How do you feel about scoring systems/ratings?

[Peter Reutter]

Ever since I started posting tasting notes in the MWG I wondered about rating the wines...

One issue was the rating system:
5/5 like Lidell, Broadbent
20/20 like Gabriel
100/100 like Parker
What would be the best system? Is it really necessary to have the fine nuances of the 100/100 system, or would a 5/5 system do for an amateur anyway? Which system do you prefer?

Another issue was the rating itself:
Is it not better to just describe the wine instead of rating it with a score? Isn't this influencing potential buyers in a wrong way, making them just go for the score, not paying attention to the tasting note itself, making them buy the wrong wine in the end?

I would like to know your thoughts about this, especially from an amateurs point of view. Do you award a score when you tasted a wine? Do you have your doubts about the whole scoring issue? Would you prefer a scoring system at the MWG or is it best to leave scoring to trustworthy professional palates with a lot of expertise like Roy's? And what about you Roy, what do you think about this? Ever had your doubts ?

[Ray Barnes]

Personally I have never been comfortable with a 100 point scoring system when the guaranteed minimum is 50 for something of no merit or value. If only a maximum of 50 points are assigned based on characteristics, then there is no theoretical or logical justification, in my view, for a 100 point system.

[Glenn E.]

I think I'm the resident point system scrooge. I think they're seriously flawed because of the huge variety of implementations and tasting methods - to the point that they're basically useless except for self reference. Very few even attempt to be scientific (can you say blind tasting?), and so the results aren't repeatable. That makes 'em pretty much worthless.

I do have a hypothesis about the 100-point system's 50-point floor. One could argue that the 50-point floor represents the fact that no wine deserving of a score below that would ever be bottled, so if you're rating a wine that you bought in a store it's worth at least 50 points. Below 50 points you're probably looking at wine vinegar, or something that's on its way to becoming wine vinegar, or worse. It's not really wine at that point. But that's just a rationalization, and the reality is that I agree with Ray that the 50-point floor just proves that the "100-point" system is intrinsically flawed.

Another hypothesis is psychological. By installing a floor at 50 points, people in general (and Americans in particular, who all believe they are above average) are more willing to try lower rated wines. Though even that is failing since ratings below 70 are virtually non-existant, and most ratings seem to be 80 or higher. Tacit acknowledgement that it's really a 50 point system, so a rating of 75 or more is necessary to satisfy our psychological need to be above average.

[Ray Barnes]

Excellent post Glenn. Mich duenkt, Sie haben sehr gut geschrieben (I think, you have written very well - I just couldn't resist using German there ).

I think if I ever score wines, I will use a 50 p(o)int system - based on a very large sampling to ensure accuracy and avoid discrepancies due to bottle variation. The scores will be published in Roman numerals and tasting notes preferably in Latin.

Quidquid id est, timeo Danaos et crustula laminosa ferentes
Whatever it is, I fear the Greeks even when bearing baklava

[Richard Beeken]

I like the 100 point system because of what Peter refers to as "nuances" - it has nothing to do with wether there are wines crappy enough to "merit" less than 50 pts - it simply provides a mechanism with a reasonably nuanced scale for some sort of distinction between the quality of various wines. A thousand-point scale promising distinction between an 956 poiint wine and a 957 point wine is silly, but a five star system, to me, does not give as much information as I'd like, at least some of the time - that said, I do find merit in Broadbents 5-star system and in 20 point scales, just not as much, for most of my purposes, as a 100 pt system.
Of course the whole notion of points should be viewed skeptically - I think Parker's blurb on the cover of Wine Advocate about his scoring system and the paramount importance of the notes which are the basis of his reviews, is pretty much right on. It's not his fault that some draw exaggerated distinctions between say a 99pt and a 95 pt wine simply on the basis of the numbers.
Still, points can give some useful insight, if, of course, you trust the reviewer - and they're fun.
So, Peter, I'd welcome points being part of your reviews on Madeira Wine - and a 100 pt scale works best for me.

[Glenn E.]

Alles gut, Ray, ich spreche Deutsch.

[Peter Reutter]

Excellent post Glenn. Mich duenkt, Sie haben sehr gut geschrieben (I think, you have written very well - I just couldn't resist using German there ).

Alles gut, Ray, ich spreche Deutsch.

Hätte ich gewusst, wie gut ihr hier alle Deutsch sprecht/schreibt, dann würde ich mir nicht ständig die Finger brechen, beim Versuch meine Posts in Englisch zu schreiben... Nö, war nur ein Scherz

(If I had known how well you all speak/write German, then I wouldn't constantly have to break my fingers trying to write my posts in English... No, just kidding )

[Ray Barnes]

Guten Morgen Peter,

Mich duenkt, die Zeit ist da (ja das ist von Wagners Parsifal Erstes Akt), alle Posten im dieser Platz in die Zukunft muss nichts in Englisch sein.

(I think, the time is nigh (that is from Wagner's Parsifal Act I (seen at the inaugural production of the new Marion McCall Opera House in Seattle)), all posts in this place in the future must not be in English).

Ray :)

[Eric Ifune]

I have seen people claim to use a twenty point system because they are opposed to the 100 point system, but they use decimals as well. So in effect they are using a 200 point system! Those who use stars, but with half increments might as well use a ten point system. I think there are pros and cons to every system; and I don't believe anyone who says they never rank wines. The system you use and like is the best as long as you are consistent. That is the key along with the ability to relate your methodology with others.

[Carlos Rodriguez]

Ray I do like the question and that you said Glenn.
Around here (Spain) they also use the 100 point scoring from 50. But guide writers don't care to score a wine with 55 or even said that didn't arrive to 50 and that is why isn't score. I think there're wines that would fail any test and they've to said it. Also scoring wines sould be left to the profesisonals.

[Roy Hersh]

My point scores are for me. When I evaluate a wine blind, whether a single bottle or others of its peer group, I find it essential to be able to quantify the impression it makes on my palate. I could not care less if others believe that I am way too stingy as I've read some people say, while others taunt me and say my scores are too high. For them, maybe that is true. My scores might appear different than theirs. I am pleased if that is the case. That is because I am scoring based on my own likes, dislikes, stylistic preferences, and experience.

So, honestly my scores probably are not all that useful to others, except as a guideline and for comparison sake. If someone has been reading my TNs for any length of time, they will quickly learn if my palate is in synch with theirs or not. For example, I rarely agree with Alex B. when it comes to scores we both come up with or often times Port that he likes better or ones where I prefer them. Basically, often times that is just do to having a preference for different qualities and styles in VP. That said, I have the deepest respect for Alex's innate sense of Port and appreciate his keen palate. So, when using any critic, amateur or professional to base your own buying decision ... first you must learn to calibrate your palate vs. the critic's and see if they are typically two points higher (as an example) or lower. That said, there is no better buying guide than trying wines for yourself (whether Port/Madeira or otherwise) and making your own qualitative assessments.

I have only once or twice in my life looked at a Wine Advocate for more than two minutes. I have not received the WS in thre or four years and Decanter I let lapse two years ago too. I love reading tasting notes, but find more to enjoy from the notes here on from deeply impassioned amateur Madeira & Port lovers than I do from Parker, Suckling, Mayson, Liddell, Broadbent, Jancis, etc. It is the enthusiasm in their discoveries that I so enjoy. Tasting notes without a score are still worthy, but I find the score helps me to quickly calibrate where the taster/writer (famous or not)is coming from.

A great tasting note not only provides a pantry listing of what one smells and the flavors one tastes, but it must convey a visceral and sensorial impression for me to get real enjoyment from it. There was a post by Otto from Finland on a Verdelho he had tasted recently, that I just posted on. It was a fantastic TN and I felt like I was sitting next to him tasting the same wine.

That is what I love about a well written tasting note. Nevertheless, without a score ... I feel unsettled and the TN seems a bit ... well, incomplete.

Last but not least. I take pride in this. The guys who've been drinking/evaluating wine with me on a monthly basis for years now ... say that sometimes I look for too much good in wines that they find issues with. One in particular thinks just the opposite, saying I am always the one to point out the TCA or oxidation in a wine, however ... I'd have to say he's right about noting flaws. As a group though, the greatest compliment they've paid me over the years is saying that no matter what they think of my scores ... they see my ratings as very consistent ... blind or not.



Sorry I can't compete with you guys ... ich bin ein Berliner, is about the extent of my non-vinous Deutch.

[Ray Barnes]

Well said Roy. I give your post 45 points.

[Roy Hersh]

Highly over rated, indeed. Are you sure you didn't have a cold?

[Jan-Tore Egge]

I think whatever system one may decide to use, any reader will have to calibrate to one's way of interpreting the point scale. I mean: I read a score on the 100-point scale by writer A different from one by writer B. I'm not talking about what I perceive to be their personal preferences; merely their different ways of using the point scale. So it doesn't really matter which scale one uses as long as one is comfortable with it. Just don't fall into the trap of scoring very high to win some perceived shelf-talker competition.

[Ray Barnes]

Roy, using my 50 point forum post scoring system, I allow a maximum of 10 points each for unity, coherence, grammatical structure, logic, and aesthetical quality/resonance. I gave your post 9 points out of 10 in all 5 categories.

Since this is a young post, I believe its logic has the potential to develop over the next 3 to 5 years. It may warrant a higher score in the future.

Ray

[Roy Hersh]

Jan-Tore wrote:
Just don't fall into the trap of scoring very high to win some perceived shelf-talker competition.

This is an important point and one that I am ultra-conscious of. Seeing my scores appearing more in other realms, it is humbling and at the same time ... when I see my score below a couple of other critics and therefore not used in selling wine because the other's giving higher points will get more attention from the buying public, I sit back and ponder that significance.

However, it is far more important for me to be true to myself and consistent within rating wines, than it is for me to be popular. I have wondered in the past when I have seen a "pro" score an LBV 95-96 points, if they are just pandering for attention. You make a very salient point. Thanks!