The Auswine Forum

Hi

This is a bit of a pet bent of mine. Sorry if it should like I'm preaching.

But I read a number of reviews from wine "experts" who give their opinions on wine and a nice story to match, but no scores.

Surely, a review without a score is just advertising?

What do you guys think?

regards

mike

I think its a review without a score.

Mike_A wrote:Hi

This is a bit of a pet bent of mine. Sorry if it should like I'm preaching.

But I read a number of reviews from wine "experts" who give their opinions on wine and a nice story to match, but no scores.

Surely, a review without a score is just advertising?

What do you guys think?

regards

mike

My pet hate is the emphasis some narrow minded people put on a number, when they should just read between the lines.

I'd rather read a tasting note with substance than just lazily look at a score to get an idea of what someone thought - the former tells you a hell of a lot more and can potentially make the latter pretty redundant, and for the majority of us who are not ITB that should be good enough.

As far as advertising goes, people here are pretty quick to spot a wolf in sheep's clothing - just ask Chuckles/Steely.

My 2c,
Ian

Just my two cents:

I generally do prefer scores in larger publications like Halliday etc but understand that they are unique to the invidual and tied to a very academic process that involves many years to master. I do not rely on scores that heavily in making decisions for wine, purely for this reason.

In developing my own system for critiquing wines in process for the MW qualification, I have thought hard about scores and their involvement in wine analysis.

My own conclusion is, that no matter what quantitative number is placed on a wine.. . at the end of the day, it is only that persons overall opinion of the total, combined characteristics of the wine, as an integrated whole. For me, the written or verbal evaluation (and it MUST be critical, unbiased and realistic) is more valuable if I'm looking at purchasing wines. Also, you can only rely so much on a reviewer being consistent in their scoring throughout time.. it's hard to quality assure scoring methods.

Sorry if anyone disagrees, like I said, that's just my own two cents and it seems to work well for me.

Whoa, Ian you and I must have been typing at the same time.

... couldn't agree more.

Oohh...this could get contentious. Wine tasting without scores??? How could you possibly know if you like the wine or not!

I think you'll find a few on here who feel pretty much the exact opposite. If a reviewer can adequately convey his/her thoughts on a wine, and tell you a little about its flavour, weight, structure, value for money, maybe some observations on cellaring potential..what more do you need? You really shouldn't need a score to back up your purchasing decision.

I don't particularly mind if a review has a score or not, but I am always more inteterested in what someone has to say on a wine. I probably get more buying advice from talking to people and visiting sites like this than I do from any snatch and grab reviews in the Epicure etc.

Either way not sure how a simple score could help differentiate between advertising and a genuine review.

Cheers,

LL

Ditto Daniel...didn't realise you and Ian were putting in a combined .4c at the same time...

I think advertising would be more likely the more news the better. I don't mind a bit of advertising to be honest as long as it is known to be an ad. Don't like dishonesty.

I generally score as such within broad categories i.e. Pass, OK, Good, Very Good, Excellent, Outstanding. It is basically what I think of the wine at the time as that is related to so many factors like what other wines were tasted, what food if any, which way the wind is blowing etc. Some reviewers think in numbers but I don't have to or want to do that as it detracts from the enjoyment of the wine for me.

I guess it is my $0.01 each way

cheers

Carl

I should start by saying that I agree with all of you on some level...

I can perhaps offer a different perspective on this: that of a 'novice' in the world of wine TNs and (unfortunately) limited experience tasting the broad array of wines a lot of you seem to be used to.

So in a tasting note for a wine, I certainly try to read into what the critic is saying about a wine (and will often sit down with a glass and try and find the properties they talk about), but there are instances in which I'm unsure whether they actually enjoyed the wine without the score to 'guide' me.

One example of this is when a couple of years ago I read a TN in which the wine was described in seemingly glowing terms with just a small suggestion of 'musky undertones of animal hide and a tomatoey aspect'... This TN read very similarly to surrounding vintages of the same wine with the exception of the score which was 4/5 pts below... After tasting a few vintages of this particular wine i know that 'musky untertones of animal hide' = brett but at that stage of my vinous knowledge, the score was particularly helpful in choosing which vintage to buy.

So I would suggest that scores offered by various wine critics can be a very valuable tool for budding (read 'relatively inexperienced') enthusiasts such as myself without being the be-all or end-all.

Surely, a review without a score is just advertising?

Let's face it, a score is for the vinously uneducated that can't make their own winetasting decisions. Also, it would only be considered advertising if it were to come from the company selling the wine.

Daniel Jess wrote: My own conclusion is, that no matter what quantitative number is placed on a wine.. . at the end of the day, it is only that persons overall opinion of the total, combined characteristics of the wine, as an integrated whole.

A perfect statement with the addition of ...at any one moment in time.

Pause

I have just read Tim's post and it does make sense, although I won't remove my first statement. For people with wine tasting experience, a statement like 'musky undertones of animal hide and a tomatoey aspect' would probably ring alarm bells, whereas an '89 points' wouldn't (and unless I had spent 000's of dollars aligning my palate with some writer, I wouldn't know what 89 points mean't to them).

Disclaimer - Having a Grumpy Old Men kind of day....humphhhh

Glen wrote:

Surely, a review without a score is just advertising?

Let's face it, a score is for the vinously uneducated that can't make their own winetasting decisions. Also, it would only be considered advertising if it were to come from the company selling the wine.

Or busy people who don't want to read 8000 tasting notes to work out which one is good. Skim for the high(er) points and then go back and read the notes. I like scores. I'm not vinuously uneducated.
GW

[quote="Glen"]
Let's face it, a score is for the vinously uneducated that can't make their own winetasting decisions. [/quote]

this is a bit nasty, yes? we have to start somewhere don't we, glen?! or have you forgotten? some of us have not only a limited budget, but a limited base of experience to work from when choosing wines, so every little bit of help counts... i'm sure you were in this position once upon a time

"An elegant fusion of wonderfully focused black cherry and blackberry fruit with quality oak; only medium-bodied, but has effortless length and super-fine tannins."

Says it all about the taster's impression of the wine. It's succint and indicates a wine with nice fruit and some elegance. No rambling on about colour, nose, front palate, mid-palate, finish. Such structured TNs are what I've tried to present and I'm increasingly wondering why.

But it did come with a score and that did have an influence on my decision to buy as has Ric's ratings which could easily be equated to the pointscores they're are intended to supplant. After all, any rating by an individual taster is inherently subjective.

Highly recommended? 17.5/20? 90/100? ****? These are all ratings that to me indicate the wine is a good one that I might enjoy if the associated TN reflects my own palate preferences.

So, to me, pointscores/rating scales are useful because they give an indication of the quality of the subject wine, be the TN brief or overly descriptive.

Cheers

daz

Daryl Douglas wrote:"An elegant fusion of wonderfully focused black cherry and blackberry fruit with quality oak; only medium-bodied, but has effortless length and super-fine tannins."

Says it all.

daz

No it doesn't. Is it a 94 or a 95

cheers

Carl

Yes Gary W, Yes!

That is it in a nutshell.

I want a quick reference to narrow the 30,000 wines in Australia down to a couple of hundred and go from there.

What's the point of reading 10,000 tasting notes about wines people didn't like?

Glen wrote:Let's face it, a score is for the vinously uneducated that can't make their own winetasting decisions. Also, it would only be considered advertising if it were to come from the company selling the wines"]

Disclaimer - Having a Grumpy Old Men kind of day....humphhhh

I wish I had your $Ms to spend tasting crap, overpriced wines to find the ones you like.

How do you decide which wines to taste before you buy more? Just go out and buy a bottle of a label? Even if it's $200 wine that you pour down the drain because you don't like it?

Disclaimer - Now you've caused me to have a Grumpy Old Bloke Day......................................

griff wrote:

Daryl Douglas wrote:"An elegant fusion of wonderfully focused black cherry and blackberry fruit with quality oak; only medium-bodied, but has effortless length and super-fine tannins."

Says it all.

daz

No it doesn't. Is it a 94 or a 95

cheers

Carl

OK, fair cop. It's a shiraz 2005. I haven't tasted it yet so can't validate the TN. But that wasn't the point of my post

Cheers

daz

My personal preference when writing is to avoid giving scores. I have no problem with other people scoring, or others using scores, and will sometimes myself take account of scores given by reviewers, but scoring just doesn't tally with my personal experience of enjoying wine. Were I pushed into scoring, rather than writing descriptions alone, I'd try something akin to Gambero Rosso's bicchieri or three glasses system. I also don't mind the star rating approach.

The irony is that I think it almost doesn't matter if a reader follows a reviewer long enough to get a sense of palate alignment. Critics I've spent the most time reading, attentively, I am usually able to work out from the review whether it is a wine for me. If anything, my experience is that without a numerical score, a writer often has to work harder to differentiate his or her peak wines in their prose - and I quite like that.

pstarr wrote:My personal preference when writing is to avoid giving scores. I have no problem with other people scoring, or others using scores, and will sometimes myself take account of scores given by reviewers, but scoring just doesn't tally with my personal experience of enjoying wine. Were I pushed into scoring, rather than writing descriptions alone, I'd try something akin to Gambero Rosso's bicchieri or three glasses system. I also don't mind the star rating approach.

The irony is that I think it almost doesn't matter if a reader follows a reviewer long enough to get a sense of palate alignment. Critics I've spent the most time reading, attentively, I am usually able to work out from the review whether it is a wine for me. If anything, my experience is that without a numerical score, a writer often has to work harder to differentiate his or her peak wines in their prose - and I quite like that.

It's all subjective and ratings accorded by critics/tasters whose palates align with one's own are bound to influence decisions about what wine to buy without tasting it first.

It seems that the prose is what you rely on more than the reviewers rating?

Cheers

daz

There is nothing wrong with wine ratings. However, a wine rating is a subjective opinion, not an objective fact. It is nothing more than one person's opinion on one day. That is why I prefer to use a broad brush approach to ratings rather than an absolute number.

A couple of other point should also be made. In theory, whether a reviewer likes the wine or not should be pretty much immaterial. Yes, we all have our own personal likes and dislikes, but where ever possible a reviewer should put these aside and judge what is in the glass.

Unfortunately in recent times there has become a very heavy emphasis on absolute points. It's amazing how many people will buy on points (or medals) and really take very little notice of the tasting notes. There is no point in buying a 99 point wine, if the wine is not to your style. Therefore the tasting notes is the most critical factor.

The over reliance on scores is a joke. Let me give you just two examples; is a 98 point Australian Grenache as good as a 98 point Bordeaux? Halliday rates wine at 96 points and people go into a frenzy trying to track it down. He rates a heap of other wines at 95 points, and whilst the score may help sell the wine, it won't be at the furious pace that that extra one point generates. Now let me ask you this. How many people who buy that 96 point wine will be able to tell the difference between a 96 point wine and a 94 point wine?

Gary W wrote:Or busy people who don't want to read 8000 tasting notes to work out which one is good. Skim for the high(er) points and then go back and read the notes. I like scores. I'm not vinuously uneducated.
GW

Funny I tried the same with comments about ladies scrawled on toilet cubicle doors, but frankly disagreed with the scores the reviewers gave

Ian S wrote:

Gary W wrote:Or busy people who don't want to read 8000 tasting notes to work out which one is good. Skim for the high(er) points and then go back and read the notes. I like scores. I'm not vinuously uneducated.
GW

Funny I tried the same with comments about ladies scrawled on toilet cubicle doors, but frankly disagreed with the scores the reviewers gave

Well I obviously don't spend quite as much time lurking in public toilets as some.....still if it keeps you busy.
GW

Ian S wrote:Funny I tried the same with comments about ladies scrawled on toilet cubicle doors, but frankly disagreed with the scores the reviewers gave

Boom tish!

TORB wrote: How many people who buy that 96 point wine will be able to tell the difference between a 96 point wine and a 94 point wine?

That's a reason I buy wines rated 88-90+ by Halliday - they're almost always bloody good wines that my palate will appreciate. And he tends to mark down so of the more in-your-face bigger wines.

Mind though that I do look to other reviewers opinions as well. If the ratings are fairly consistent that reinforces my decision to buy. Remember too that I don't have as ready access as others to taste before purchase so I do rely a great deal on reviews, not only by journos but also those who post on fora.

Ric, you've posted few reviews here lately. Presumably you reserve them for your own site.

Cheers

daz

[quote="Daryl Douglas"]

Ric, you've posted few reviews here lately. Presumably you reserve them for your own site.
/quote]

Daz,

Good point; let me explain. Firstly the Tour Diaries take a huge amount of time and are my current focus. There are in excess of 300 tasting notes in each one, as well as the stories. So assuming it takes fifteen weeks to do each one, from trip to completion, that's still 20 notes a week.

Most of the time at home, if possible, I prefer to drink older wines from the cellar. Also, I have reduced my alcohol intake so I am drinking less than in the past. When I am drinking those older wines, I just want to sit back and enjoy them without in-depth analysis.

Any new releases have to be posted on my site for obvious reasons. Also, if I also posted them here there would be less reason for people to visit TORBWine.

I don't even read many of the posts on the forums I used to frequent. There is only so much time I can devote to wine.

What is the difference between someone’s subjective assessment in the words “lovely cigar box and pencil shavings on the nose” and someone’s subjective assessment in terms of a points ranking? They are both made by a single individual making a single assessment of (generally) a single bottle/glass/sample of a wine at a single point in time. What gives one more weight than the other?

I pay some attention to scores (in conjunction with the notes) but I am not uneducated, narrow-minded, lazy or unworthy of drinking quality wine. I do not “chase” wines based on their points, but if people have the money and/or inclination to do that – good on ’em. They might really enjoy much of the wine as it could well be good quality! The insinuation seems to be that points chasers don’t deserve to drink all that good plonk – it should be saved for the real wine experts. Such snobbery and elitism. “Let them drink Grange!” (with apologies to Marie Antionette).

Roll on the revolution.

Michael McNally wrote:What is the difference between someone’s subjective assessment in the words “lovely cigar box and pencil shavings on the nose” and someone’s subjective assessment in terms of a points ranking? They are both made by a single individual making a single assessment of (generally) a single bottle/glass/sample of a wine at a single point in time. What gives one more weight than the other?

I pay some attention to scores (in conjunction with the notes) but I am not uneducated, narrow-minded, lazy or unworthy of drinking quality wine. I do not “chase” wines based on their points, but if people have the money and/or inclination to do that – good on ’em. They might really enjoy much of the wine as it could well be good quality! The insinuation seems to be that points chasers don’t deserve to drink all that good plonk – it should be saved for the real wine experts. Such snobbery and elitism. “Let them drink Grange!” (with apologies to Marie Antionette).
Roll on the revolution.

Well, TNs combined with ratings and show awards (capital/NWS) generally do give a good indication of a wine's quality. But it all comes back to one's own gob/olfactory senses. I don't "chase" wines based solely on points either. But any wine rated 92+pts by Halliday will gain my attention and to me, be worthy of consideration of purchase.

I sorta stumbled upon Forest Hill Vineyard wines by buying a bottle of their cab/merl 04 from the barn's remainders, thought it was OK so bought another bottle then grabbed just about all there were left. A bloody nice wine for $8-$12 from the barn (the price kept on reducing). Checked the website (needs updating) and it was $18 from CD. Had a look at Halliday's Companion and bugger it all, he's dishing out 96pts for all of the Block Series wines. I'd since got a couple of bottles of the standard riesling which was very good or better....

Unfortunately, I do on occasion venture beyond fiscally responsible bounds when buying wines that just about everyone else seems to think are really excellent. In this case, it was just from what I'd already tasted of the winery's wares. Shite, the Block Series shiraz 05 and cab 04 I've so far tried, although medium-bodied, really are excellent, too easy to swill and wake up grinning until realising it's a work day and there's one less bottle of fine wine available for future drinking.

Best,

daz

As I do not possess the tasting ability and memory of say Len Evans, I like to have points or some kind of rating.

The less I know about an area or region of wine the more I use points to try wines initially, then form my own conclusions.

So for SA shiraz, I'd rather read the description than the points in terms from say CM, GW, CM, TORB etc. On an area I want to try e.g. Gigondas I'd check out some points before buying, as I know little.

When discussing wines between themselves I doubt whether real experts use points at all, but that's because they have great palates, vast experience and understand a region. But I'm pretty sure if they are learning a new area they will use a similar approach of asking people they respect or reading what wines to start with as benchmarks?

However, I hate misuses of descriptions and points e.g. attributing Parker points to Jay Miller which is often dishonest and designed to deliberately mislead.

Cheers -- Jay

Gary W wrote:

Ian S wrote:

Gary W wrote:Or busy people who don't want to read 8000 tasting notes to work out which one is good. Skim for the high(er) points and then go back and read the notes. I like scores. I'm not vinuously uneducated.
GW

Funny I tried the same with comments about ladies scrawled on toilet cubicle doors, but frankly disagreed with the scores the reviewers gave

Well I obviously don't spend quite as much time lurking in public toilets as some.....still if it keeps you busy.
GW

Lack of smiley and I suspect a lack of humour - please correct me if I'm wrong. Some people might read this as a not very pleasant remark.

Oh yes. Quite obviously without any humour - it's patently clear to all and sundry from your comments that you are indeed a beat boy and a toilet trader of the highest order. Sheesh
GW