The Auswine Forum

Now here is a scoring system that has true meaning! Bud Light gets 86 (if you have never tasted it, you have missed absolutely nothing) and neutral table water scores 500. Sounds like this guy has done his homework!

Mike

I love gang of pour. it rocks

gives me the idea for the 10000 point system

Wow I love it!
The easiest thing for any wine show judge is to score all wines between 15 and 17 out of 20.
The is really only 5 points of distinction. (Given that wine juges use !/2 points).
It also points out the no medals....15.0 through to your best wines at 17.0 points Silver.

No wine judge I know of apart from me gives low points... its too hard to admit your'e wrong if another judge loves it! Its probably why I am no longer Judging!

I believe in using the full spectrum of points. I've given a 6/20 in Melbourne when I was an Associate Judge through to 20/20.It makes it very easy to work out your top wines, makes a statement about the crap, (they need to be told!) and makes for way better discussion.

1000 points!
Bring it on !


Smithy

Craig(NZ). wrote:I love gang of pour. it rocks

gives me the idea for the 10000 point system

But Craig, you already use it, you have just scaled it down by moving the decimal point. eg 18.325.

Now, if you move to a 10000 point scale it will inreallity be a ten million point scale, eg 8325.567

smithy wrote:8)

Wow I love it!
The easiest thing for any wine show judge is to score all wines between 15 and 17 out of 20.
The is really only 5 points of distinction. (Given that wine juges use !/2 points).
It also points out the no medals....15.0 through to your best wines at 17.0 points Silver.

No wine judge I know of apart from me gives low points... its too hard to admit your'e wrong if another judge loves it! Its probably why I am no longer Judging!

I believe in using the full spectrum of points. I've given a 6/20 in Melbourne when I was an Associate Judge through to 20/20.It makes it very easy to work out your top wines, makes a statement about the crap, (they need to be told!) and makes for way better discussion.

1000 points!
Bring it on !


Smithy

Smithy
Firmly agree with you - I'd much prefer to see:
Warrabilla Cab Sav Reserve: Halliday (19/20); Hooke (18/20); Croser (8/20); Oliver(16/20); Mattinson(19/20)
than
Warrabilla Cab Sav Reserve: 16/20
tells me more about how the wines was perceived

In addition, I still think wines should average out at the middle of whichever rating scale people use, as the current system panders to the marketing dept's of the producers. There's too much vested interest to see this occur though.

regards

Ian

Ian

I really think your approach and idea of listing out each writers points on a wine has great merit - tasting is always going to be subjective. All the best one can hope for is to align oneself to a/ few writers tastes. You can rate out of 10 or a million, the issue remains the same one

Scope there for a new type of publication / web site as well.

NN

But Dave

Further Accuracy is not required

I make up for the fact I only go to the 10000 point system with one advantage of my system over all others...

I am always right

Craig(NZ). wrote:I am always right

There may be a job vacancy requiring infallibility before too long, brush up your CV.

Ian S wrote:

smithy wrote:8)

Wow I love it!
The easiest thing for any wine show judge is to score all wines between 15 and 17 out of 20.
The is really only 5 points of distinction. (Given that wine juges use !/2 points).
It also points out the no medals....15.0 through to your best wines at 17.0 points Silver.

No wine judge I know of apart from me gives low points... its too hard to admit your'e wrong if another judge loves it! Its probably why I am no longer Judging!

I believe in using the full spectrum of points. I've given a 6/20 in Melbourne when I was an Associate Judge through to 20/20.It makes it very easy to work out your top wines, makes a statement about the crap, (they need to be told!) and makes for way better discussion.

1000 points!
Bring it on !


Smithy

Smithy
Firmly agree with you - I'd much prefer to see:
Warrabilla Cab Sav Reserve: Halliday (19/20); Hooke (18/20); Croser (8/20); Oliver(16/20); Mattinson(19/20)
than
Warrabilla Cab Sav Reserve: 16/20
tells me more about how the wines was perceived

In addition, I still think wines should average out at the middle of whichever rating scale people use, as the current system panders to the marketing dept's of the producers. There's too much vested interest to see this occur though.

regards

Ian

Does anyone know of any wine judging shows where the scores given by individual judges are made available to the public?

There is a site that "groups wines by the major critics' average wine scores, then lists them by price and ranks them by value". I don't know that they do this for Aussie wines, thou. oops I tell a lie. It looks like there is one coming for shiraz.

Mike

Some very good points here.

Besides knowing how certain judges prefer certain styles ( for instance Huon Hooke is not a fan of the real biggies!), to getting away from point bargaining at the judging.

I agree as a consumer there are certain writers etc, that like a similar style to what we do, so we buy on their recommendation.

Perth I think, takes the points of 3 judges and averages them. This does take away from the "I came up to a gold on the wine you liked...Give me another 1.5 points and the wine I like gets a Gold as well!"

Radical styles, or the very best of what we do is rarely liked by all judges, and these are often our cutting edge wines, so I'm not against discussion on the points. ( A better way is to judge to Silver and then come back to it n a much smaller class.)

I love wine shows, even if the big wines aren't the fashion at tyhe moment. (That's a Chairman of Judges Issue) and I think we need some new COJ in Melbourne, and Rutherglen wine Shows.

Cheers
Smithy

Who's COJ @ Rutherglen, he'd have to be a BIG style fan for that show surely?

Dear 707

The Chairman of Judges at Rutherglen and Melbourne is Chris Pfeiffer.
He argues that Melbourne is the biggest wine show in the country (Rutherglen is second), so its more important to have a national standard than a regional one).

He actually argues wines are too big, and doesn't like them. Fair enough, its his show, and he can determine the style as COJ, in his directions to the judges.

There is not a regional style class in Rutherglen (the regional trophies are selected out of the medal winners from normal classes). So both shows are distictly different to say Adelaide or Cowra or Hunter of Griffith etc).
Where local wines are judged to a local style.

Personally I think the biggest critics of big wines are those the furthest from making them! Wahgunyah doesn't make biggies, the soils are too sandy, old Norm Killeen used to call it the Beajolais Belt!

I think we need some new Chairmen (or woman!)
Cheers
Smithy