The thing about the 100 point scale is that it wont tell you if you will like the wine - it will just say how well the wine matches the characteristics of that style of wine. I may love an 80 point Riesling but hate a 95 point Pinot Noir. First you have to know the grapes/regions you like then use the ratings to find the best wines within those regions. The problem with wine culture in the US is that it largely thinks of wine as "red", "white" and "rose". So you will hear from non wine drinkers that they don't like "red" wine. But they darn well know the difference between Miller Lite and Guinness. The scores wouldn't help people of that level. But then neither do tasting notes which contain flowery esoteric language. Scores and tasting notes only help people who are already into wine. The question is "how do we get more people to experiment and find the styles of wine they enjoy?"
No joke: The only score system I actively sought out is the three bottles from Gambero Rosso and that award has really led me towards a lot of affordable Italien wines that are very tasty.
While scores get my attention, it's the written notes that tell me whether a wine is worth buying or whether I might like it. And definitely, certain professional reviewers are more trustworthy (not necessarily in the sense of the accuracy of their scoring, but how well their palate and preferences reflect my own), so finding reviewers that you admire and trust is a big help.
That reminds me of how some reviewers use words like elegant and finesse for wines that are lacking power and intensity. Still sounds good but tastes boring.
An another great video! Addressing the wine quality with a score is tricky and you manage to cover issues on a good way. I dare to add that people are impulsive. As a consequence of that is lower scores of more expensive wines are result of disappointment rather than the real lack of quality and higher scores of less expensive wines is result of bliss for not suffering rather than exceptional quality of the wine.
Thanks! Wonderful show and I’m pretty thankful for not only your breadth and depth of wine but making a mention of South African wines. This South African living in the USA, it was like a little slice of home.
Great video! I found that my appreciation, knowledge and palate greatly improved after I started using Vivino, as giving a rating and writing down the tasting notes made you really think about what is in your glass. But staying objective can be incredibly hard. So many things influence your perception of wine before you even open it: packaging, price, where and with who you drink it, your history with the producer, even the merchant you bought it off can play a role.
In summary: a wave of biases may hit you while judging a wine... Even the mood you're in has a big influence - it often depends on your personal form of the day.
I find scores to be a challenging one to understand. I came and watched this video after watching your Vivino commentary video and you gave bottles scores that were immaterially different, despite having more choice words for some than others.
As an amateur wine enthusiast, scores are helpful when buying wines because it gives me a place to start when looking at what wines I want to try since there are SO MANY different wines out there (and it can become overwhelming when trying to choose one). However, I agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt and that the caveat is that these scores are highly subjective.
@@EricZeak I use Vivino too! But I like to do my own tasting notes and then see what others say on Vivino to compare. It's super useful to keep track of the different wines I've tried 🙂
In high school civics classes we were taught to use more than one newspaper or other news source to get a better view of a news story. In the same way, I try to take the time to read more than one review of a wine to get a bigger picture. Also, you will probably find that you'll gravitate towards one or two producers who have made wine that you liked before. Individual producers/winemakers have their own style which happens to please your taste buds. Or, not. Lastly, remember that if you think it's good wine, then it is good wine...no matter what anyone else says.
I am a consumer and if I can not taste a wine at the vineyard, I am first looking for the style I want to have, such as maybe "fruity" or "full bodied" or "structured". Then, I look at how many € I have to pay per point, and finally, I read the description of the wine, if I am interested. So: Yes! Scores have an influence on my buying behaviour.
I'm in the wine retail biz, and I and my colleagues use the 100 point scale as a shorthand to determine which among several wines we tasted might be appropriate for our store...but the thing is, we're not looking for 90 points or above all the time. Many of our favorite wines, which are charming, nicely balanced and interesting show up in the 86-89 range for us. This is why I think so many consumers, especially who use the Vivino app, do themselves a disservice by focusing only on these arbitrary numbers and not experiencing some genuinely unique and lovely wines that fall underneath a perceived requisite score. Oh, and also, if I describe a wine and recommend it to a customer only to have them "fact check" me with Vivino, I walk away from them. Consumers, please don't do that. Either use the app or ask us.
I use scores because like you said, they can be a little more informative than just tasting notes. I use them to keep track of wines I've drank and compare them to others.
Good grading system for me are questions like: "Would I buy the wine again for myself, as a gift to a friend, would I store it in my collection along my favorites or collectibles and for what occasion the wine could be for? And was drinking the wine a pleasant experience?" If more of the questions get the answer 'yes' and I can sum the wine's good qualities easily, it's a very fine wine I can trust to invest again. Main point is that the wine gets everyone in the room excited and it pays off. If there are no's or I'm more confused about what the wine taste wants to "convey", I'd hesitate buying the wine again. If I find no use for the wine nor is it pleasant experience, then it naturally will be left on the shelf. Scoring is okay and some medium of scores would be useful in a sense that how many critics found the wine pleasant. If it's pleasant, but not extraordinary, it is usually enough for most consumers.
I understand that scoring is a useful, easy to process. I rate wines on cellar tracker and look there as well as Vivino at times to see the tasting notes from other users, but I focus more on the notes than the scores since everyone’s idea of what qualifies as 90 varies, especially among enthusiasts. I also think that with James Suckling using a 10 point scale of 90-100 and pretending he’s on a 100 point or 50 point scale like Parker he’s erasing the consumer’s understanding of the system set up by Parker. That said, it works for him. In US wine shops half the advertised scores are from Suckling because everything according to him is 90+. He once rated a $9 spanish grenache 92 points. I tried it. It was undrinkable. Overpowering alcohol, no integration of the tannins. Just wildly out of balance. Truly unpleasant and I normally love full bodied Spanish reds and am forgiving towards more rustic ones like young Toros, but this was just badly done.
I like scores and think that they are useful. Where I find room for improvement is in how those scores relate to price tag (bang-for-buck ratio). Some people (me included) will round up the score of a good wine that is also cheap, leading to an inflation in the score of "good value" wines. So perhaps I gave 90pts to two bottles of wine, of which I like B more than A, but A is such good value that I rated it higher. Creating categories and ranking within those categories would solve this, but that would make it more complicated.
Recently found your channel. I really like the videos and your approach. My problem with scores is that I’ll never get to experience that true 96-100 point wine so will never know that end of the range. Most of the wines that I buy are rated in the high 80s or very low 90s. I just find it very difficult to determine the scores versus value proposition in that price/score range. I do like some better, but it does not correlate to the higher scores. I do find use in evaluating the same varietals. You mentioned a $45 dollar wine that was highly rated. That’s the top of my range, but would be interested in trying it if it can be found in the US. Thanks.
Also, it’s “horses for courses”, bit hard to compare port with Pinot Grigio on the same scale- should one have a specific scale for each style? And there are other similar considerations.
Very interesting topic. The subjective nature of scoring is what I have concerns with. It’s clear that manipulation of a wine to a particular taster is done quite frequently. That said, I will use them as a guide, but, I am one who’ll explore past the score or the marketing to find a wine I like, regardless if it’s been scored or not.
I use scores, but prefer tasting notes from the reviewer, the issue I have come across is the store advertising as a 96 point wine but the vintage is the wrong one and leaving the good review on the wrong vintage, I have learned to always check. Good information thank you.
Just recently discovered your channel... and very much enjoying it.. so thank you! I work in a small region where we are spoiled with quality, the entry level reds at the bottom end of the market all score at least 90 points... however you can have too much of a good thing... so when I see a particular MS in our country (whose taste and scores I respect) give out 96 or higher to one of our wines... then I know it’s something special and I get thirsty again :)
Scores are a good starting point for me. I look at comments on the wine, the age of the wine, the score and the price when I make a decision about what I want to try next.
I use scores two Ways - I Consider well rated burgundy wines from Allan meadows and barolo from Antonio galloni as I trust them and I avoid high scores from Jeb Dennuck as I know it will be over ripe and often over oaked
I actually like the vivino app and I found it very helpful...and I only had 4-5 times where I disagreed with the score...it just seems a very narrow score...a wine with 3.5 is pretty bad and I would not like it typically but anything upward from 3.8 is good and anything upward from 4.0 is very good...only exception might be some very mainstream wines which attract a too high score in my opinion...
Auf Bewertungspunkte gebe ich nicht sonderlich viel, da doch häufig Verkaufsinterressen dahinter stecken bzw. komplett unterschiedliche Maßstäbe oder Ansprüche zu Grunde liegen. Was mir allerdings einen Riesen Spaß bereitet, ist getrunkene Weine selber zu bewerten und die Gedanken dabei um den Wein kreisen zu lassen. Nerdstyle... Gruß aus KA!
Do I use scores? Hmmmmm... Hugh Johnson has a simple one for vintages (out of 10) that can help me decide between available wines - as does his 3 star system for individual wines. La révue des vins de France let's me know if my favorites (attention: Quality Price Ratio! ) are performing up to their usual standards. (Needless to say, this normally refers to French wines, but when the focus is foreign - Produttori del Barbaresco! - it can be doubly meaningful!.) So - I guess I'm not really score-driven!
In a way you said everything in your video which came to my mind when I thought about it, so great video! All in all I have to say that I am not really sure what to think about scores. I am writing some reviews on wines (and spirits) myself on facebook and I do not publish a score but state my own opinion in which I say if I recommend to buy the wine or not. Sure scores tell you which wine should be the better one and are easy to understand aswell but as you said you have to know about the taste of the critic. If you want to have some blockbuster wine you should have a look for the score of Parker if you are looking for a wine which is more elegant you should read the reviews of Mrs. Robinson but my main problems with scores are others: At first I think that starting a score at 50 is somewhat stupid because it suggests to people who don’t know better that a wine scoring 70 is still rather good (I know this type of scoring developed out of the American school system, but that is no reason not to critisize it). Secondly I think that nobody can really tell you why one wine got a score of 91 and another one got 93 and why the second one got two points more (Both are reasons why I prefer the score system of Jancins Robinson). And thirdly I have a problem you also already mentioned: Scores get more and more useless because today there is a huge amount of wines rated 90+ and you get the impression that you should not buy a wine below 90 any longer. Due to all of this I only have a look at scores if I want to buy a special wine type I have not had before and I want to buy a good one which also did not save me from having bought the wrong one.
I do use score’s when buying online, but there are a few wine shops with staff I know and trust, and they rarely steer me wrong and usually steer me to the bargains.
I usually don't pay attention to wine scores, but I do keep an eye on vintage rating (on the same 100 point scale) on both Robert Parker and WineMag. I know it is an oversemplification but after some time I've learnt which vintages are good, average and sub average in major areas, so I can decide more quickly which wine to purchase. I also think you can also avoid "boosted" scores given to wine by journalists under pressure from renown wineries.
I take some notice, say in helping to gauge between vintages of one wine. I have a question, so why don’t we have a score system truely to how good a wine is accounting for the level / price of the wine. Would a 94 point $35 wine really be as good as a 94 point $350 wine? I would prefer to see the scale adjusted to the wines true quality.
When going to buy some Wine I sometimes need just a quick way to look at some scores mostly from known sources and mostly don't have the time to read full reviews Mostly its way to compare some Wines and the Wine to the pricepoint
I find scores helpful. Especially to cut through the merchants' hyperbole about the latest vintage. I don't think you can compare scores from different regions, e.g. is 100 in Chile really the same as 100 in burgundy..? There is a marked difference in critics' calibration, which you can see clearly at Bordeaux EP. Suckling and WA are several points more generous than some others, whereas a Vinous 100 still means something. In burgundy scores are all tougher because Burghound/Meadows got there first and he's strict. Finally, I think Jancis' assessment of 2003 Pavie was nearer the mark than Parker's!
Scores are very useful if you already know that you like the style of the wine or the varietal. How can one ignore a very high or a very low score when spending money on a wine one is unfamiliar with? However, scores in the middle range -- let's say 80-90 points -- have less meaning because personal preferences and bottle variations become a factor. I do however wish that all scoring were performed blind or even double-blind whenever possible.
Thanks for another great video Konstantin! Could you advise which critics whose scores you have trust in? From what I’ve seen JR would appear to be one of the harder critics, and not influenced commercially as some others are. From Australia, CM would seem to be similar.
I use scores but only Parker scores, because I lived seneral years near Gigondas, and Parker as myself loves the South Rhone wines. So I assume that he has the same preferences that I have.
Yes definetly right, scores are human relative, so the one person likes the wine and another one don't likes it. There are also some ratings from wine competions (for Example: guide d'hachette). For me it was/ and is the prefered method for wine selection. Because it is not only the opinion of just one Person, it is the rating and summary of a grouwd of people.
I think tasting notes especially just get very boring to write out online, tasted a few different champagnes recently and writing down almost exactly the same notes per style gets old real quickly (with the added disadvantage that you can start looking for notes you've smelled before) Which is why Im thinking about switching to just keeping a notebook with like a short sentence and either a dislike/ neutral / like / love scale or just a 100 point scale. In the end ratings are just tools to make sure you can get value for money when buying your next bottle.
I like scores. At the same time I think many are overrated. The 5 star Vino doesn’t do the trick for me. You should be able to do .1 increments instead of .5. When I’m out at a wine tasting, I use the 100 point scale.
Well for new like me it absolutely helpful. At the beginning. But like year later at this point... not much as before. it tells me how expensive it is haha 🤔
I use scores for the reasons you mention. Although I find the 100 point scale rather silly in some ways. It is not really a 100 point scale as most people start in the 80s - but then why not be honest and use a ten point scale instead. Plus it generates the misleading impression that human taste buds can differentiate to such an extent. In short: it gives an illusion of exactitude.
I like wine and I like videogames, and I think the topic in discussion here can be common of both worlds. is a score useful? yes, but also no: I've seen lots of analysis in both worlds where the score was not reflective of the essay. the score is valid only if we take the time to actually drill down in the reviews, otherwise it's only reflective of the personal taste of the author, and i cannot understand if his taste is aligned with mine.
Until I can taste and rate wines myself as well as the major critics can it's very useful to me. With less than 2 years experience drinking wine I would not feel comfortable spending greater amounts of money on wine without these opinions. I find ratings from non professionals to be of little use because they all cluster in the 88 to 91 point range, At least that's the way it seems to me.
I find it weird that scores don't seem to be linear. The difference in points doesn't seem to reflect the differences I get from the written text. So for example there might be some decent wine, the reviewer says that it's good but nothing special and it gets 89 points. Then there is a wine that the critic describes as pretty much exceptional in his tasting notes and it gets 91 points. To me, wines that only differ by 2 points should really also differ by 2% in quality but it doesn't seem to be that way.
I'm a bit late to the party here but I would like to leave my few cents... A problem with the 100p scale to me is that it's actually not a linear 100-steps system. Many scales start with around 60 points though. So if it was linear 1p on the scale should equal to around 2% more or less in wine quality.
i think scoring should tell you more about winemaking process than how good or bad the wine itself tastes, besides extreme cases. within the borders of my limited experience, i can say that taste is extremely subjective. particularly for beginners, scoring is also overwhelming and kills all the joy.
OK, I'm a noob. I like wines, but (until now) i don't really rate them. Because i don't know how. I recognize there seems to be some rating system, ´but what are the mechanics of those ? What do I have to look for (or the lack of) to rate a wine a certain way ? What can I expect when buying a wine of a specific rating ? I'm not really interested in the history of rating, but what does it mean. what influences a rating and what's the difference between 90 and 95 ? Or - maybe more common for the casual wine drinker - between a 70-something and a 80-something rated wine ? yeah yeah, maybe I could google it, but I'm watching this channel right now, and I like it ;)
If you buy from a respected wine merchant then price is actually a better indicator of quality than scores, scoring is subjective and I rarely agree with the elevated scores of some critics for the reasons given by KB, however a JS score of 91 on a £17 bottle of white Bordeaux means it’s going to be good wine, just not a 91. I think scoring is more effective as a stick to producers rather than a carrot to experienced buyers
Thanks. Yes, some break the score up into different categories and this was how it was originally developed. Most wine tasters I know do not do this anymore and rate the wine based on their quality assessment.
Scores can be a decent gauge of quality, especially if several critics are all in the same ballpark. However, there’s also a clear conflict of interest when certain publications choose to score wines from producers who advertise with them.
Another thing to consider is that most publications have multiple critics working for them at this point. It’s important to truly know who is reviewing the wine so that we understand it may not be Robert Parker but rather Lisa Perrotti-Brown or someone else giving the score.
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine I think that even if you don't get direct sponsoring from a winery, If you don't give some kind of "courtesy" to lot of wineryes, you can loose grip and benefits in the industry.
I love the scores, because it points you in a good direction. Tastes are subjective, and that is what makes wine so much fun! I would agree with some of the comments below, you need to enjoy what you like, knowing your favorite terroir and varietals are key!
I think it's quite easy. So 91+ you can buy blindly, if the price is good. 95+ now we're entering SUBJECTIVE CITY!!! From this point on, it's all personal. My 95 point wine is your 85 wine (technically good, but doesn't do it for me) and vice versa. And then the rest, let's say 98 99 and 100 that is not only subjective but highly influenced by the place, the time, the setting and your own mental state. I once had a wine that made me cry because it was just so good. I've had it since and it's still an amazing wine (94/95 I would say) but not reaching 100 points. It's got a 4.3 on vivino btw (saw that video today, make more of them).
As a wine consultant at Wine& Spirit retail, I often find myself talking with clients about wine scores, including about Vivino app. What do you think about this social way of scoring? Sorry if this question already was asked...
I like the concepts of wine critics and people in general scoring wine in order to communicate something, although we should always keep in mind, that scores tend towards a great deal of subjectivity, and it's easier to relate to, than a lot of flowery language that can be hard to relate to, let alone find in a wine when you get to taste it. It can be interesting, but one of my main gripes with any Robert Parker inspired scale is, that to anyone new to wine it's deceitful from the onset. A scale giving points out of a hundred that starts from 50 is such a weird concept. It's not a 100 point scale. It's a 50 point scale, because as long as you've managed to squeeze a grape and ferment the must, you seem to have been awarded 50 point. A 1000 point scale starting at 950 provides you with the same information. As a novice consumer, maybe 70 points don't feel like that terrible a score. It's quite a bit above average, given that on a 100 point scale, you'd likely figure an average wine to score around 50, but applying the same logic, a wine that scores 70 would be below average. And this is of course assuming some kind of linearity. If we assume an average wine on an RP scale does indeed score 75, then if most reviews place most wine in the region of 80-100, does that then mean, that most wines are above average? That would be a weird contradiction It also doesn't do what I think a lot of novice consumers want, as you mention in the video, which is to know whether for my limited cash, is this a good buy? Value for money or QPR doesn't translate well from these scales for a couple of reasons. When a 1000€, a 100€ and a 10€ wine all receive 90 points, what does that mean? If a consumer trusts a critic, why would they try something more expensive, when there's no comparable rise in quality as indicated by the scale? I don't think there's an easy way out of these, although I'll forever fight for any point scale to start at 0 for any "deeply flawed, bordering on undrinkable" wine. I hope that there might be a better way of getting people interested in wine as something more than just something red, white, rose or sparkling. I think the best way would be doing comparative tastings. Preferably guided by someone knowledgeable and impartial and with quite narrow selections. Keeping to one grape variety, maybe one country, maybe one region. Maybe trying to show the difference in old vs. new world within a category. But for someone just interested in buying a good bottle of wine for saturdays dinner, this might not be the thing, and I really do wonder if a rating is going to tell them all that much. Maybe I'm completely wrong about all of this though.
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine I will, as always, look forward to what you make of it. By the way, will you be revisitting the wine you made? I think it's about a year old now, if you have any more bottles, and I'd be interested in knowing how it has aged. Also if you would do something about what aging does to a wine, and what determines if a wine has ageing potential, and how to gauge when to drink a wine. Cheers! or... prost. :)
100% agree here (on a 100pt scale). Subjectivity aside, 50-100 with so many wines scoring 85+ is far too much false precision--and it's even worse that it feels like everything rated "good" falls in the incredibly crowded 89-94 range. Maybe the 100 pt scale inherently biases high due to a parallel to letter grades. Plenty of wines are worthy of a B+. A scale that allows for levels of excellence and depth would be more useful. Perhaps something like a 20pt scale where 10pts roughly equates to no flaws and the bare minimum of character to be varietally correct? Although I realize I'm still contradicting myself somewhat with this scale since 10pts is still a meaningful floor.
I suppose we can combine WSET acceptable/good/very good/outstanding wine to 100 RP scale. For my opinion 80-84 is acceptable wine, 85-89 is a good wine, 90-94 is a very good wine, 96-100 is outstanding one.
Hi The subject is certainly very interesting and highly debatable. I've never used the 100 points scoring system simply because i'm not there yet, far from being good and there are alot of varietals and styles that I haven't tasted yet. You just expressed my thoughts about the descriptive CRAZY texts of the world of wine especially when it comes from the TITANS. Yet, the scoring system is also misleading in a way when YOU scored the " really bad" chinese wines 70 and 75. I guess people just need to get used to the scores and know that everything than is under 80 is real bad wine, which is still weird!! CHEERS
Yes, in the 100 point system 70 - 79 means: An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine. This is how I scored the Great Wall red. The white Great wall got 60 points, and maybe I was a bit too generous. 60 - 69: A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor or possibly dirty aromas or flavors. 60 is close to 50 - 59: A wine deemed to be unacceptable.
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine Thanks a lot for the reply. I guess eventually we have to treat the 100 points scoring system just like the university scores where 1 point makes the whole difference between a Fair wine with 79 points and a Good wine with 80 points. Again, just like anything else the system can be well used and misused sometimes on purpose. On the side, I find it hilarious that you can read quotes from Big Names in the business and make fun of them and get away with that. I'm not sure for how long but they certainly won't like it. But, we do. Good day
I am always suspicious of anyone that critiques Robert Parker’s 100 points system, I’d like you to go to a winery give us your opinion of that wine from The Barrel and see how it stacks up to other professional wine critics.. Then do it for 30 years, don’t make any mistakes
Where the scoring system completely fails is the issue of personal preference. I like Red Burgundy, but I can’t stand Riesling of any kind. For me, an 82 point Cote de Beaune Pinot is a far better choice than any Grand Cru 99 point Alsatian Riesling.
Regarding the controversy surrounding the Parker/Robinson vastly different ratings of the same wine, one factor gets a shocking lack of attention. I am referring to bottle-to-bottle variations. It is quite possible that Robinson just got a bad bottle of the wine in question while Parker got a particularly good one. I find this phenomenon quite dispiriting, as it makes it nearly impossible to predict the quality of a wine based on previous experience. I find that French wines are particularly susceptible to this, whereas Italian wines seem the most consistent.
You are right - bottle variation is often overlooked. I would say that in this case it was probably more about the subjective taste of these two critics but it could have been bottle variation too.
I really enjoy your videos and find your no-nonsense approach very refreshing. It is exhuberantly obvious that you have a profund knowledge of your topics and the skills of the craft to go along it. Here, however, where wine knowledge borders into science, I may have something of value to say. Your comparisons of the 100 point scale to other scales is plain wrong. You compare it to school grades, but the correct comparison is not a scale that goes on to another letter but F, but one that starts at J and goes to Q for no apparant reason. I studied statistics a fair bit and work with them daily, and a scale of 100 points that starts at 50 is objectively bad. It suggests by it's nature that it starts at 0 and goes to 100 and is thereby terribly misleading, which is reflected in the reality of the ongoing confusion of unversed consumers about this. If now you take the developement of the + in scores, it reflects that there is actually not enough resolution in the scale. If only you could remedy this .. by .. I don't know .. maybe having twice as many numbers in your scoring table? My conclusion was echoed by my colleagues: It is downright idiotic in every sense. The only reason to keep it is because eeeeeverybody does it, which grants a certain comparability. Historically, though, that's the worst reason to keep around any obsolete system of measurement.
ALMOST Everyone uses 100 point scale. There is no way we, as wine lovers, can taste thru all the wines to figure out which wines to buy…. The scale gives guidance (whether it’s the 20 point scale, or hundred point scale). PS… Janis is wrong about the 2003 Pavie
One comment about WA scores: As explicitly written on the wine Advocate Website, the score indicates how good a wine is compared to his peer group consisting of wines of similar style, region and grape variety. This is a very important fact because this means thoughtlessly comparing wine scores and assuming that if two wines have the same score they are supposed to be equally good is quite ridiculous. If one wine is a single vineyard Barolo in the high two-digit € or low three digits from a top producer getting 93 points and the other wine is a everyday easy drinking langudoc wine like, for example Bastide Miraflors (that i think in some vintage scored 93), one can safely assume that the Barolo is a lot lot lot better. The peer group is on an entirely different level and thus a 93 points for a wine of this style and region means a lot more than a 93 for a base quality langudoc wine (I actually like the wine i mentioned, but its a basic wine (well made and absolutely worth the price, but its no fancy top level stuff)
Am I right in saying a 100 point wine is perfect? If so, how can the person scoring then add that the wine will improve with bottle aging? Doesn't make sense 🤔
It is the Hybrid video. It is always tricky when it comes to prices. There are huge differences between different markets when it comes to wine and I usually refer back to wine searcher
I shop wines by scores and price...I can't afford bottles of wine for $50-200 etc, so - I go by the price I am willing to pay and the rating and review. Then I purchase and have it shipped to me...If I like it - I buy it again and again...
I am generally in favour of scoring wines, but think that unless you are in the trade and drinking wines every day, the 100 point system is far too detailed and precise. As an enthusiastic amateur I know I couldn't spot the quality difference between a 92 point Riesling, and an 89 point Chardonnay. And if you're not going to use numbers 1 - 49, why not just have a 50 point system? (Actually I know; it's because 100 looks better for marketing purposes than 50!!) The wine society that I belong to uses a 7 point system, and that suits our purposes well at our monthly tastings. We score at the end of the evening, before we know the price, and even with just 7 to go at, it's amazing just how few scores of 1, 2, or 3 we get - just as you rarely see scores of 50 - 70 in 100 point scale. Personally, I would favour Ms Robinson's 20 point system, but even there, whilst you could probably tell a 18 from an 17, I wonder how many of us could tell an 11 from a 12?
I work In A tasting room in Sonoma and am always surprised at how many people make ask about and make wine purchasing decisions on the scores of Robert Parker. One mans opinion?
Yes, it is weird. He helped a lot of people finding good wines over the years though and I would rather have him or other respectable wine tasters influence consumers than some actor or singer, to be honest ... :)
Not just Parker, JS as well, here in Rheingau Germany the Rieslings that received top scores like Künstler Kirchenstück GG 2019 or Eva Frickes Krone 2019 all sell out in no time (mostly to China) 🤪
Coming from the coffee industry I find the diversity in wine scoring somewhat bizarre. In coffee scoring is done by qualified Q-graders who undergo frequent calibration and certification. A coffee Q score is given based on not only sensory qualities but uniformity across a harvest and physical defects. Scoring is often done by a committee and frequently unpublished as they are used for classifying coffee's eligibility for derivative markets and pricing for exporters. It does have an issue with score creep and struggles to deal with new experimental processing methods. That being said it is miles ahead of wine scoring, a Q grade of 88 can be articulated precisely eg "This coffee had zero taints or defects, was perfectly uniform across five cups and a panel of calibrated and qualified judges scored it an 8 for acidity a 7 for mouthfeel a 9 for aroma... ". Coffee has no James Suckling. Learning to score coffee relies upon passing a series of standardized tests such as identifying specific adulteration of types of acid. For me wine scores are just far to variable and subjective, a score is meaningful when it can be arithmetically articulated rather than vibes based or influenced by whichever vineyard puts enough cash in your pocket.
Scores tend to be useless. Unless you find a critic that matches your tastes, then you can follow them and get an idea if you may or may not like a wine. If you score wines yourself, in Cellar Tracker for example, that is perfectly fine to keep track of your own tastes. The issue is what you pointed out. Is a $15.00 bottle of Cotes de Bordeaux rated 97 points by Tasting Panel really a better/equal wine than a 97 point $1,000.00 bottle of Chateau Lafite-Rothschild rated by Robert Parker? I guess so, since they are the same score...right? Too much plays apart in wine ratings and they all should be taken with a grain of salt and not too seriously.
Scores are interesting but it depends who was the Scorer. I remember the question I asked myself - how does 93 Points by Robert Parker taste? Would I like it? Would I agree that this is more than a very good wine? When you found out it helps to value you the wine for yourself - would I buy rather a 94 PP for about 60 Euro or would I buy the other one for 60 Euro that got only 92 PP … when There are wines offered with 99 Points by Luca Maroni that’s more than a warning and means for me - don’t buy this wine!!! 😆✌️
100 point wine scores are bad for the industry. You said it yourself, after Robert Parker introduced the 100 point system winemakers started altering their practices to receive a high score. You don’t think the homogenization of an entire industry based on one individual’s palette is a bad thing?
not only is wine scoring slightly unreliable but it could make or break a whole company. without the reviewer/ wine critic holding any responsibly for potentially destroying someone's business.
I guess one of the main problems with the 100 point system is that it gives certain wines higher points over others. Is it possible for a rosé to get a 100 point rating? I'd say it's arguable that the answer is no - but it can be far more drinkable and delicious than super high scoring wines. So what's better: high scores or enjoyment? The 100 point system is a useful too - of course particularly for marketing wine - but it's definitely not perfect
Scores given by wine critics have very little to no credibility if the wines are not tasted blind (wich in most cases they’re not). Same as in medicine when there’s a study on a treatment it has to be blind or double blind in order for it to have a certain level of evidence.
As my budget is limited, I use scores to help me choose the more expensive wines I may buy: I won't buy an expensive wine with a low score. For the cheaper wines, I don't care about the score.
100 points is worthless. Under 85 almost always is rubbish. Why have it? Early on it was fun to read the 60 rated wines in WS, but they don't do that anymore. 87 - 93 user dependent good quality Over 95 - probably high quality winemaking you may or may not like. 100 - meaningless. Parker's 100 (especially Napa can be under 93 for me. Everyone's numbers are quite different. To me there are only three scores 1 - I will drink it. 2 - I won't drink it. 3 - I'll drink it but someone else is paying.
Scores mean nothing its just a number from some guy, i prefer a description which is unfortunately often just bullshit....when it comes to scores i just use soul points:-)
The thing about the 100 point scale is that it wont tell you if you will like the wine - it will just say how well the wine matches the characteristics of that style of wine. I may love an 80 point Riesling but hate a 95 point Pinot Noir. First you have to know the grapes/regions you like then use the ratings to find the best wines within those regions.
The problem with wine culture in the US is that it largely thinks of wine as "red", "white" and "rose". So you will hear from non wine drinkers that they don't like "red" wine. But they darn well know the difference between Miller Lite and Guinness. The scores wouldn't help people of that level. But then neither do tasting notes which contain flowery esoteric language.
Scores and tasting notes only help people who are already into wine. The question is "how do we get more people to experiment and find the styles of wine they enjoy?"
No joke: The only score system I actively sought out is the three bottles from Gambero Rosso and that award has really led me towards a lot of affordable Italien wines that are very tasty.
While scores get my attention, it's the written notes that tell me whether a wine is worth buying or whether I might like it. And definitely, certain professional reviewers are more trustworthy (not necessarily in the sense of the accuracy of their scoring, but how well their palate and preferences reflect my own), so finding reviewers that you admire and trust is a big help.
I agree - look for the reviewers you trust.
That reminds me of how some reviewers use words like elegant and finesse for wines that are lacking power and intensity. Still sounds good but tastes boring.
An another great video! Addressing the wine quality with a score is tricky and you manage to cover issues on a good way. I dare to add that people are impulsive. As a consequence of that is lower scores of more expensive wines are result of disappointment rather than the real lack of quality and higher scores of less expensive wines is result of bliss for not suffering rather than exceptional quality of the wine.
Thanks! Wonderful show and I’m pretty thankful for not only your breadth and depth of wine but making a mention of South African wines. This South African living in the USA, it was like a little slice of home.
Thank you very much!
Great video!
I found that my appreciation, knowledge and palate greatly improved after I started using Vivino, as giving a rating and writing down the tasting notes made you really think about what is in your glass.
But staying objective can be incredibly hard. So many things influence your perception of wine before you even open it: packaging, price, where and with who you drink it, your history with the producer, even the merchant you bought it off can play a role.
Well said!
In summary: a wave of biases may hit you while judging a wine...
Even the mood you're in has a big influence - it often depends on your personal form of the day.
I find scores to be a challenging one to understand. I came and watched this video after watching your Vivino commentary video and you gave bottles scores that were immaterially different, despite having more choice words for some than others.
As an amateur wine enthusiast, scores are helpful when buying wines because it gives me a place to start when looking at what wines I want to try since there are SO MANY different wines out there (and it can become overwhelming when trying to choose one). However, I agree that it should be taken with a grain of salt and that the caveat is that these scores are highly subjective.
Do you use anything else to help research wines? I started using Vivino
@@EricZeak I use Vivino too! But I like to do my own tasting notes and then see what others say on Vivino to compare. It's super useful to keep track of the different wines I've tried 🙂
True!
In high school civics classes we were taught to use more than one newspaper or other news source to get a better view of a news story. In the same way, I try to take the time to read more than one review of a wine to get a bigger picture.
Also, you will probably find that you'll gravitate towards one or two producers who have made wine that you liked before. Individual producers/winemakers have their own style which happens to please your taste buds. Or, not.
Lastly, remember that if you think it's good wine, then it is good wine...no matter what anyone else says.
I am a consumer and if I can not taste a wine at the vineyard, I am first looking for the style I want to have, such as maybe "fruity" or "full bodied" or "structured". Then, I look at how many € I have to pay per point, and finally, I read the description of the wine, if I am interested. So: Yes! Scores have an influence on my buying behaviour.
I'm in the wine retail biz, and I and my colleagues use the 100 point scale as a shorthand to determine which among several wines we tasted might be appropriate for our store...but the thing is, we're not looking for 90 points or above all the time. Many of our favorite wines, which are charming, nicely balanced and interesting show up in the 86-89 range for us. This is why I think so many consumers, especially who use the Vivino app, do themselves a disservice by focusing only on these arbitrary numbers and not experiencing some genuinely unique and lovely wines that fall underneath a perceived requisite score. Oh, and also, if I describe a wine and recommend it to a customer only to have them "fact check" me with Vivino, I walk away from them. Consumers, please don't do that. Either use the app or ask us.
Great topic. When I read writing I do like to see scores. It shows that the writer is willing to put their opinion on the line.
Thats right!
I find this guys videos very entertaining and I don't even drink 🤪
I use scores because like you said, they can be a little more informative than just tasting notes. I use them to keep track of wines I've drank and compare them to others.
Me too!
Good grading system for me are questions like: "Would I buy the wine again for myself, as a gift to a friend, would I store it in my collection along my favorites or collectibles and for what occasion the wine could be for? And was drinking the wine a pleasant experience?"
If more of the questions get the answer 'yes' and I can sum the wine's good qualities easily, it's a very fine wine I can trust to invest again. Main point is that the wine gets everyone in the room excited and it pays off.
If there are no's or I'm more confused about what the wine taste wants to "convey", I'd hesitate buying the wine again. If I find no use for the wine nor is it pleasant experience, then it naturally will be left on the shelf.
Scoring is okay and some medium of scores would be useful in a sense that how many critics found the wine pleasant. If it's pleasant, but not extraordinary, it is usually enough for most consumers.
I understand that scoring is a useful, easy to process. I rate wines on cellar tracker and look there as well as Vivino at times to see the tasting notes from other users, but I focus more on the notes than the scores since everyone’s idea of what qualifies as 90 varies, especially among enthusiasts. I also think that with James Suckling using a 10 point scale of 90-100 and pretending he’s on a 100 point or 50 point scale like Parker he’s erasing the consumer’s understanding of the system set up by Parker. That said, it works for him. In US wine shops half the advertised scores are from Suckling because everything according to him is 90+. He once rated a $9 spanish grenache 92 points. I tried it. It was undrinkable. Overpowering alcohol, no integration of the tannins. Just wildly out of balance. Truly unpleasant and I normally love full bodied Spanish reds and am forgiving towards more rustic ones like young Toros, but this was just badly done.
I like scores and think that they are useful. Where I find room for improvement is in how those scores relate to price tag (bang-for-buck ratio). Some people (me included) will round up the score of a good wine that is also cheap, leading to an inflation in the score of "good value" wines. So perhaps I gave 90pts to two bottles of wine, of which I like B more than A, but A is such good value that I rated it higher. Creating categories and ranking within those categories would solve this, but that would make it more complicated.
Recently found your channel. I really like the videos and your approach. My problem with scores is that I’ll never get to experience that true 96-100 point wine so will never know that end of the range. Most of the wines that I buy are rated in the high 80s or very low 90s. I just find it very difficult to determine the scores versus value proposition in that price/score range. I do like some better, but it does not correlate to the higher scores. I do find use in evaluating the same varietals. You mentioned a $45 dollar wine that was highly rated. That’s the top of my range, but would be interested in trying it if it can be found in the US. Thanks.
Also, it’s “horses for courses”, bit hard to compare port with Pinot Grigio on the same scale- should one have a specific scale for each style? And there are other similar considerations.
Very interesting topic. The subjective nature of scoring is what I have concerns with. It’s clear that manipulation of a wine to a particular taster is done quite frequently. That said, I will use them as a guide, but, I am one who’ll explore past the score or the marketing to find a wine I like, regardless if it’s been scored or not.
Well said!
I use scores, but prefer tasting notes from the reviewer, the issue I have come across is the store advertising as a 96 point wine but the vintage is the wrong one and leaving the good review on the wrong vintage, I have learned to always check.
Good information thank you.
Good point!
Just recently discovered your channel... and very much enjoying it.. so thank you!
I work in a small region where we are spoiled with quality, the entry level reds at the bottom end of the market all score at least 90 points... however you can have too much of a good thing... so when I see a particular MS in our country (whose taste and scores I respect) give out 96 or higher to one of our wines... then I know it’s something special and I get thirsty again :)
Welcome!
Scores are a good starting point for me. I look at comments on the wine, the age of the wine, the score and the price when I make a decision about what I want to try next.
Same
I use scores two Ways - I Consider well rated burgundy wines from Allan meadows and barolo from Antonio galloni as I trust them and I avoid high scores from Jeb Dennuck as I know it will be over ripe and often over oaked
Makes sense
I actually like the vivino app and I found it very helpful...and I only had 4-5 times where I disagreed with the score...it just seems a very narrow score...a wine with 3.5 is pretty bad and I would not like it typically but anything upward from 3.8 is good and anything upward from 4.0 is very good...only exception might be some very mainstream wines which attract a too high score in my opinion...
I need to look at Vivino in more detail. Havent used it in a while.
Auf Bewertungspunkte gebe ich nicht sonderlich viel, da doch häufig Verkaufsinterressen dahinter stecken bzw. komplett unterschiedliche Maßstäbe oder Ansprüche zu Grunde liegen. Was mir allerdings einen Riesen Spaß bereitet, ist getrunkene Weine selber zu bewerten und die Gedanken dabei um den Wein kreisen zu lassen. Nerdstyle...
Gruß aus KA!
Nerdstyle is also my style ... :)
Do I use scores? Hmmmmm... Hugh Johnson has a simple one for vintages (out of 10) that can help me decide between available wines - as does his 3 star system for individual wines. La révue des vins de France let's me know if my favorites (attention: Quality Price Ratio! ) are performing up to their usual standards. (Needless to say, this normally refers to French wines, but when the focus is foreign - Produttori del Barbaresco! - it can be doubly meaningful!.) So - I guess I'm not really score-driven!
In a way you said everything in your video which came to my mind when I thought about it, so great video! All in all I have to say that I am not really sure what to think about scores. I am writing some reviews on wines (and spirits) myself on facebook and I do not publish a score but state my own opinion in which I say if I recommend to buy the wine or not. Sure scores tell you which wine should be the better one and are easy to understand aswell but as you said you have to know about the taste of the critic. If you want to have some blockbuster wine you should have a look for the score of Parker if you are looking for a wine which is more elegant you should read the reviews of Mrs. Robinson but my main problems with scores are others: At first I think that starting a score at 50 is somewhat stupid because it suggests to people who don’t know better that a wine scoring 70 is still rather good (I know this type of scoring developed out of the American school system, but that is no reason not to critisize it). Secondly I think that nobody can really tell you why one wine got a score of 91 and another one got 93 and why the second one got two points more (Both are reasons why I prefer the score system of Jancins Robinson). And thirdly I have a problem you also already mentioned: Scores get more and more useless because today there is a huge amount of wines rated 90+ and you get the impression that you should not buy a wine below 90 any longer.
Due to all of this I only have a look at scores if I want to buy a special wine type I have not had before and I want to buy a good one which also did not save me from having bought the wrong one.
Great points Alex!
I do use score’s when buying online, but there are a few wine shops with staff I know and trust, and they rarely steer me wrong and usually steer me to the bargains.
I usually don't pay attention to wine scores, but I do keep an eye on vintage rating (on the same 100 point scale) on both Robert Parker and WineMag. I know it is an oversemplification but after some time I've learnt which vintages are good, average and sub average in major areas, so I can decide more quickly which wine to purchase. I also think you can also avoid "boosted" scores given to wine by journalists under pressure from renown wineries.
Yes, I also check out vintage ratings!
I take some notice, say in helping to gauge between vintages of one wine. I have a question, so why don’t we have a score system truely to how good a wine is accounting for the level / price of the wine. Would a 94 point $35 wine really be as good as a 94 point $350 wine? I would prefer to see the scale adjusted to the wines true quality.
When going to buy some Wine I sometimes need just a quick way to look at some scores mostly from known sources and mostly don't have the time to read full reviews
Mostly its way to compare some Wines and the Wine to the pricepoint
I find scores helpful. Especially to cut through the merchants' hyperbole about the latest vintage. I don't think you can compare scores from different regions, e.g. is 100 in Chile really the same as 100 in burgundy..? There is a marked difference in critics' calibration, which you can see clearly at Bordeaux EP. Suckling and WA are several points more generous than some others, whereas a Vinous 100 still means something. In burgundy scores are all tougher because Burghound/Meadows got there first and he's strict. Finally, I think Jancis' assessment of 2003 Pavie was nearer the mark than Parker's!
Scores are very useful if you already know that you like the style of the wine or the varietal. How can one ignore a very high or a very low score when spending money on a wine one is unfamiliar with? However, scores in the middle range -- let's say 80-90 points -- have less meaning because personal preferences and bottle variations become a factor. I do however wish that all scoring were performed blind or even double-blind whenever possible.
Not a huge fan of scores but it's helped me find wines I enjoy...
Thanks for another great video Konstantin! Could you advise which critics whose scores you have trust in? From what I’ve seen JR would appear to be one of the harder critics, and not influenced commercially as some others are. From Australia, CM would seem to be similar.
I read most of the reviews but Vinous and Parker have the greatest depth of valuable information.
I use scores but only Parker scores, because I lived seneral years near Gigondas, and Parker as myself loves the South Rhone wines. So I assume that he has the same preferences that I have.
I do use his scores as well.
I think we can re-name James Suckling to "Robert Parker +2"
Yes definetly right, scores are human relative, so the one person likes the wine and another one don't likes it. There are also some ratings from wine competions (for Example: guide d'hachette). For me it was/ and is the prefered method for wine selection. Because it is not only the opinion of just one Person, it is the rating and summary of a grouwd of people.
Yes, true but there are also problems with group scores that I could not get into in the video.
I think tasting notes especially just get very boring to write out online, tasted a few different champagnes recently and writing down almost exactly the same notes per style gets old real quickly (with the added disadvantage that you can start looking for notes you've smelled before) Which is why Im thinking about switching to just keeping a notebook with like a short sentence and either a dislike/ neutral / like / love scale or just a 100 point scale. In the end ratings are just tools to make sure you can get value for money when buying your next bottle.
I like scores. At the same time I think many are overrated. The 5 star Vino doesn’t do the trick for me. You should be able to do .1 increments instead of .5. When I’m out at a wine tasting, I use the 100 point scale.
I stopped using Vivino some time ago, but I had the same issue with with how "rough" their increments are. Cheers
They fixed it!
Well for new like me it absolutely helpful. At the beginning.
But like year later at this point... not much as before. it tells me how expensive it is haha 🤔
Good point!
I use scores for the reasons you mention. Although I find the 100 point scale rather silly in some ways. It is not really a 100 point scale as most people start in the 80s - but then why not be honest and use a ten point scale instead. Plus it generates the misleading impression that human taste buds can differentiate to such an extent. In short: it gives an illusion of exactitude.
Yes, but as long as you understand the context scores can be really useful.
I like wine and I like videogames, and I think the topic in discussion here can be common of both worlds. is a score useful? yes, but also no: I've seen lots of analysis in both worlds where the score was not reflective of the essay. the score is valid only if we take the time to actually drill down in the reviews, otherwise it's only reflective of the personal taste of the author, and i cannot understand if his taste is aligned with mine.
So glad to see the Chateau Baum awarded a 100 score!
Best wine ever
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine Well, you wrote a 100+ on that bottle of Dornfelder Rose ;)
Until I can taste and rate wines myself as well as the major critics can it's very useful to me. With less than 2 years experience drinking wine I would not feel comfortable spending greater amounts of money on wine without these opinions. I find ratings from non professionals to be of little use because they all cluster in the 88 to 91 point range, At least that's the way it seems to me.
I find it weird that scores don't seem to be linear. The difference in points doesn't seem to reflect the differences I get from the written text.
So for example there might be some decent wine, the reviewer says that it's good but nothing special and it gets 89 points. Then there is a wine that the critic describes as pretty much exceptional in his tasting notes and it gets 91 points. To me, wines that only differ by 2 points should really also differ by 2% in quality but it doesn't seem to be that way.
That is not how the system works though. It can be a bit frustrating but you are right - scores are not always linear.
I'm a bit late to the party here but I would like to leave my few cents...
A problem with the 100p scale to me is that it's actually not a linear 100-steps system. Many scales start with around 60 points though.
So if it was linear 1p on the scale should equal to around 2% more or less in wine quality.
i think scoring should tell you more about winemaking process than how good or bad the wine itself tastes, besides extreme cases. within the borders of my limited experience, i can say that taste is extremely subjective. particularly for beginners, scoring is also overwhelming and kills all the joy.
Did anyone else catch that KB used the “unacceptable” Dornfelder rose to show for the 💯+ example 😂🤣?
Easter Egg!
OK, I'm a noob. I like wines, but (until now) i don't really rate them. Because i don't know how. I recognize there seems to be some rating system, ´but what are the mechanics of those ? What do I have to look for (or the lack of) to rate a wine a certain way ? What can I expect when buying a wine of a specific rating ? I'm not really interested in the history of rating, but what does it mean. what influences a rating and what's the difference between 90 and 95 ? Or - maybe more common for the casual wine drinker - between a 70-something and a 80-something rated wine ?
yeah yeah, maybe I could google it, but I'm watching this channel right now, and I like it ;)
If you buy from a respected wine merchant then price is actually a better indicator of quality than scores, scoring is subjective and I rarely agree with the elevated scores of some critics for the reasons given by KB, however a JS score of 91 on a £17 bottle of white Bordeaux means it’s going to be good wine, just not a 91. I think scoring is more effective as a stick to producers rather than a carrot to experienced buyers
Interesting video but one thing I still wonder is, is there not a system for the 100 point scale? Like x points for smell, y points for taste etc
Thanks. Yes, some break the score up into different categories and this was how it was originally developed. Most wine tasters I know do not do this anymore and rate the wine based on their quality assessment.
Scores can be a decent gauge of quality, especially if several critics are all in the same ballpark. However, there’s also a clear conflict of interest when certain publications choose to score wines from producers who advertise with them.
That is true. The Wine Advocate never did ads and I think that is one of the reasons why RP was so successful.
Another thing to consider is that most publications have multiple critics working for them at this point. It’s important to truly know who is reviewing the wine so that we understand it may not be Robert Parker but rather Lisa Perrotti-Brown or someone else giving the score.
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine I think that even if you don't get direct sponsoring from a winery, If you don't give some kind of "courtesy" to lot of wineryes, you can loose grip and benefits in the industry.
I love the scores, because it points you in a good direction. Tastes are subjective, and that is what makes wine so much fun!
I would agree with some of the comments below, you need to enjoy what you like, knowing your favorite terroir and varietals are key!
I think it's quite easy.
So 91+ you can buy blindly, if the price is good. 95+ now we're entering SUBJECTIVE CITY!!! From this point on, it's all personal. My 95 point wine is your 85 wine (technically good, but doesn't do it for me) and vice versa.
And then the rest, let's say 98 99 and 100 that is not only subjective but highly influenced by the place, the time, the setting and your own mental state. I once had a wine that made me cry because it was just so good. I've had it since and it's still an amazing wine (94/95 I would say) but not reaching 100 points. It's got a 4.3 on vivino btw (saw that video today, make more of them).
Great points. The 95+ range can be quite subjective because "perfection" is very difficult to pin down.
see you guys at vivino ;) (great video)
Thanks!
As a wine consultant at Wine& Spirit retail, I often find myself talking with clients about wine scores, including about Vivino app. What do you think about this social way of scoring? Sorry if this question already was asked...
I do not follow their scores but I have used the app to record scores on wines I had. Maybe I should do a video on Vivino!
I like the concepts of wine critics and people in general scoring wine in order to communicate something, although we should always keep in mind, that scores tend towards a great deal of subjectivity, and it's easier to relate to, than a lot of flowery language that can be hard to relate to, let alone find in a wine when you get to taste it. It can be interesting, but one of my main gripes with any Robert Parker inspired scale is, that to anyone new to wine it's deceitful from the onset.
A scale giving points out of a hundred that starts from 50 is such a weird concept. It's not a 100 point scale. It's a 50 point scale, because as long as you've managed to squeeze a grape and ferment the must, you seem to have been awarded 50 point. A 1000 point scale starting at 950 provides you with the same information.
As a novice consumer, maybe 70 points don't feel like that terrible a score. It's quite a bit above average, given that on a 100 point scale, you'd likely figure an average wine to score around 50, but applying the same logic, a wine that scores 70 would be below average.
And this is of course assuming some kind of linearity. If we assume an average wine on an RP scale does indeed score 75, then if most reviews place most wine in the region of 80-100, does that then mean, that most wines are above average? That would be a weird contradiction
It also doesn't do what I think a lot of novice consumers want, as you mention in the video, which is to know whether for my limited cash, is this a good buy? Value for money or QPR doesn't translate well from these scales for a couple of reasons. When a 1000€, a 100€ and a 10€ wine all receive 90 points, what does that mean? If a consumer trusts a critic, why would they try something more expensive, when there's no comparable rise in quality as indicated by the scale?
I don't think there's an easy way out of these, although I'll forever fight for any point scale to start at 0 for any "deeply flawed, bordering on undrinkable" wine. I hope that there might be a better way of getting people interested in wine as something more than just something red, white, rose or sparkling.
I think the best way would be doing comparative tastings. Preferably guided by someone knowledgeable and impartial and with quite narrow selections. Keeping to one grape variety, maybe one country, maybe one region. Maybe trying to show the difference in old vs. new world within a category. But for someone just interested in buying a good bottle of wine for saturdays dinner, this might not be the thing, and I really do wonder if a rating is going to tell them all that much.
Maybe I'm completely wrong about all of this though.
I will do another video on the 100 point system
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine I will, as always, look forward to what you make of it.
By the way, will you be revisitting the wine you made? I think it's about a year old now, if you have any more bottles, and I'd be interested in knowing how it has aged.
Also if you would do something about what aging does to a wine, and what determines if a wine has ageing potential, and how to gauge when to drink a wine.
Cheers! or... prost. :)
100% agree here (on a 100pt scale). Subjectivity aside, 50-100 with so many wines scoring 85+ is far too much false precision--and it's even worse that it feels like everything rated "good" falls in the incredibly crowded 89-94 range. Maybe the 100 pt scale inherently biases high due to a parallel to letter grades. Plenty of wines are worthy of a B+. A scale that allows for levels of excellence and depth would be more useful. Perhaps something like a 20pt scale where 10pts roughly equates to no flaws and the bare minimum of character to be varietally correct? Although I realize I'm still contradicting myself somewhat with this scale since 10pts is still a meaningful floor.
I suppose we can combine WSET acceptable/good/very good/outstanding wine to 100 RP scale. For my opinion 80-84 is acceptable wine, 85-89 is a good wine, 90-94 is a very good wine, 96-100 is outstanding one.
Hi
The subject is certainly very interesting and highly debatable.
I've never used the 100 points scoring system simply because i'm not there yet, far from being good and there are alot of varietals and styles that I haven't tasted yet.
You just expressed my thoughts about the descriptive CRAZY texts of the world of wine especially when it comes from the TITANS.
Yet, the scoring system is also misleading in a way when YOU scored the " really bad" chinese wines 70 and 75.
I guess people just need to get used to the scores and know that everything than is under 80 is real bad wine,
which is still weird!!
CHEERS
Yes, in the 100 point system 70 - 79 means: An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.
This is how I scored the Great Wall red. The white Great wall got 60 points, and maybe I was a bit too generous. 60 - 69: A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor or possibly dirty aromas or flavors. 60 is close to 50 - 59: A wine deemed to be unacceptable.
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine
Thanks a lot for the reply.
I guess eventually we have to treat the 100 points scoring system just like the university scores where 1 point makes the whole difference between a Fair wine with 79 points and a Good wine with 80 points.
Again, just like anything else the system can be well used and misused sometimes on purpose.
On the side, I find it hilarious that you can read quotes from Big Names in the business and make fun of them and get away with that. I'm not sure for how long but they certainly won't like it.
But, we do.
Good day
I am always suspicious of anyone that critiques Robert Parker’s 100 points system, I’d like you to go to a winery give us your opinion of that wine from The Barrel and see how it stacks up to other professional wine critics..
Then do it for 30 years, don’t make any mistakes
Where the scoring system completely fails is the issue of personal preference. I like Red Burgundy, but I can’t stand Riesling of any kind. For me, an 82 point Cote de Beaune Pinot is a far better choice than any Grand Cru 99 point Alsatian Riesling.
Yes, but the critic should try to disregard personal preference. At least when it comes to the region and grape variety
Regarding the controversy surrounding the Parker/Robinson vastly different ratings of the same wine, one factor gets a shocking lack of attention. I am referring to bottle-to-bottle variations. It is quite possible that Robinson just got a bad bottle of the wine in question while Parker got a particularly good one. I find this phenomenon quite dispiriting, as it makes it nearly impossible to predict the quality of a wine based on previous experience. I find that French wines are particularly susceptible to this, whereas Italian wines seem the most consistent.
You are right - bottle variation is often overlooked. I would say that in this case it was probably more about the subjective taste of these two critics but it could have been bottle variation too.
Bottle to bottle variation, try to avoid bottles with corks. Sadly the Burgundians are only learning this slowly
I really enjoy your videos and find your no-nonsense approach very refreshing. It is exhuberantly obvious that you have a profund knowledge of your topics and the skills of the craft to go along it. Here, however, where wine knowledge borders into science, I may have something of value to say. Your comparisons of the 100 point scale to other scales is plain wrong. You compare it to school grades, but the correct comparison is not a scale that goes on to another letter but F, but one that starts at J and goes to Q for no apparant reason. I studied statistics a fair bit and work with them daily, and a scale of 100 points that starts at 50 is objectively bad. It suggests by it's nature that it starts at 0 and goes to 100 and is thereby terribly misleading, which is reflected in the reality of the ongoing confusion of unversed consumers about this. If now you take the developement of the + in scores, it reflects that there is actually not enough resolution in the scale. If only you could remedy this .. by .. I don't know .. maybe having twice as many numbers in your scoring table? My conclusion was echoed by my colleagues: It is downright idiotic in every sense. The only reason to keep it is because eeeeeverybody does it, which grants a certain comparability. Historically, though, that's the worst reason to keep around any obsolete system of measurement.
Yes, you have a point... but I don't have the right solution at the moment
ALMOST Everyone uses 100 point scale. There is no way we, as wine lovers, can taste thru all the wines to figure out which wines to buy…. The scale gives guidance (whether it’s the 20 point scale, or hundred point scale). PS… Janis is wrong about the 2003 Pavie
One comment about WA scores: As explicitly written on the wine Advocate Website, the score indicates how good a wine is compared to his peer group consisting of wines of similar style, region and grape variety. This is a very important fact because this means thoughtlessly comparing wine scores and assuming that if two wines have the same score they are supposed to be equally good is quite ridiculous. If one wine is a single vineyard Barolo in the high two-digit € or low three digits from a top producer getting 93 points and the other wine is a everyday easy drinking langudoc wine like, for example Bastide Miraflors (that i think in some vintage scored 93), one can safely assume that the Barolo is a lot lot lot better. The peer group is on an entirely different level and thus a 93 points for a wine of this style and region means a lot more than a 93 for a base quality langudoc wine (I actually like the wine i mentioned, but its a basic wine (well made and absolutely worth the price, but its no fancy top level stuff)
Good point! Thank you for bringing it to our attention!
Score without tasting notes means nothing. For example if I don't like a certain flavor, I will not buy the wine that has it, whatever the score.
I am all for scores. I score everything: women, dinner, my stool and YT video's. Here's a like for you 😁👍
Am I right in saying a 100 point wine is perfect? If so, how can the person scoring then add that the wine will improve with bottle aging? Doesn't make sense 🤔
I couldn't find the episode again, but we sell that Vidal icewine for $36.99 US.
It is the Hybrid video. It is always tricky when it comes to prices. There are huge differences between different markets when it comes to wine and I usually refer back to wine searcher
Before Parker got his sharpie on California, the wines had a delightful character all their own. Then they got tarted up like clarets. Ditto Chile.
I shop wines by scores and price...I can't afford bottles of wine for $50-200 etc, so - I go by the price I am willing to pay and the rating and review. Then I purchase and have it shipped to me...If I like it - I buy it again and again...
Makes sense.
I am generally in favour of scoring wines, but think that unless you are in the trade and drinking wines every day, the 100 point system is far too detailed and precise. As an enthusiastic amateur I know I couldn't spot the quality difference between a 92 point Riesling, and an 89 point Chardonnay. And if you're not going to use numbers 1 - 49, why not just have a 50 point system? (Actually I know; it's because 100 looks better for marketing purposes than 50!!)
The wine society that I belong to uses a 7 point system, and that suits our purposes well at our monthly tastings. We score at the end of the evening, before we know the price, and even with just 7 to go at, it's amazing just how few scores of 1, 2, or 3 we get - just as you rarely see scores of 50 - 70 in 100 point scale.
Personally, I would favour Ms Robinson's 20 point system, but even there, whilst you could probably tell a 18 from an 17, I wonder how many of us could tell an 11 from a 12?
I work In A tasting room in Sonoma and am always surprised at how many people make ask about and make wine purchasing decisions on the scores of Robert Parker. One mans opinion?
Yes, it is weird. He helped a lot of people finding good wines over the years though and I would rather have him or other respectable wine tasters influence consumers than some actor or singer, to be honest ... :)
Not just Parker, JS as well, here in Rheingau Germany the Rieslings that received top scores like Künstler Kirchenstück GG 2019 or Eva Frickes Krone 2019 all sell out in no time (mostly to China) 🤪
Not even one man anymore since RP is retired!
Coming from the coffee industry I find the diversity in wine scoring somewhat bizarre. In coffee scoring is done by qualified Q-graders who undergo frequent calibration and certification. A coffee Q score is given based on not only sensory qualities but uniformity across a harvest and physical defects. Scoring is often done by a committee and frequently unpublished as they are used for classifying coffee's eligibility for derivative markets and pricing for exporters. It does have an issue with score creep and struggles to deal with new experimental processing methods. That being said it is miles ahead of wine scoring, a Q grade of 88 can be articulated precisely eg "This coffee had zero taints or defects, was perfectly uniform across five cups and a panel of calibrated and qualified judges scored it an 8 for acidity a 7 for mouthfeel a 9 for aroma... ". Coffee has no James Suckling. Learning to score coffee relies upon passing a series of standardized tests such as identifying specific adulteration of types of acid. For me wine scores are just far to variable and subjective, a score is meaningful when it can be arithmetically articulated rather than vibes based or influenced by whichever vineyard puts enough cash in your pocket.
Astonishing thumnail XD
Thanks :)
Scores tend to be useless. Unless you find a critic that matches your tastes, then you can follow them and get an idea if you may or may not like a wine. If you score wines yourself, in Cellar Tracker for example, that is perfectly fine to keep track of your own tastes.
The issue is what you pointed out. Is a $15.00 bottle of Cotes de Bordeaux rated 97 points by Tasting Panel really a better/equal wine than a 97 point $1,000.00 bottle of Chateau Lafite-Rothschild rated by Robert Parker? I guess so, since they are the same score...right? Too much plays apart in wine ratings and they all should be taken with a grain of salt and not too seriously.
Yes, I need to get back on Cellar Tracker. Have not used it in a while.
Scores are interesting but it depends who was the Scorer. I remember the question I asked myself - how does 93 Points by Robert Parker taste? Would I like it? Would I agree that this is more than a very good wine? When you found out it helps to value you the wine for yourself - would I buy rather a 94 PP for about 60 Euro or would I buy the other one for 60 Euro that got only 92 PP … when There are wines offered with 99 Points by Luca Maroni that’s more than a warning and means for me - don’t buy this wine!!! 😆✌️
100 point wine scores are bad for the industry. You said it yourself, after Robert Parker introduced the 100 point system winemakers started altering their practices to receive a high score. You don’t think the homogenization of an entire industry based on one individual’s palette is a bad thing?
Lazyness to the bubbles for ever!
Lol
I wouldn’t trust her reviews on Lambrusco as it seems she doesn’t understand what fizzante means.
not only is wine scoring slightly unreliable but it could make or break a whole company. without the reviewer/ wine critic holding any responsibly for potentially destroying someone's business.
I guess one of the main problems with the 100 point system is that it gives certain wines higher points over others. Is it possible for a rosé to get a 100 point rating? I'd say it's arguable that the answer is no - but it can be far more drinkable and delicious than super high scoring wines. So what's better: high scores or enjoyment? The 100 point system is a useful too - of course particularly for marketing wine - but it's definitely not perfect
You are right - it is definately not perfect. But, yes, I think a Rosé should be able to score 95+ points.
Scores given by wine critics have very little to no credibility if the wines are not tasted blind (wich in most cases they’re not).
Same as in medicine when there’s a study on a treatment it has to be blind or double blind in order for it to have a certain level of evidence.
Yes, it is not always possible to taste wines blind because of logistics but it makes the score far more objective.
As my budget is limited, I use scores to help me choose the more expensive wines I may buy: I won't buy an expensive wine with a low score. For the cheaper wines, I don't care about the score.
Makes sense
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine Why ?
I don’t use scores.
You dont have to!
But I love Le Pin
Seems to me that people almost start at 90 as a bad/average wine.
Also, Luca Maroni from Italy... Gives 98 and 99 everyday of the week. Complete farce
They are k but I really do not pay attention to them
100 points is worthless.
Under 85 almost always is rubbish. Why have it? Early on it was fun to read the 60 rated wines in WS, but they don't do that anymore.
87 - 93 user dependent good quality
Over 95 - probably high quality winemaking you may or may not like.
100 - meaningless. Parker's 100 (especially Napa can be under 93 for me.
Everyone's numbers are quite different. To me there are only three scores 1 - I will drink it. 2 - I won't drink it. 3 - I'll drink it but someone else is paying.
Scores are irrelevant, I have a mind and palette; I will decide if I like a wine !
I agree that scores are a guide but do not give all the information.
I also think that James Suckling's scores are done by AI now.
Really hate the "100 point scale" since it's really a 50 point scale. So nonsensical.
Scores mean nothing its just a number from some guy, i prefer a description which is unfortunately often just bullshit....when it comes to scores i just use soul points:-)
Soul points are points too ;)
@@KonstantinBaumMasterofWine yes they are but from the bottom of my soul:-)
subjective and abused
Is this your opinion on Scores? They sometimes are...