This is an interesting thread and does reveal an interesting difference in thinking between us.
I found Tom's response to my comments to be particularly thought-provoking. I hadn't really considered how I score or why I score until reading some of the replies here.
When I score wines that I drink and / or taste, I do so against the yardstick of my own enjoyment. I try to take out of the scoring the influences that Philip outlines - these may create memorable occasions or memorable bottles, but I try not to let it influence the way I rank one wine against another.
But what I definitely try to do is to rank wines against each other, regardless of colour, varietal, age etc. As Tom puts it, I will attempt to rank chalk against cheese based on the criteria of "Mmm, that tastes nice to me". Inevitably, this means that any scoring you see from me will be biased by the fact that I like chalk more than I like cheese. My scores are therefore very personal and may not be of much use to anyone except me, unless you are looking at my scores for a range of different cheeses. Comparing my cheese scores should give a reasonable guide as to which cheeses I found most attractive. Comparing my cheese scores and my chalk scores might lead you believe that even the worst kind of chalk is better than the best kind of cheese - but really you are only seeing me reveal my personal bias.
Because of the way I score, I would be very different from Tom when scoring a VP and an LBV. I would be using the same yardstick for both of them - the yardstick being "What do I think of the way this wine tastes today?" I give no credit for age or provenance or anticipated ability to age, it is all about performance on the day I open the bottle. If the myth that VP is better than LBV holds true, you would expect my VP scores - on the whole - to be higher than my LBV scores. If my scores for LBVs are higher than for VP then this tells me that I prefer the LBV style and that is where I should be concentrating my buying activity. If I find that I am scoring older VP's more highly than younger VP's then this tells me I should not commit infanticide. (As it is, I give reasonably equal scores to young and old wines which tells me that I should continue to drink both!)
I don't see my approach as being right or wrong - I really like Tom's approach and can see distinct advantages for it. I hope Tom continues with the 2 element scoring as I think this will prove of great interest over a few years. But what I think is critical is to understand each other's approaches to scoring. Only then can we best take advantage of each other's palates and experiences.
But anything helps - I don't recall seeing Simon post a score for any of the many wines he has tasted, but I find the notes of great interest and there is always a qualitative guide in the comments which is useful if I ever come across one of the bottles he has tasted.
And to address Derek's point about the price difference between the '94 and the '97 Taylors - I suspect this is a reaction to the supply/demand balance when you consider that Wine Spectator has rated the '94 at 100 points and the '97 at 94 points. Which do I think is the better wine? I don't know, I've not had chance to taste them. Is the '94 worth twice the price of the '97? I very much doubt it...but by giving the '94 100 points, WS has turned it into a trophy wine that a small number of wine collectors
must have in their collection. Fortunately, I bought mine en primeur at £30 per bottle
Alex
8)
