For The Love Of Port

well i think no wines should get 100 points maybe a wine of a lifetime from a groundbreaking vintage year
what will it mean when parker gives out maney 99 and 100 in bordeau for 2009 he cant go to 102 ore 110 marks and some of these wines compaired to other older vintages are in a diferent lauege
no 100 points should be reserved for something groundbreaking qnn 63 is one 48t and 94t and fon fon63
sounds to me the dow and novel may be the tops in 2007 but people as tasters have diferent tasts and like what they like if 2 ore three experts say a port is over 94 it must be super
we reley on them to a degree but someones 90 pointer may be anothers 98 ore 87
we have to do our own research im delighted people are buying modern ports like sheep and same in the bordeaux hype of 2009 v because there will be some cheap pickings for ports 20 to 40 yrars old out there geting egnored from good vintages at prices never to be seen again soon i dont want a case of 2007 at 600 pounds 900ds -
that i would not want to drink for 15 years as i like mature port when i can get a case of graham 85 etc that is 25 years old and costs me a little less in the uk at auction than 600 quid and is lushouse ore 7 bottles of 70 fon i know what id rarther have but that is me my wallet and my tast buds symonb

Symon,
I understand totally where you are coming from and I agree. There are many fabulous older ports out there.
-Dave-

Ive read that the scale starts at 50 just because it is a wine (hence vinegar would actually be able to score 50 or so points). In that case 75 is the average of all that which could be called wine.
This means that all under 75 are worse than average, and above 75 is better than average. 87.5 is the "average of good" among the better wines. But let's round that up to 88.
Thus, all wines better than "the average of good" (with scores from 89) would be better than good - they'd be especially good, outstanding or extraordinary.

Regarding the fact that no-one mostly ever rate anything under 80:
81.25 is in the middle of the distance between 75 and a nice wine, the "average of good" 87.5. 81 is in my mind the border between the fields of "upper average" and "lower average of good". (and keep in mind still that "average" is based on the whole scale from a 100-pointer to vinegar at 50 pts).
A wine that is rated 81 is thus neither good or bad, but it is _drinkable_
If you like wine, wine is almost always drinkable, it's not often I feel the need to spit it out.

Just ten points away from the vinegar in a 100point scale is hardly drinkable. 10 points later, at 70 points, it is still probably not good, not good at all. At 75 i will drink some of it, but I hardly drink a whole bottle (though I would have when I was 15 and just wanted to get drunk at a party). At 80 I feel the scale starts with the worst of the still very acceptable wines. And I only buy acceptable wines. Unless they are flawed, but I got the impression one doesnt score it at all if it is flawed?

The problem with this system is that all logic says that half of a full score should still not be too bad to drink. Half of 100 is vinegar!
The second problem is that something as bad as vinegar should not be allowed to be the start of a scale. It gives no balance. It pushes the definition for what is an average wine up the scale, and makes it hard to really get an understanding of how the 100 point system works.

Sorry if I'm just rambling (I like numbers and logic but loose myself in it sometimes and miss the point)
I want to add that I am very new to rating wines by any other system but my own, I don't have a feel for it yet,
though I can try to analyze it.

I dont feel it is a BIG problem that 100 is the highest rating for a wine, that is a flaw within every single rating system there is of this kind. There may come a time when singular wines will be so good that 100 points really really wont be enough, and there may come a time when EVERY wine is so much better that the average will be pushed up and make it very narrow at the top of the scale, say if no bottle ever get a rating below 90. In both cases the system will need to develop, but right now?
Well you tell me 'cause the the best wines i've ever tasted is at this unexperienced point very few and unexceptional.

That's a very good analysis, Sebastian, and it makes sense to me!

Thank you Glenn :)