The Great Debate: Are Wine Scores Obsolete?

[Roy Hersh]

This controversial article brings up a rather controversial topic and it would be interesting to hear opinions from those on FTLOP who enjoy drinking wines other than just Port:

http://www.winesandvines.com/template.c ... bsolete%3F&

[Andrew E]

I didn't read the whole article, but I'd say there is a bit of nonsense with needing an entire scale of 100 points.
Really, aside from personal taste, what separates a wine rated 94 from a wine rated 95.
More importance I would think should be placed on potential and refinement (quality?) of any particular wine.

I like how your ratings are occasionally ranges on your vintage reports which basically tells you if you're probably going to find an A- to an A, a B+ to an A-, or an A to an A+, etc. This would also give a more telling answer if the wine you rated does not have a range, as in this wine is a solid B-, or that wine is a solid A. In terms of ports, really the only bottles that can give static ratings are things like tawnies which go for consistency year after year. You could always raise a red flag if one year a producer makes a drastic change, but for the most part if you like one bottle of tawny over another, it's pretty much set in stone (not accounting for change in tastes over the years, in that case you just change the rating).
Also for tawnies, you could go situational as some might be better for one occasion or another, or paired better with something else. For example, based on bottle to bottle you may rate a bottle higher, but maybe the lower rated bottle matches better with chocolate or something like that.

[Andy Velebil]

An interesting article for sure, as it really applies to any scoring system. Lets face it, now days it seems any rating system is really 1/2 of what it probably should be. The 100 point is really a 50 point, the 20 point is really a 10 point, and the 5-star is really a 3 star.

This one paragraph in the article is something I recently had a discussion about.

Christophe Hedges, who spearheaded the movement, says it arose after his experience selling wine. His family’s winery paid for the website, but the movement isn’t part of Hedges. He also assures writers that he has nothing against them and in fact wants more writing about wine—just no scores. He feels that scores tend to reduce writing about wine and even make it become invisible as consumers look for shortcuts.

That discussion was about how you could read 10 different reviews from a particular large wine-review company with scores 15-20 points apart and it was all but impossible to tell which wine scored higher or lower than the others. The reviews were basically very similar in how they were written and lacked any sense of excitement or let down. The best description would be to say they were scientifically correct but sterile. Leaving the reader to have no choice but to simply follow the given score. In that case, what's the point of even writing something? They should just post a score with no review and save us and them the time.

[Eric Ifune]

Scores are a necessary evil. Whenever you rank wines, you are using a score, whether points, puffs, stars, whatever. If your job is to critically evaluate wines, then one must score. There are pros and cons to any scoring system, but scoring in itself is necessary; even when thinking about your favorite wine at a tasting.

[Russ K]

look at the complexity of quarterback passer ratings....perhaps we should start something similar for wines...a scale of 0 to 158.3.
Then we can take everything into account...except QB rushing effectiveness and actual wins and losses...

wine rating to me is useful only so far as treating it just like school, I was pretty happy whenever I was over 90, and there are so many over 90, bottom line is just try as much stuff as possible, and see what you like.

[Tom Archer]

Wine scoring need to be relative, not absolute, or you will get 'grade creep' - as has happened with the 100pt scale.

And you cannot have a scoring system that attempts to pitch Port/Claret/Sauternes/Napa etc.. all into the same comparative basket - that is, and has always been, ludicrous.

The campaign seems essentially well-principled - only rate wines against their brethren that are from the same region and are of the same style or grade. And I would add that one should not presume that one region is inherently superior to another - such general distinctions should be left to consumer preference alone.

I personally find it incredible that the 100pt scoring system ever got off the ground - where a glass of pure vinegar is guaranteed a minimum score of 50!

Yes, it's time to move on..

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

Wine scoring need to be relative, not absolute, or you will get 'grade creep' - as has happened with the 100pt scale.

Tom

But hasn't the same thing happened with other rating systems as well? I mean when was the last time you saw a wine given less than 10 points from a professional writer who uses the 20 point system?

And you cannot have a scoring system that attempts to pitch Port/Claret/Sauternes/Napa etc.. all into the same comparative basket - that is, and has always been, ludicrous.

Tom this has me intrigued, can you elaborate further?

[Tom Archer]

But hasn't the same thing happened with other rating systems as well? I mean when was the last time you saw a wine given less than 10 points from a professional writer who uses the 20 point system?

The niceties of the trade results in the lowest opinions going un-recorded. Would anyone give 10 points for a glass of vinegar? - No..

Tom this has me intrigued, can you elaborate further?

As the old proverb has it, you can't compare chalk and cheese..

Tom

[Andy Velebil]

But hasn't the same thing happened with other rating systems as well? I mean when was the last time you saw a wine given less than 10 points from a professional writer who uses the 20 point system?

The niceties of the trade results in the lowest opinions going un-recorded. Would anyone give 10 points for a glass of vinegar? - No..

Good point, so should all tasting notes be published regardless of scores given? Or should their be some cut off, such as Suckling now does (He doesn't post about any wines less than 90 points)?

[Rune EG]

I agree with Eric Ifune that "Scores are a necessary evil".
However, the 100 points scores system is treated differently in different countries.
When joining FTLOP, I struggled in the beginning as my impression is that people is using less of the scale than I am used to in my parts of Europe.
F.ex. when I read scores made by wine journalists in my own country, then 84-87 pts are quite good wines (port and Douro). The same wine would be abt 2-3 points higher in FTLOP.
That is OK as I have now learnt the system of this Forum, and posting Tasting Notes based more on this Forum, and not the local levels here.

What I am trying to say is that there is no right or wrong in this way of handling the 100 scores-system, it is more the tradition of each market.
I appreciate all the tasting notes being posted, and importantly so, also the ones with low scores. When there is a port wine or Douro wine that has got two or three scores by FTLOP-members in the range 85-87, then I am more careful when buying, and end up buying one or two bottles to test in stead of a case.

The same goes for reporting low scores on generally highly regarded ports, when there is obviously a problem with that bottle. I will shortly post a tasting note of a "famous" vintage port where I ended up being slightly disappointed. But when checking the FTLOP Tasting Note Base, I noticed that there had been several cases the last few years, same as I experienced. It means buying more of that vintage port would increasingly higher risk for a bad bottle. Very important to have such info from a broader scale port lovers.

[Tom Archer]

Rune,

It sounds to me as though the people in your country are using the 100pt system correctly, while others are getting carried away!

- All the more reason for a new approach..

Tom