For The Love Of Port

Beyond the one point ... what's the difference to you between an 89 and 90 point Vintage Port when YOU are doing the rating?

Do you feel there is an imaginary boundary up to and after these two scores?

For me the difference between 89 and 90 points is the difference between very good and excellent. To get an excellent rating from me, a Port cannot have any big, obvious flaws. It can be otherwise amazing, but if it's hot, or overextracted, or has a firm bitter edge... 89 is the max. A minor flaw can still get excellent, so a slight edge or a bit spirity might still get into the 90-93 range.

I rate using a word first because I find it easier to express while tasting, then fit that word to the number scale:

75-79 = average or fair
80-84 = good
85-89 = very good
90-93 = excellent
94-96 = outstanding
97-99 = magnificent
100 = perfect

I've never needed to rate anything below average, and I've only used that once or twice, so I haven't bothered to detail that part of the chart for you.

Not sure what is the difference (beside the point) between 89-90 points? Maybe the 90 means it’s in the next level beyond just a “good” port?

What I find interesting is the scores with people I have drank with and some seldom, is that our scores are within 2 points, often the same or 1 point. There’s no talk about how we are going to scale or judge. Just sample and write a score… To me, the ratings from these people really have merit as I know I would score it about the same… Especially in the 87-94 point ports; I know I am stingy giving more points after 94 for some reason.

My white trash palate has yet to develop beyond a pass/fail grading system. But, so far it's working.

In my mind the transition between 89 and 90 pts. represents a step up from a very well made, solid Port to a wine that may be considered outstanding. Of course there are shades of grey here and the difference between the two may not be that great, although once a wine enters the 90 point range I consider it to have entered the "outstanding" range.

Luke W wrote:My white trash palate has yet to develop beyond a pass/fail grading system. But, so far it's working.

If the mountains are blue... it's a pass.

Lamont Huxley wrote:

Luke W wrote:My white trash palate has yet to develop beyond a pass/fail grading system. But, so far it's working.

If the mountains are blue... it's a pass.

there was that asimov article about simply grading something whether or not it was a red wine or a white wine

This vp is red? pass.

Very interesting question Roy.
I agree with Marc J.
There is a bigger step from 89 to 90 than from 88 to 89.
The 9 as the first figure is indicating a top level of port, and I am not jumping to those levels that easy.
Noted that Moses have a restriction above 94, mines are at two steps, 92 and 95.
I have not (yet) had the opportunity to taste ports that will make me give scores above 95, so I am reserving those levels to something extraordinary.

90 is probably the point where I start considering getting some for the cellar. Obviously there are other factors as well such as price and suitability for ageing, but to me, while an 89 is still very drinkable, and I'd be prepared to order it on a restaurant wine list or pick one up at a bottle shop for immediate consumption, I'm probably not going to ensure a future supply of that particular vintage by putting some away

The posts above would seem to confirm that the original basis of this scoring sysem (which was always bizarre in its construction, and never properly observed) - have now been lost to the mists of time.

Perhaps people should start giving 100 points for a faultless wine, knock a point off here and there if it has any perceived flaws, and then add the odd point or three for perceived super-excellence...



Tom

Very well thought out responses so far.

I'm not going to comment yet, on the scoring as in the first post of this thread.

However, I would like to add one point (pun intended), another "dimension" per se, to this thread that has nothing to do with YOU rating the Port 89 or 90, when it comes to the difference.

Any retailer, distributor or importer, no less producer -- will tell you that the difference between a wine receiving an 89 or 90 from a respected pro reviewer, can make the difference between (89) sitting on the shelf ... or (90) selling like hot cakes. From a financial standpoint, any wine receiving a 90 point rating, has crossed some magical threshhold which makes it MUCH easier to sell the wine. At 89 points, clearly, not so much. So although many people look at that one rating point as insignificant, or identical to the difference between 88 and 89, or 90 and 91 ... from a wine selling standpoint ... it is a huge crevasse that's tough to bridge.

Now a "semi rhetorical" question remains: Do you think that those bestowed with influence, by their ratings of wine, CONSIDER the financial ramifications of the scores that they give ... in this case, 89 vs. 90 ... before making their final decision?

You may certainly comment on this aspect, however, I'd also love to read more thoughts on the original crux of this thread.

Roy Hersh wrote: Now a "semi rhetorical" question remains: Do you think that those bestowed with influence, by their ratings of wine, CONSIDER the financial ramifications of the scores that they give ... in this case, 89 vs. 90 ... before making their final decision?

Yes, big time.

Yes, big time

Unfortunately, 'the system' encourages corruption, the more so because it is virtually impossible to prove it.

An eminent commentator giving a 100 score, rather than a 99, for a top wine; or a 90 score, rather than an 89, for a mass market product; can make a huge difference to the balance sheet of the producer - possibly upwards of $1m for Bordeaux or Burgundy..

From the consumer's perspective, these pivot points only serve to lure the unwary and annoy the afficionado; whilst from the producer's standpoint, the virtuous are too easily trumped by the unscrupulous..

I've never liked the 100 point scoring system, and have only used it (strictly, and according to the book..) - to demonstrate the absurd grade creep that has taken place since it was conceived.

- Time to move on, I think..

Tom

Roy Hersh wrote:

Now a "semi rhetorical" question remains: Do you think that those bestowed with influence, by their ratings of wine, CONSIDER the financial ramifications of the scores that they give ... in this case, 89 vs. 90 ... before making their final decision?

I agree with Moses. I consider all 90 point wines suspect. And I agree with Tom it is a flawed system, but it isn't going away either, and any other system will also end up being manipulated...plus everyone understands it.

Tom Archer wrote:Unfortunately, 'the system' encourages corruption, the more so because it is virtually impossible to prove it.
...
Time to move on, I think.

This, to me, sounds like all the Apple fanboys who love to point out that there are very few viruses for Mac OS. Well duh, Mac OS only holds about a 14% market share (last I checked). What hacker wants to write a virus that can only infect 14% of computers? Windows and it's 80-odd percent market share is much more appealing.

The 100-point system is warped and twisted because it is the system that most everyone uses. All wine rating systems are subjective, so they can all be warped and twisted equally. All that is needed is sufficient interest in the system for the warping and twisting to begin.

I will not profess to understand fully, nor really care about the wine rating system. I know that there are too many "100 point" wines out there that do not deserve it. I *suspect* then also that there are a ton of wines rated 98 or 99 that probably re deserving of the 100, same as there are many (likely many more) wines that are rated 89 when they likely should be 90+.

When it comes to my own scoring, the difference between 89 and 90 is no different than between 90 and 91 or 94 and 95, etc. A point is a point. For me it's just a fun way of gauging how each new port fits into the overall spectrum of all of the others that I've had previously and that's always changing. After all, I'm drinking for my own pleasure and scoring the wines is more for my own reference than anything else. If others get some value out of my scores that's great but I certainly don't expect anyone to take my word (or number) for it.

I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with the 100-point system (which in reality is usually used like a 20 or 30-point system) but it is certainly unfortunate that it's become such a manipulative marketing tool in the hands of many of these so-called "professional" wine critics.

The 100 point system is as good as any other imho But the really important aspect is the written description. The number can get your attention but the description (and knowing the reviewer's bias) is more important to me. So going to a retail shop and seeing all the post-its with rating numbers is interesting but not a buy now decision maker. I might note it for a comment research but won't walk out the door with it based upon the number. I believe the difference between 89 and 90 does have significance and try to avoid rating 90 and above for any wine with a noticeable flaw or any out of balance elements.

The more people know and truly understand wines/Ports, the less they need to check scores when making a purchase. That said, retail shops with less than great sales staff, rely heavily on the shelf talkers' scores that appeal to the less informed, which would be like 98% of the population in any wine buying country.

No scoring system is perfect. NONE. What does help with the 100 point system, is that (far from foolproof) it is very easy for a person who knows little to nothing about wine to gain some confidence when wine shopping, when they see a respectable score from a wine magazine or critic whose name they recognize. So a 92 point rating of a 10 year old XYZ Tawny Port from the Wine Spectator or Decanter etc., actually does carry a lot of weight. Maybe not for us, but to hundreds of thousands of other wine buyers across the globe.