1980 Warre's Vintage Port

[SEAN C.]

I hated to use the Port tongs on the 1980 Warre because it had a beautiful raised glass date and logo but I needed the cork for my collection so the glass was "sacrificed". After several hours of decanting the '80 Warre still had some alcohol on the nose followed by cinnamon. It was a very light ruby color in the glass with a sunset orange edge. Initially it was a little hot tasting and slightly grassy, later a fresh floral taste was evident mixed with some plum and spice. A solid Port with a 12 second finish.

Sean C. 91/100
Moses B. 92/100
Rahul S. 93/100

[Morten O]

From the description it sounds like it was a mediocre VP but you scored it very high. I don't understand this. I would expect a solid port to score around 80-90. I mean, 90+ is a very high score to me. It sounds like the score system has been hit by inflation

I had a glass of this one a few months back and I remember it as being too young to drink (meaning that it still tasted too much like a young VP and not an old and matured VP). I preferred a very young VP at the same tasting over the Warre 1980.

[SEAN C.]

From the description it sounds like it was a mediocre VP but you scored it very high. I don't understand this. I would expect a solid port to score around 80-90. I mean, 90+ is a very high score to me. It sounds like the score system has been hit by inflation

Technically you are correct..I ..like many of us here in the US use a scale similar to Wine Spectator or Wine Advocate ..this is a flawed scale because a C Port should be pretty good and that score would have to be about 70-75 points which would be a totally undrinkable bottle in WS/WA terms. I think I would confuse a lot of people if I scored everything "correctly" as this bottle would be more like an 82 or B, B- a perfectly fine bottle better than average but not near your favorite. The lowest I have ever scored anything was probably 78-79 ..this should really equal an F or less than 50.

[Frederick Blais]

We had a great discussion about rating back at Sean's place over the week-end and we totally agreed that the 100pts has in fact become a 20pts system but with more attractive consumer wise numbers.

Last night I was with a wine producer from the Alsace and he told me about the impact of Parker's score on his wines. Back in 81, his top wines were scoring around 86pts. Now they are morelikey 91-95. He does believe he is making better wines but not by 5-9 pts increase. So he do thinks that most of critics are giving higher scores easier than they used to.

[Morten O]

Thanks for the explanation. I find it a bit ironic that we use two (three) different scoring systems on FTLOP. I'm not saying that anyone is wrong here, but if two people score a wine 90 points using two different scoring systems, then the reader can't help but misunderstand (at least one of) the ratings as the Parker rating score would indicate a better wine than the WS/WA rating. That being said, the Parker scores are so high that they will perhaps end up as WS/WA scores? (I'm just guessing. I have absolutely no knowledge to back it up, except from what I read here and there.)

Tom's x/y rating system is luckily not using a 100 point grade

[Frederick Blais]

Morten, just never consider a score without a good tasting notes. Even a 100% parker points given to an Australian Shiraz will not please my palate.

[Roy Hersh]

A solid Port with a 12 second finish.

Glad to see you are using that stopwatch your girlfriend bought you for your birthday. Putting it to better use these days!

On a more serious note, all scoring systems have their good points and flaws. But I don't understand your point Morten, about 100 point scales being different. Regardless of a person's choice to use a scale from A-F, * to ***** or a 20-point, 100-point or any other rating system, I find myself far more intrigued by an individual's ability to try to express what sensorial pleasure (or not) the wine bestowed upon them.

[Morten O]

I think you've misunderstood what I'm trying to say because I might not have been very good at explaining what I mean. Sorry. My point is not on the different point scales, but on how they are used without without an indication of which of the two 100 point systems that are in use (Parker vs. WA/WS). It's about the use of different units without mentioning which unit is used. If the Parker score was 0-50 instead of 50-100, then there wouldn't be any problems.

I don't care much about ratings myself, so I don't really pay too close attention to those. As my taste is somewhat different from most of you, I pay closer attention to what the wine taste of and smells of rather than the score.

[Moses Botbol]

I find myself far more intrigued by an individual's ability to try to express what sensorial pleasure (or not) the wine bestowed upon them.

I agree. I want to read description of what it tastes like. My ability is not too good at expressing what I taste, but it is work in progress. I do not think I can tell a "good port" better now than I did a couple of years ago, but I may be able to substantiate my reason better than, "tastes yummy".

I still love port as much as I did 10+ years ago

[Roy Hersh]

Morten,

Thanks, now I totally get what you meant and agree that it is good to be clear which system folks are using. But ultimately, I don't know that the WA and WS are really all that different. Most of their scores are pretty darn close at the end of the day. Both have their own preferences, but aligning one's palate is not always easy. You mention your tastes are different from most of ours ... in what way? What style do you enjoy?