Better than perfect

[Glenn E.]

Add James Suckling to the list of wine critics who don't understand basic math.

Copied from Noval Black's Facebook page:
"Fantastic. The legend lives. Could be better than the perfect 1994 and equal to the 1963.” James Suckling gave the maximum score of 100/100 to our recent Quinta do Noval Vintage Nacional 2011!

Mr. Suckling, please don't believe Robert Parker. There is no such thing as 100+. There is no such thing as better than perfect.

[Andy Velebil]

Haha. So true Glenn!

[Ronald Wortel]

I agree with you 200%.

[Tom Archer]

Don't get me started on the 100 point scoring system...

In any event, 2011 is a very difficult vintage to score. Some of the producers have produced fragrant silky wines, which will doubtless appeal to those who don't care to wait a generation, whereas others have produced tannic beasts that will take a very long time to come to maturity. Most producers have hedged their bets, with blends that have the two elements in varying degrees.

But who is to say what is right? The most fragrant wines may well be on the down slope in forty years time, just as the more robust blends are approaching their peak.

Overall, the quality of the vintage seems consistently high, with no clear winners or losers. That said, I have yet to try either Noval or Nacional - but hopefully that will change next week..

[Glenn E.]

Don't get me started on the 100 point scoring system...

It has nothing to do with the 100 point system, or with awarding 100 points to a 2011 Port. (The latter is a separate gripe of mine. Newly released Vintage Ports are far too young for anyone to be able to say that they are - or even could be eventually - perfect. But I digress.)

There is also no such thing as 10+/10+ in your system, or 20+ in the 20 point system.

If the 1994 Nacional is perfect, then the 2011 (and apparently, the 1963) cannot be better. If the 2011 and 1963 are better, then the 1994 cannot be perfect.

James Suckling's statement as quoted by Noval Black on their Facebook page makes no sense.

[John M.]

The whole points system is flawed. What it should be is a way to subjectively and objectively rate wines. What it has devolved into is a way to sell wines. 89 points is death, 90 you live. 100 means you can charge 2x or 3x or whatever. And I haven't even mentioned critics who have other motives (like they have a stake in the wines) or the wineries that make wines to cater to a critic. This, to me, is more a commentary on our society then a flaw in the ratings--we need someone else to tell us whats good and not good and we need it in a simple number. Whatever happened to making up your own mind or reading the notes or finding a critic who's opinions line up with yours? I correspond this to movie critics--I found that I agreed with Roger Ebert 99% of the time after reading lots of reviews and came to trust his judgement for me only. I couldn't say he'd agree with my wife--but for me, what he said was it.

Frankly, I have no problem with 100 point scores and I wish we'd air out that triple digit figure more often. Great is great. 100 does not have to be a party of one IMHO--it should be more like a Hall of Fame for the absolute very best. Think baseball, who's the best--Cobb, Ruth, Mays? In my book they're all 100s even if you think one is slightly better than the other and there's a couple hundred players in the HOF out of thousands who have played. Plus, more 100s would dilute this 2x+ price business that's going on.

...sorry for the rant.

[Rob C.]

Don't get me started on the 100 point scoring system...

It has nothing to do with the 100 point system, or with awarding 100 points to a 2011 Port. (The latter is a separate gripe of mine. Newly released Vintage Ports are far too young for anyone to be able to say that they are - or even could be eventually - perfect. But I digress.)

There is also no such thing as 10+/10+ in your system, or 20+ in the 20 point system.

If the 1994 Nacional is perfect, then the 2011 (and apparently, the 1963) cannot be better. If the 2011 and 1963 are better, then the 1994 cannot be perfect.

James Suckling's statement as quoted by Noval Black on their Facebook page makes no sense.

I think he's referring to his previous 100-point score for the 94, and therefore that it's reasonable to interpret the phrase as short-hand for "the perfect[ly rated] 1994"

Taking that approach, i don't see any reason why there isn't scope for one 100-point wine to be felt slightly better to a different 100-point wine. You don't need a 100+ category for that and i see no real contradiction between someone awarding a handful of 100-point marks (amongst many thousands of wines tasted) and then having a debate about the hierarchy of those 100-pointers.

To suggest otherwise - i.e. that all 100-point wines are of exactly the same quality with no room for some being thought marginally better than another - seems unduly restrictive in the context of what is effectively a 20-point scale that must cover all wines from the very worst to the very best.

[Peter W. Meek]

My own opinion is that any scale which purports to rate something which is analog (not quantified) should be either open-ended (from minus infinity to plus infinity) or be scaled in such a way that no example ever comes close to the ends of the scale. If some accepted judge rates an example close to the end of the scale, then the scale is broken and must be rethought. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is totally worthless.

The other solution is to make a scale which is coarse enough that quite a few good examples rate in the highest category (5/5; 10/10; 100/100) and absolutely forbid ratings outside the scale (no 5+, 10+ 100+) but allow arguments over whether one 100 is better or worse than another 100.

[Andy Velebil]

Since we've gone there My gripe is that people and wine producers have come to think anything less than 90 points isn't good. THAT IS FAR FROM REALITY. I enjoy wines regularly which I would place in the 80 points range. The vast majority of these I drink on more than one occasion as they offer a wonderful drinking experience, and usually without a hefty price tag. But price aside, there is nothing wrong with a wine which scores 86 or 88 points. I wish people would realize that sub-90 points is still a very good score.

[John M.]

I apologize for going there. Had a Wild Hair or something.

[Glenn E.]

I think he's referring to his previous 100-point score for the 94, and therefore that it's reasonable to interpret the phrase as short-hand for "the perfect[ly rated] 1994"

Taking that approach, i don't see any reason why there isn't scope for one 100-point wine to be felt slightly better to a different 100-point wine. You don't need a 100+ category for that and i see no real contradiction between someone awarding a handful of 100-point marks (amongst many thousands of wines tasted) and then having a debate about the hierarchy of those 100-pointers.

To suggest otherwise - i.e. that all 100-point wines are of exactly the same quality with no room for some being thought marginally better than another - seems unduly restrictive in the context of what is effectively a 20-point scale that must cover all wines from the very worst to the very best.

Yes, I agree. My annoyance at the statement comes more from the (constant) excess hyperbole.

It is certainly reasonable to debate which of two identically rated wines is marginally better than the other, but doing so requires context. Suckling's statement doesn't sound like a minor and arguable quibble, though. It sounds much more like a Parker-style 100+ rating to me. He didn't say, in effect, "This wine is perfect, just like the 1963 and 1994, though I think if forced to choose I would take the 1963 first, then this one, then the 1994." Instead he made it sound like he wished he was using Peter's suggestion so that he could give them separate ratings, leaving the 1994 at 100, and giving the 2011 a 101 and the 1963 a 102.

To me, the topic of which identically rated wine is better shouldn't come up in a published tasting note. That's a subject for spirited conversation over a glass of each. (Please set up that tasting. I'll make room in my schedule. ) In a tasting note, perfect is perfect. Allow the note and rating to stand on their own, or say something to the effect of "joins the legendary ranks of the 1963 and 1994." He's taken some of the luster away from his own rating by saying, effectively, "meh, they've done better."

[Andy Velebil]

I apologize for going there. Had a Wild Hair or something.

Absolutely no reason to. Matter of fact, this has the makings to be a good discussion

[Eric Menchen]

It has nothing to do with the 100 point system, or with awarding 100 points to a 2011 Port. (The latter is a separate gripe of mine. Newly released Vintage Ports are far too young for anyone to be able to say that they are - or even could be eventually - perfect. But I digress.)

There is also no such thing as 10+/10+ in your system, or 20+ in the 20 point system.

And your post gets an A+

[Glenn E.]

My own opinion is that any scale which purports to rate something which is analog (not quantified) should be either open-ended (from minus infinity to plus infinity) or be scaled in such a way that no example ever comes close to the ends of the scale.

I'm not sure that would have helped in this case. He's trying to insert the 2011 between two other perfect ratings, so even using your suggestion he (or someone eventually) would be forced to "re-rank" wines to make room for others. It's not just that the top of the scale needs to be flexible... in a sense we need to be using real numbers for the ratings.

That's the solution. Use whatever scale you like best, but disallow a perfect rating. 100 points isn't allowed in the 100-point system. So now he'd have to rate the 1963 as 99.9. He clearly likes it better than the 1994, so he might have rated that one 99.8. Now he needs to fit the 2011 between them... no problem! 99.85. Better than the 1963? Still no problem! Rate the 1931 at 99.99. Done.

[Glenn E.]

It has nothing to do with the 100 point system, or with awarding 100 points to a 2011 Port. (The latter is a separate gripe of mine. Newly released Vintage Ports are far too young for anyone to be able to say that they are - or even could be eventually - perfect. But I digress.)

There is also no such thing as 10+/10+ in your system, or 20+ in the 20 point system.

And your post gets an A+

You're ruining my 5.0 GPA!!!

[Eric Menchen]

My own opinion is that any scale which purports to rate something which is analog (not quantified) should be either open-ended (from minus infinity to plus infinity) or be scaled in such a way that no example ever comes close to the ends of the scale. If some accepted judge rates an example close to the end of the scale, then the scale is broken and must be rethought. Nothing is perfect, and nothing is totally worthless.

The BJCP scale for beer is 50 points, and while it isn't +- infinity, I think it fits better into your concept than the 100 point wine scale. The lowest I've ever scored a beer was 13 points. Could I imagine something worse? Yes, and I hope to never taste it. I think the highest I've ever scored was a 44. Most good homebrews score in the 30s, with plenty of weak ones in the 20s. Most commercial beers would probably score in the high 30s, with classical examples of styles getting into the 40s.

[John M.]

I have no problem with various 100 point ratings or even saying one 100 is slightly better than another--they're all hall of famers--perfection does not exist so don't waste your 100s waiting for it--perfection is 100+. Secondly, these ratings are an "ART" not a science, they are not based in anything but subjective judgement at the moment. To get too lost in statistical models just obscures the pleasure of enjoying a good glass of wine and having a very simple way to communicate how you liked it to your brethren (and for the record I'm somewhat of a math geek so I love numbers).

[Peter W. Meek]

It's similar to the SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Tests). They were (when I took them) intended to be so difficult that NO ONE (and I mean NO ONE EVER) would be able to get a perfect score. They have evidently diluted them to the point that there are quite a few perfect scores these days. Educational methods may have improved (and SAT-specific cramming methods as well), but the tests should have progressed along with these improvements.

Ditto for wine ratings - I really think there should ALWAYS be room at the top.

[John M.]

Peter Meek Wrote:
It's similar to the SATs (Scholastic Aptitude Tests). They were (when I took them) intended to be so difficult that NO ONE (and I mean NO ONE EVER) would be able to get a perfect score. They have evidently diluted them to the point that there are quite a few perfect scores these days. Educational methods may have improved (and SAT-specific cramming methods as well), but the tests should have progressed along with these improvements.

AIn't that the truth. I remember a boy a grade ahead of me got a perfect score. It was a big deal, he was in the paper, and I think there were less than 50 perfect scores in the country. Last year, in my daughters graduating class there were a few---and my daughter took a series of classes and got tutored on the test. In my day tutoring and SAT classes was unheard of. I guess it all depends on what you trying to achieve with the test--in the end all scores are relative and the old bell curve will play itself out so I don't think it matters whether there a tiny few or several perfect scores.

[Eric Menchen]

And when I took the SAT, you could get the maximum score without even getting all the questions correctly, so I wouldn't call it a perfect score. A girl in my high school did answer every question correctly on the PSAT. I could never max out the verbal part.