyard Riesling was James Halliday's highest rated Riesling again this year, receiving a whopping 99/100 a fortnight ago in the Top 100 and praise like 'be prepared to kneel before the perfection of a supreme Riesling"

All of you that been sucked into buying Weingut Keller or JJ Prum must be disappointed at your choice. Seriously, I have never had much faith in Halliday but he is now a parody of a critic.

Sigmamupi wrote:From email offer to me today: "The 2017 Duke's Vineyard Riesling was James Halliday's highest rated Riesling again this year, receiving a whopping 99/100 a fortnight ago in the Top 100 and praise like 'be prepared to kneel before the perfection of a supreme Riesling"

All of you that been sucked into buying Weingut Keller or JJ Prum must be disappointed at your choice. Seriously, I have never had much faith in Halliday but he is now a parody of a critic.

.... but it is SUCH a worthy 99 pointer. Did you also know that James Halliday rates the 1961 DRC Romanee Conti 99 points?
Unless my logic is totally flawed, he therefore thinks that the 2017 Duke's Vineyard Rielsing is as good a wine as the 61 DRC RC. What surprises me most is, that being the case, why Monsieur James did not approach the winery and buy the entire production?

YES, we have discussed this a million times, but let's face it, retailers want the 99 point score to flog their stuff, don't they!! So the critics duly oblige. The whole concept has become completely idiotic.

felixp21 wrote:

Sigmamupi wrote:From email offer to me today: "The 2017 Duke's Vineyard Riesling was James Halliday's highest rated Riesling again this year, receiving a whopping 99/100 a fortnight ago in the Top 100 and praise like 'be prepared to kneel before the perfection of a supreme Riesling"

All of you that been sucked into buying Weingut Keller or JJ Prum must be disappointed at your choice. Seriously, I have never had much faith in Halliday but he is now a parody of a critic.

.... but it is SUCH a worthy 99 pointer. Did you also know that James Halliday rates the 1961 DRC Romanee Conti 99 points?
Unless my logic is totally flawed, he therefore thinks that the 2017 Duke's Vineyard Rielsing is as good a wine as the 61 DRC RC. What surprises me most is, that being the case, why Monsieur James did not approach the winery and buy the entire production?

YES, we have discussed this a million times, but let's face it, retailers want the 99 point score to flog their stuff, don't they!! So the critics duly oblige. The whole concept has become completely idiotic.

Not that I disagree with you but I Guess the counter is that he adjusts for price (?)

I am actually a little amazed at how people rate Richebourg and co so high and then trash say an Aussie Pinot because it doesn't stand up to Grand Cru - ie without acknowledging the gulf pricing... but when I say this I'm largely referring to the Vivino/CellarTracker community.

how do you adjust a score for the price?? That's like saying Tiger Woods shot 63, but hey, so what, it's Tiger Woods. A score is a score. If you want to add "great value", "huge value" or "amazing value" to a score of 89, then go and do it, makes far more sense.
Everybody rubbished the old UK point scoring out of 20, but this is exactly what the 100 point scale has become. How many 78 point wines have you seen lately?
The most recent idiotic scoring frenzy is with the 2015 Bin 389. Oh God, please stop it. Beyond absurd.

For us punters it's a nonsense, but for the critics and wine industry it's vital income/marketing.

If we were devising a scoring system for ourselves it would be 'the amount of AUD I'd be prepared to pay for the wine'. QPR is then obvious if you compare that to the price paid / is selling for.

But then the ratings gurus would just start bringing that dollar value rating higher to make the wine look as though it's sold cheap?

Eg Bin 389 vintage 2015 - worth $865
Luscious berries, surpasses 2013 at $826

A scale for us. The critics have shown that they are suckling off the industry.

Dragzworthy wrote: Not that I disagree with you but I Guess the counter is that he adjusts for price (?)

I am actually a little amazed at how people rate Richebourg and co so high and then trash say an Aussie Pinot because it doesn't stand up to Grand Cru - ie without acknowledging the gulf pricing... but when I say this I'm largely referring to the Vivino/CellarTracker community.

They don't adjust for price...and while people can score a wine however they want, I personally think taking price into consideration when scoring a wine is silly..

Maybe that's why you're surprised at how other people rate...because no critics (that I know of) use price when scoring a wine...

Polymer wrote:

Dragzworthy wrote: Not that I disagree with you but I Guess the counter is that he adjusts for price (?)

I am actually a little amazed at how people rate Richebourg and co so high and then trash say an Aussie Pinot because it doesn't stand up to Grand Cru - ie without acknowledging the gulf pricing... but when I say this I'm largely referring to the Vivino/CellarTracker community.

They don't adjust for price...and while people can score a wine however they want, I personally think taking price into consideration when scoring a wine is silly..

Maybe that's why you're surprised at how other people rate...because no critics (that I know of) use price when scoring a wine...

Could be. I don’t pay the ratings much attention as I realised a while ago that not only do I tend to find the numbers illogical but also that I often like different wines to the ones that receive the top points. Everyone’s palate is different and I have a palate different to the common man.

Dragzworthy wrote:

Polymer wrote: They don't adjust for price...and while people can score a wine however they want, I personally think taking price into consideration when scoring a wine is silly..

Maybe that's why you're surprised at how other people rate...because no critics (that I know of) use price when scoring a wine...

Could be. I don’t pay the ratings much attention as I realised a while ago that not only do I tend to find the numbers illogical but also that I often like different wines to the ones that receive the top points. Everyone’s palate is different and I have a palate different to the common man.

I don't care about scores either..but definitely if you thought price had anything to do with it, it would only make it that much more illogical.

We all have different preferences...and I'm sure all of us here are different than the common wine drinker..

But that said..I think you could probably put wine geeks palates into a few buckets that would cover most people...

Polymer wrote:We all have different preferences...and I'm sure all of us here are different than the common wine drinker..

Yup. And at the end of the day, the points won't indicate whether you will like it or not. If someone doesn't like Moscato, it won't matter if it gets 68 or 156 points.

Halliday points don't count, but Wine Front points do, apparently.

The retailers love it - just saw a UK wine retailer use a 99 point Huon Hooke review to flog a non-Aus wine that Wine Spectator rated 93.