I've tried 2 different 100 JS wines and I believe they should'nt been rated that high, he definetly scores some wines too high. The cellartracker is more useful to me since I'm not a pro taster, just like a regular cellartracker user.
As indicated earlier on another comment, the integer Parker system has many shortfalls, using an integer linear approach to a non-linear reality with price correlation to value does not and can not work. Also, after just a few comparisons, say 5 bottles with a blind taste all at mid level, you get one or more ties instantly. By approaching tasting with a more objective, systematic method combining specific vocabulary and notes with radio buttons that have the integers by wine attribute, using the math on the backside, the ouput can be to any precision usually the hundredths place which prevents any ties unless you are at the L.A. week(s) long competition, then just change precision in software to ten thousandths place. The online wine attributes sensory model, also requires your input of what the score will be based on your rating [actually made up of all of the wine attributes evaluation] then provides what the wine is worth to the penny based on actual quality in the QVR calculation
First things first: I'm a subscriber now 😉 I agree with you. Scores are a nice orientation when someone does not know too much about wine. What I dislike is that the 100p scale is not a 0-100p scale as many might assume but a 60(?)-100 scale. In my opinion that somehow is watering the whole logic behind a scoring system. There are so many platforms that use the 100p system but differ in the categorizations which makes it even less comparable (for example: an outstanding wine has 95-98 points. While another scale starts with 93p for that category). People like James Suckling or Robert Parker (and so on...) and their teams may have great experience in tasting as they make dégustations with hundreds or even thousands of wines each year. So they are more objective than the average consumer. But they are not 100% objective nor are they being spared from cognitive dissonances as they still are humans. Especially if they may have a very personal interest in giving good scores... That is one reason I don't understand why every tasting is not done blindly?! Criteria: How can a 8$ bottle get 95 points as well as a widely known (for the good quality) wine for 25$? Do scorers take price levels into consideration? Do they say: this wine is great for its price level? I dislike the lack of transparency and criteria in general. The consumer just sees a high score while no-one really knows what it means. Does a 86p wine taste bad while the 94p tastes way better? Even though both wines are not even comparable concerning grape varieties and so on? But: how to spot a good quality wine as an average consumer? Hard to say... Maybe just try, try try to taste taste taste 😉
Welcome to the channel! Scores are so tough and yes they are subjective. I believe Wine Spectator is only one that tastes all wines blind, although I believe there are times when blind tasting isn't the best option. I am working on a few videos for the average consumer to get quality wines for lower prices... but yes in general you have to taste, taste, taste.
@@drmatthewhorkey thanks for your reply! In the Q/A on Konstantin Baum's channel I asked how to taste quality in wines. Maybe that's a thing for your channel too...
Well said it seems like anything below 90pts is a bad wine? Actually I like 89pts because it means greater availability and less pressure to raise the price I am referring to wines that are to be drunk and not trophy wines
Vivino is what I use. Although I do feel like the ranking system has promoted the proliferation of comment spamming and reviewing the same wine every week just to keep your volume up. However, I have made some lifelong friends on Vivino and have been able to enjoy wines that I would not have been able to acquire on my own. Scores can be important and helpful. But once you understand the nuance of wine and the number of variables affecting your perception of wine you come to rely less on a number and more on, as you said a sort of alignment in taste with someone you trust. Good content Doc.
@@drmatthewhorkey All my best friends I have met through the love of wine. I have a lot less money because of wine as well. 🤣 Oh well, rich in relationships.
I use Vivino as well. But you seem to use it as social media while I only use it as my wine cellar and personal list of ratings (apart from one friend of mine with whom I talk wine anyways). While it makes sense to me to follow people with a similar taste, the scores of wines are seldomly a good tipp to buy a wine for me. For too many people the criteria for scoring seems to be a plain "I liked it" which is OK. But it does not do the wines justice IMO as many don't have the experience of really analyzing the wines. Therefore Vivino scores are basically an assumption of the tastes of amateurs just like me. BUT: on the other hand if a wine has several thousands of good scorings it might be a wine that tastes good to a whole bunch of people. That's why I tend to have a look on the number of ratings first. @Beaune Head: wow, you really have a lot of followers and seem to be pretty active on Vivino.
Excellent excellent content here! 1)Tasting notes on the bottle, sometimes I have wondered if the writer actually tasted the product?! 2) Scores, they are a very helpful guide & yes, some published “Wine Scorer’s” are very over inflated and I learned to disregard those particular people completely. Such an enjoyable video, please keep it up!
Cheers :) another great video - efficient and to the point... I mostly use Vivino when I have the time, I tried Delectable but I felt it was more label drinkers or wine geeks there... I enjoy Vivino as it is mostly casual consumers and it helps a lot get direct insights, and see how people talk simply about wine even if sometimes they don't use "correct"words but they use their words :) - taste wise I know we are on the same line bro
Very interesting, thank you. I so far only trusted Parker. I once lived near Gigondas and know the wines of Chateauneuf du Pape nearby very well, and as I know he likes these wines too, his ratings cannot be far from my taste. But now I would also trust scores made by Konstantin, who’s channel I follow. I certainly will explore the website that you mentioned, and subscribed to your channel. Thank you an keep up the good work.
Interesting video! I spend a lot of time reading wine reviews for work and am familiar with many of the benefits and controversies surrounding them. For reference, here’s a breakdown of Jancis Robinson’s 20-point scoring system that gives more insight: 20 - Truly exceptional 19 - A humdinger 18 - A cut above superior 17 - Superior 16 - Distinguished 15 - Average, a perfectly nice drink with no faults but not much excitement 14 - Deadly dull 13 - Borderline faulty or unbalanced 12 - Faulty or unbalanced I’ve come across many 15 to 16.5 ratings on her website, but 17s and up are far more rare, so they certainly grab my attention. Another bonus to subscribing is included access to a digital Oxford Companion to Wine.
Nice where do you work??? Yes, I’ve seen her scoring guide but it still doesn’t match up to the wines she scores IMO. I do think that the 20 point system allows for ambiguity… Not that the 100 point scale is perfect either
Hi matthew. Just came across this video after watching your Coravin videos (yes, the rant too 😂). Re the 1855 classification. It is my understanding that they used price as they assumed this hed evolved naturally to reflect the underlying quality of the wines… I generally only look at ratings when i’m buying Bordeaux primeurs. And then i mainly use them too judge price/value. Especially following rating trends over the years from the same critic for the same wine and cross referencing this with the general opinion of a vintage etc helps me build a view if I will buy the wine or not given the release price. I use ratings next to the tasting notes, where available, as a good rating will tell if a wine is good, but won’t tell me if i will actually like it. Based on discussions with my distributor I focus mostly on Jane Anson’s scores as she seems to have a taste that most resembles my own. That in general represents how I buy most wines: discussing with a retailer/distributor I trust about my taste and preferences and following their recommendations (which then leads to further discussions and further honing of what to buy)
The best judge whether a wine is good or bad is our own palate and experience. I had some wines that were rated 94-96 pts and in the I don't like it, and ended up in the drain. It really boils down to personal preference.
@@drmatthewhorkey I agree with the palate and experience comment. The great thing about WASM (mentioned above) is that you use your own palate to identify the wines attributes to build up your own scores. The model creates a score and a dollar value for the wine with some verry cool math. I just wish it was more widely used. Wouldn't it be great if you see the ratings a wine had achieved before you make the buy decision?
@ianmcpherson2672 well, time to discover new bottles 😁. Recently, I had a few 2016 Sauternes just to see if it is worth a purchase. Critics gave that year 91 pts, but I had a few different producers, and I was disappointed. It's not the producer, but rather the vintage was disappointing. Smell was decent but lacks structure and acidity. Whether we let someone try it, or us paying to try it depends on the person ( excluding those that cost a kidney)
I agree that overall scores do make sense. Of course the best way to assess whether you like a wine is to taste it yourself, but that's the problem. Wine can be a bit pricey so ideally I would like to know the quality before I buy it, so I can avoid expensive disappointments. I also agree that tasting notes can be a bit wishy washy, saying that a wine has "good fruit" is like saying that someone is a "fast runner". Someone can sprint 100m in 10.5 seconds, which is very impressive for the average person, or he can be an Olympic athlete who can do it in under 10 seconds, scores try to capture that difference. Of course if we are splitting hairs, instead of saying "good fruit" we could use other descriptors like "very good", "excellent" or "outstanding" but at that point we are just creating another scale, just with words instead of numbers.
Another great video. Can't wait for your next reacts episode. Maybe next time one I'm not following yet 😜. To come back to the ratings. One problem I see, especially for the non-wine geeks, is that a score doesn't tell you will actually like the wine. Once you know your taste it's fine, but a lot of consumers might just follow the score and get disappointed if it's not their taste. Concerning vivino: big fan , great app, scores are really good. One thing I noticed is that you have to take price and where it's sold in combination with the score. I've seen 6€ supermarket wines get a score of about 4.3. Good wines, but not great. At least if you have not tasted similar wines (e.g. Same grape and region ) in a higher price range. I do understand that when you're not looking for complexity, you can give a higher score. However two 4.3 score wines are not necessarily equally good.
thanks for those thoughts. What is your handle? I will follow you on Vivino. Yes the scores are a little weird for the cheap wines, however I find that higher-quality/fine wines are rated properly because it's only hardcore drinkers that would be tasting them anyways.
@@drmatthewhorkey search for "Nick De Wachter" on vivino. You'll find 2 results, I'm the one with the private profile. And you're absolutely right. I guess every wine fits in a certain consumer category, and within that category the scores are correct. I've actually seen a study some years ago that proved the correlation between vivino scores and the wine critics scores
Wow, agree with you and Constantine. A good guide, but approximate and variable so I discount whether I prefer 95 to 93. 70s vs 80s vs 90s I pay attention, but not to lesser differences. And my tastes are distinct, I prefer the very ripe CA wines to the more layered, musty Old World wines. Tough to score, but what else are you going to use.
Scores are useful once you know how the reviewer generally rates wines. If you´ve tasted a number of wines that Suckling rated 92 you have a good understanding of where the quality is going to be. The same applies for other reviewers. Understanding the palate of the reviewer is also really helpful as it helps to understand where that person finds quality. What I find less helpful is an average score on wine searcher.
Thanks for linking this to me Matt. I still think the 100 point wine system isn't really fit for purpose. It's really a 25 point system because anything below 75 points is toilet cleaner. So, we go from toilet cleaner to 95 points. As I previously pointed out with whisky, every point over 90 is a mountain to climb. 95 points to 100 is magnificence in whisky. I repeat - Magnificence and exceptionally rare. I enjoy the hundred point system because it's a bit of fun but when an influencer like Robert Parker employs it it's really serious. I should point out that Parker (or his team) routinely rate Spanish wines between $10-40 euros as high as 94 points. Strong flavours equal points and subtlety nowhere to be seen. Any French wine scoring 94 points is likely to command a price of £200 and more. The hundred point scale has become a thing because of Parker but when you think of it a 20 point scale would really represent the world of wine we inhabit. Maybe Jancis is right. Besides, how are we to trust the opinion of a reviewer that gets sent free wine from a producer? Sorry Matt but they do it with that in mind. Glad you blind taste them. What I've really come to appreciate is the opinions of great wine retailers. Independent wine retailers are doing their best to source great value wines as well as classics. There's no score but great descriptors. I also agree with going back to previous reviews and scores. They really can change.
It is more like a 10 point scales these days (90-100). I agree with your opinion on local retailers... They get to know YOUR palate and can find recommendations accordingly. This is the most valuable tool to a consumer.
While the first growths were originally classified on price, the quality of those wines was probably the main determinant of their high prices to begin with. If no rating system exists and a handful of chateaus are priced way above the rest, clearly there’s a reason why that is the case.
It is facinating to see that the inflation of scores follow the inflation of prices. In the Bordeaux book published in 1991 by Robert Parker it's hard to find a 95 pts, for exemple Latour 1989 (89pts) Latour 1988 (88pts) Latour 1986 (91pts) Margaux 1988 (88pts anticipated maturity 2000-2015). Petrus 1986 (88pts) Petrus 1982 (98pts). Wine Spectator (James Suckling published the top Bordeaux Châteaux in 1994 with the average score of the top 50 from 1981 to 1990. In the 15th place it was Clerc-Milon, Cos d'Estournel and Pichon Baron with 92 pts average. Ausone 90,2 !
As a beginner, the only way I use scores is usually compared to the price of the wine. This is how I make sure I get good value for the money I spend on wine.
The underlying flaw with the 100 pt system is that anything below is 85 gets ignored. So it’s a 15 pt scale in reality. I find wine searcher with an AGGREGATE score the most informative as it rounds out high and low scorers.
Besides what was mentioned in both your videos, a big factor in the differences in scores is each critic has a different rubric. That means they have different criteria and different weighting of points for each criteria. Some of their criteria is also vague and highly subjective. For example, Parker used to give up to 10 points for ageability. Suckling gives a vague 35 points for overall impression. Some critics don't use a rubric or at least don't make it public. Of course, critics share a lot of the same criteria but the weighting is different. For example, how many points should I give for color? Personally, it's the least important thing for me. Are the critics projecting or rating the quality of the wine at that moment? It's great that they have a lot of experience drinking the same wine, but they probably give a lot of the "top" wines the benefit of the doubt having tasted their wines before. Some include QPR (Quality Price Ratio). Some care about how it compares to its type, vintage, region, etc. rather than how it compares to all wines they taste. As a teacher, I always use a rubric because it's more important than the overall score. A student can see where their strengths and weaknesses are. Similarly with wine, I think a better way to understand a wine is to have scales for each criteria. Therefore, if I don't care about color, I can ignore the extra points given for that. If I'm buying a wine to drink now, then ageability points wouldn't be as important. Some wine shop websites also give indicators on the style of the wine based on categories like acidity, oak, tannins, fruit, etc. to help you know if you want to purchase a wine. For example, if I prefer wines with higher acidity, then I can see that on the scale even though that's still somewhat subjective. Bottom line, I agree that scores are still useful as a general indicator of quality but they have to be taken with a grain of salt.
That is REALLY well said (or typed). I would like to see people move tto simplified stuff like (for acid junkies, tannin lovers, or easy to drink young). Thanks for bringing up some great points.
@Alvaro Sebastian, from my experience, wine scores from critics can be very useful if you've tried several wines that a particular critic has rated and you find that your palate agrees with that critic's scoring. My palate more often than not agrees with James Suckling's when he is rating wine's from Argentina, Italy, and France. So I feel confident with his scores from those regions. I am more partial to Tim Atkin's Scoring of South African wines, and Janice Robinson's scoring for New Zealand wines. I would say try some highly scored wines from a critic that interests you and start from there. Once you Identify a critic's palate that is similar to yours, it makes narrowing down wine much easier when you explore. Best regards.
Something I’d love to see is how wines compare with same scores but different price points…for instance 90 point wines but priced at $120/75/45/26. They’re all 90 points but would they still be 90 points in that comparison 🤔
It's tough because critics often claim that wines are scored within context of a specific region or variety, not overall quality... Which again makes it a tough argument
I'm a year late on this. Of course I have an opinion. I stopped giving scores many, many years ago. I found that I rarely gave a wine over 90 points and most wines scored 84-89. I did have some really bad wines and a handful of wines that were above 90. I think the highest score I gave was 93. Are scores useful? Yes. But I equate this to movie critics. Many critics have preferences. Some really like action movies, whereas others really don't like them. Same for any other genre. Oftentimes they only focus on certain qualities of a movie and discount others. Wine critics do the same many times. I'll say that Spectator doing theirs blind is the best way to do it. I can't remember if they do it competition style where they are given some information so that they can rate the wine within that category. I don't know what other critics do. Most of us TH-camrs don't do it blind. For me, I'm looking for typicity in a wine. If it follows the expected style, then cool. If not, then what's going on? Maybe the winemaker is blazing a new trail, or maybe the winemaker made mistakes. In addition I'm giving descriptors and making references that hopefully make sense to the viewer. I usually take about food pairings. And I comment of the quality of the winemaking and also how it fits in the category. And who is the wine for. Essentially I do the equivalent of thumbs up or down with reasons why. I think Vivino is a good thing. It's Wisdom of Crowds vs. one person's opinion. And while the "crowd" may be wrong in your opinion, at least you're getting what the averaged person thinks and not some snob. The negative with it is people's reliance on it and won't listen to wine professional when they are present or ignore them. There's more, but these are the highlights for me.
You’re a tough critic!!! Your analogy to movie critics is spot on. I do like seeing the varying opinions on wine and like you, I’m a fan of vivino too. What I like seeing the most is how irritated some wine people can get about it hahahaha
N my experience as a Majestic Wines former employee..the best is...go to many wine tastings you can and talk with store assistants . They will know a lot about wine scores and tastings sometimes better than the judges of this wine awards…but there are always exceptions
@@drmatthewhorkey yeah,at Majestic wines all the employees have at least minimum the WSET level2 plus all the webinars and extra training. You will have some good advices
I find WS scores are more aligned with my taste. Decanter scores are inflated. For JS, I usually subtract 2 points from his Bordeaux scores, but add 2 points to his Napa Valley scores to come to my own verdict. I start to like Vivino where ratings reflect average, amateur palates like mine.
As depicted on your price graph you have shown on numerous videos, wine, when correlated to quality and price, scoring and prices starts out linear, but becomes non-linear at the 90 points/ $25 price range; hence, the issue is you can not use an integer scale. That is the dilemma. The Parker integer system is too simplistic, as discussed, and can't be used for the non-linear price quality reality. Moreover, if you are tasting mid range wines [$25-$50] , all of them should fall in the 90-92 range, so after just three wines, there will be a tie. By using a combination of not just notes nor integers but a systematic wine attribute system with vocabulary correlation to score, one can use a systematic approach by wine attribute with vocabulary and radio buttons for each attribute to gain more accuracy and precision, so instead of a 90, you can have a 90.XY with the math that is derived from the attributes and radio buttons, noting with vocabulary and numerous radio buttons [non linear Likert scale] for each wine attribute, the chances of a tie are very rare and the price correlation to the scores remains non linear going from 93 upwards. Another aspect about the online wine attributes sensory model, is it asks for what you think the wine is going to be to the hundredths place before you submit the results of your attributes scores, so for each tasting you get not only an idea of what wines you like, but why you like them [attributes driving the score] and you find out what the wine is worth to you to the penny based on your particular evaluation, notes and the output of the model score and price based on your input evaluation. Obviously, this would be for more "serious" tasters that want more precision and accuracy and want to know definitively what wine they like better and why and then what the price is worth to them to the penny.
@@drmatthewhorkey Indeed it is, Dr Matthew! I have been using the aforementioned Wine Attributes Sensory Model (WASM) for some months now. Originally, I used the model solely for wines bought from Naked Wines (NW)but I'm also now including wines from Total Wine, Costco and Trader Joe. The accuracy of the model is quite staggering. I was interested to compare the WASM results with the Market Price claimed by NW. The quality and value results are the most interesting and enlightening. For anyone seeking to expand their understanding of wine quality and $value this model is highly recommended. No more judging bias or BS scores, what's not to like?
What would be the counter argument to scoring wine with more than one number? Why not in addition to the overall score give a level rating from 1 to 10 for example for acidity, tannin level, fruitiness, oak influence etc. Filling out a standardized scoring sheet like that wouldn’t take that long and it would give a much better picture of the wine than a single quality score plus a couple free form notes.
Problems with single number scores. First, smell and taste are subjective. That is why there is no or very low consensus even among wine experts (RP=98, KB=91, JS=88). The second problem is that wine is too complex to be scored with a number e.g. 92. The third problem is that we like different aspects of wine; some like sweet wines others wine with full body or with a lot of tannins. What is needed is a method to describe wines unbiased and objective. Such a method is AI-Winetaster developed by a Swedish company. It uses chemical analyses as input and predicts aromas and sensory experiences such as fullness, fruitiness, sweetness, and astringency. It can also estimate shelf-life. What you get is a neutral profile of wine to compare with your taste preferences. The method based on artificial intelligence is now being introduced by Expert Products Sweden AB.
I liked her book on Georgia (because I knew most of the main characters). I didn’t read her book on Parkerization. She has a certain point of view but I don’t always agree.
When was the last time you reviewed a meal or a movie or a holiday as a 91 (good?), 98 (once in a lifetime) or 81 (ok but just 2 point above the dreaded 80 point limit because we all know a 79 is a nightmare). Nothing beats a well described wine from someone who avoids nonsense words like elegant ?? (I was instructed I would get a slap if I ever used this word in a past wine course.!!). The wset section on assessing the quality level of wine comes closest to coming to a conclusion to the quality of a wine without a score: faulty, poor , acceptable, good, very good and outstanding. Thats it . Don't complicate it. The more wine you taste the easier it is to place a wine into one of the these classes.
This is a very controversial and subjective topic, as scores are based on an individual's frame of reference and experience. Also one has to understand scores within a price range. A 90+ wine in the 20-30 U.S$/€ range will taste completely different to a 90+ wine in the 50-100$/€ range. An argument can be made that the 100 point system is really a 20-30 point system. As it's very rare for a wine to be scored lower than 75-80. As to wine critics I agree that some critics give overly high scores, Suckling especially. Recently I have been following Falstaff and also Guia Pena and Luca Maroni for a different perspective.
I've read an interesting interview with Heiner Lobenberg, one (the biggest with 40M€ annual revenue?) wine merchant in Germany this week. He tastes and rates all wines from his catalogue and is known for his high scores. I never buy anything from his shop below 93pts and always check for a second opinion because he rates that high. But he said something very interesting in that interview. He said, just as Konstantin did in his video, that wines are getting better and better every year. He says, if you compare the Mouton Rothschild from the 80, which was rated 100 by Parker, with the 2020 Mouton, you have to give higher points. Therefore he gives 100+. His idea for a perfect system is an open 100-points-scale, in which the 2020 Mouton would have get 103 from him. What do you think about this?
Thanks for the thoughts. First it makes sense for Heiner to be a high scorer if he is using the scores to sell his wine. Second yes wine is improving a lot and overall is leaps and bounds better than the 80s and even 90s! Third, I don’t know what to think about the open scale. If things go over 100 where will the limit be?? How much better is 115 pt wine than 103 pt wine?
I think the open scale makes sense in theory but I think it would be even harder to understand for the average consumer than what we have now. For this scale to work you need a reference point, if everyone knew what the 1980 Mouton tasted like, then it would work but most people will never experience that. I find it easier to calibrate with the current system. 75 points is the average wine that is available from current vintages and you can get a feel for what the average is by just buying fairly inexpensive wines from a local wine shop or even supermarkets, from there I find it easier to extrapolate to a current 80 or 90 point wine. I think it makes more sense for the scale to be adapted to current times, anyone who wants to buy a 1980 Mouton will probably have enough wine knowledge to extrapolate back, or they might even buy it more on a personal recommendation from friends or experts rather than a score.
I generally trust Parker for Bordeaux but he has been wrong before(see Pichon Lalande 1989). I do not agree with his tasting of Australian, "parkerised" wines! I used to like Suckling when he was still in Wine Spectator, his tastes seem closest to mine. Lately, however, I tend to discount his scores by 2 points as well.
How many fine wines you have a score points in the bottle...???? I've worked for Majestic Wines UK and I've sell so dam good fine wines that never been scored ...and cost more than 50 pounds per bottle...
If I buy wines to drink I only trust my senses, if I buy them as an investment I follow Galloni and Suckling scores. I don't think they can be useful for anything else. Parker conditioned 30 years of making wine, obtaining the result of finding on the market only fruit driven wines full of wood and alcohol, fortunately for some years things have been changing.
Why not 0 to 10 scale and that's it...??? No one drinks wine less than 50 points...so, why robert parker scale is so dam important if he never learned nothing about wines when he started to score them...???? Just tasting them ...and because he was a lawyer he knows how to write a statement to convince people around the world about what he is scoring...???
What do you think about wine scores? Do you use them to make buying decisions?
I've tried 2 different 100 JS wines and I believe they should'nt been rated that high, he definetly scores some wines too high. The cellartracker is more useful to me since I'm not a pro taster, just like a regular cellartracker user.
As indicated earlier on another comment, the integer Parker system has many shortfalls, using an integer linear approach to a non-linear reality with price correlation to value does not and can not work. Also, after just a few comparisons, say 5 bottles with a blind taste all at mid level, you get one or more ties instantly. By approaching tasting with a more objective, systematic method combining specific vocabulary and notes with radio buttons that have the integers by wine attribute, using the math on the backside, the ouput can be to any precision usually the hundredths place which prevents any ties unless you are at the L.A. week(s) long competition, then just change precision in software to ten thousandths place. The online wine attributes sensory model, also requires your input of what the score will be based on your rating [actually made up of all of the wine attributes evaluation] then provides what the wine is worth to the penny based on actual quality in the QVR calculation
Great video Matthew!
Thanks for stopping by! Looks like your channel is taking off
Oh what, Konstantin being reacted to. Word.
@@drmatthewhorkey yes, I had quite a lot of growth recently
Congrats
First things first: I'm a subscriber now 😉
I agree with you. Scores are a nice orientation when someone does not know too much about wine.
What I dislike is that the 100p scale is not a 0-100p scale as many might assume but a 60(?)-100 scale. In my opinion that somehow is watering the whole logic behind a scoring system.
There are so many platforms that use the 100p system but differ in the categorizations which makes it even less comparable (for example: an outstanding wine has 95-98 points. While another scale starts with 93p for that category).
People like James Suckling or Robert Parker (and so on...) and their teams may have great experience in tasting as they make dégustations with hundreds or even thousands of wines each year. So they are more objective than the average consumer. But they are not 100% objective nor are they being spared from cognitive dissonances as they still are humans. Especially if they may have a very personal interest in giving good scores... That is one reason I don't understand why every tasting is not done blindly?!
Criteria: How can a 8$ bottle get 95 points as well as a widely known (for the good quality) wine for 25$?
Do scorers take price levels into consideration? Do they say: this wine is great for its price level?
I dislike the lack of transparency and criteria in general. The consumer just sees a high score while no-one really knows what it means.
Does a 86p wine taste bad while the 94p tastes way better? Even though both wines are not even comparable concerning grape varieties and so on?
But: how to spot a good quality wine as an average consumer? Hard to say... Maybe just try, try try to taste taste taste 😉
Welcome to the channel! Scores are so tough and yes they are subjective. I believe Wine Spectator is only one that tastes all wines blind, although I believe there are times when blind tasting isn't the best option. I am working on a few videos for the average consumer to get quality wines for lower prices... but yes in general you have to taste, taste, taste.
@@drmatthewhorkey thanks for your reply!
In the Q/A on Konstantin Baum's channel I asked how to taste quality in wines. Maybe that's a thing for your channel too...
I have a video coming up about that! Thanks a lot
Well said it seems like anything below 90pts is a bad wine? Actually I like 89pts because it means greater availability and less pressure to raise the price I am referring to wines that are to be drunk and not trophy wines
Vivino is what I use. Although I do feel like the ranking system has promoted the proliferation of comment spamming and reviewing the same wine every week just to keep your volume up. However, I have made some lifelong friends on Vivino and have been able to enjoy wines that I would not have been able to acquire on my own. Scores can be important and helpful. But once you understand the nuance of wine and the number of variables affecting your perception of wine you come to rely less on a number and more on, as you said a sort of alignment in taste with someone you trust. Good content Doc.
Thank you! What’s your account? Ill follow you
@@drmatthewhorkey Right on. @Beaune Head.
Great name. I’ve met a lot of wonderful people through Vivino as well!
@@drmatthewhorkey All my best friends I have met through the love of wine. I have a lot less money because of wine as well. 🤣 Oh well, rich in relationships.
I use Vivino as well. But you seem to use it as social media while I only use it as my wine cellar and personal list of ratings (apart from one friend of mine with whom I talk wine anyways).
While it makes sense to me to follow people with a similar taste, the scores of wines are seldomly a good tipp to buy a wine for me. For too many people the criteria for scoring seems to be a plain "I liked it" which is OK. But it does not do the wines justice IMO as many don't have the experience of really analyzing the wines. Therefore Vivino scores are basically an assumption of the tastes of amateurs just like me.
BUT: on the other hand if a wine has several thousands of good scorings it might be a wine that tastes good to a whole bunch of people.
That's why I tend to have a look on the number of ratings first.
@Beaune Head: wow, you really have a lot of followers and seem to be pretty active on Vivino.
Excellent excellent content here! 1)Tasting notes on the bottle, sometimes I have wondered if the writer actually tasted the product?! 2) Scores, they are a very helpful guide & yes, some published “Wine Scorer’s” are very over inflated and I learned to disregard those particular people completely. Such an enjoyable video, please keep it up!
Ahhh thanks and glad you enjoyed it
0:39 Your channel is one of those very few good wine channels. Thank you for the video.
🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Cheers :) another great video - efficient and to the point... I mostly use Vivino when I have the time, I tried Delectable but I felt it was more label drinkers or wine geeks there... I enjoy Vivino as it is mostly casual consumers and it helps a lot get direct insights, and see how people talk simply about wine even if sometimes they don't use "correct"words but they use their words :) - taste wise I know we are on the same line bro
That we are. I appreciate your insights as always. I never got into Delectable because it was too much to manage with vivino too.
Very interesting, thank you. I so far only trusted Parker. I once lived near Gigondas and know the wines of Chateauneuf du Pape nearby very well, and as I know he likes these wines too, his ratings cannot be far from my taste. But now I would also trust scores made by Konstantin, who’s channel I follow. I certainly will explore the website that you mentioned, and subscribed to your channel. Thank you an keep up the good work.
You lived near Gigondas? Sooo cool. Thanks for the sub and see you around this channel (and Konstantin’s).
Interesting video! I spend a lot of time reading wine reviews for work and am familiar with many of the benefits and controversies surrounding them.
For reference, here’s a breakdown of Jancis Robinson’s 20-point scoring system that gives more insight:
20 - Truly exceptional
19 - A humdinger
18 - A cut above superior
17 - Superior
16 - Distinguished
15 - Average, a perfectly nice drink with no faults but not much excitement
14 - Deadly dull
13 - Borderline faulty or unbalanced
12 - Faulty or unbalanced
I’ve come across many 15 to 16.5 ratings on her website, but 17s and up are far more rare, so they certainly grab my attention. Another bonus to subscribing is included access to a digital Oxford Companion to Wine.
Nice where do you work??? Yes, I’ve seen her scoring guide but it still doesn’t match up to the wines she scores IMO.
I do think that the 20 point system allows for ambiguity… Not that the 100 point scale is perfect either
@@drmatthewhorkey agree, 100 seems more intuitive. 20 is strange because then you get into fractions lol. 16.5 /20 is not as intuitive as a say 86/100
Watching this 2 years later! Very interesting video, thanks for posting :)
Thank you for watching!
Hi matthew. Just came across this video after watching your Coravin videos (yes, the rant too 😂).
Re the 1855 classification. It is my understanding that they used price as they assumed this hed evolved naturally to reflect the underlying quality of the wines…
I generally only look at ratings when i’m buying Bordeaux primeurs. And then i mainly use them too judge price/value. Especially following rating trends over the years from the same critic for the same wine and cross referencing this with the general opinion of a vintage etc helps me build a view if I will buy the wine or not given the release price.
I use ratings next to the tasting notes, where available, as a good rating will tell if a wine is good, but won’t tell me if i will actually like it. Based on discussions with my distributor I focus mostly on Jane Anson’s scores as she seems to have a taste that most resembles my own.
That in general represents how I buy most wines: discussing with a retailer/distributor I trust about my taste and preferences and following their recommendations (which then leads to further discussions and further honing of what to buy)
Ahhh that’s a very good way to use scores IMO. You take them into account but not as gospel and you’ve found a critic that you align with.
The best judge whether a wine is good or bad is our own palate and experience. I had some wines that were rated 94-96 pts and in the I don't like it, and ended up in the drain. It really boils down to personal preference.
You are 💯right
@@drmatthewhorkey I agree with the palate and experience comment. The great thing about WASM (mentioned above) is that you use your own palate to identify the wines attributes to build up your own scores. The model creates a score and a dollar value for the wine with some verry cool math. I just wish it was more widely used. Wouldn't it be great if you see the ratings a wine had achieved before you make the buy decision?
@ianmcpherson2672 well, time to discover new bottles 😁. Recently, I had a few 2016 Sauternes just to see if it is worth a purchase. Critics gave that year 91 pts, but I had a few different producers, and I was disappointed. It's not the producer, but rather the vintage was disappointing. Smell was decent but lacks structure and acidity. Whether we let someone try it, or us paying to try it depends on the person ( excluding those that cost a kidney)
I agree that overall scores do make sense. Of course the best way to assess whether you like a wine is to taste it yourself, but that's the problem. Wine can be a bit pricey so ideally I would like to know the quality before I buy it, so I can avoid expensive disappointments.
I also agree that tasting notes can be a bit wishy washy, saying that a wine has "good fruit" is like saying that someone is a "fast runner". Someone can sprint 100m in 10.5 seconds, which is very impressive for the average person, or he can be an Olympic athlete who can do it in under 10 seconds, scores try to capture that difference.
Of course if we are splitting hairs, instead of saying "good fruit" we could use other descriptors like "very good", "excellent" or "outstanding" but at that point we are just creating another scale, just with words instead of numbers.
Wow for just getting into wine, you sure know a lot!
@@drmatthewhorkey Haha, sometimes I think too much and taste too little.
Touché
Another great video. Can't wait for your next reacts episode. Maybe next time one I'm not following yet 😜.
To come back to the ratings. One problem I see, especially for the non-wine geeks, is that a score doesn't tell you will actually like the wine. Once you know your taste it's fine, but a lot of consumers might just follow the score and get disappointed if it's not their taste.
Concerning vivino: big fan , great app, scores are really good. One thing I noticed is that you have to take price and where it's sold in combination with the score. I've seen 6€ supermarket wines get a score of about 4.3. Good wines, but not great. At least if you have not tasted similar wines (e.g. Same grape and region ) in a higher price range. I do understand that when you're not looking for complexity, you can give a higher score. However two 4.3 score wines are not necessarily equally good.
thanks for those thoughts. What is your handle? I will follow you on Vivino. Yes the scores are a little weird for the cheap wines, however I find that higher-quality/fine wines are rated properly because it's only hardcore drinkers that would be tasting them anyways.
@@drmatthewhorkey search for "Nick De Wachter" on vivino. You'll find 2 results, I'm the one with the private profile.
And you're absolutely right. I guess every wine fits in a certain consumer category, and within that category the scores are correct. I've actually seen a study some years ago that proved the correlation between vivino scores and the wine critics scores
Wow, agree with you and Constantine. A good guide, but approximate and variable so I discount whether I prefer 95 to 93. 70s vs 80s vs 90s I pay attention, but not to lesser differences. And my tastes are distinct, I prefer the very ripe CA wines to the more layered, musty Old World wines. Tough to score, but what else are you going to use.
Ahhh well said!
Scores are useful once you know how the reviewer generally rates wines. If you´ve tasted a number of wines that Suckling rated 92 you have a good understanding of where the quality is going to be. The same applies for other reviewers. Understanding the palate of the reviewer is also really helpful as it helps to understand where that person finds quality. What I find less helpful is an average score on wine searcher.
I agree with you A LOT
Thanks for linking this to me Matt. I still think the 100 point wine system isn't really fit for purpose. It's really a 25 point system because anything below 75 points is toilet cleaner. So, we go from toilet cleaner to 95 points. As I previously pointed out with whisky, every point over 90 is a mountain to climb. 95 points to 100 is magnificence in whisky. I repeat - Magnificence and exceptionally rare.
I enjoy the hundred point system because it's a bit of fun but when an influencer like Robert Parker employs it it's really serious. I should point out that Parker (or his team) routinely rate Spanish wines between $10-40 euros as high as 94 points. Strong flavours equal points and subtlety nowhere to be seen. Any French wine scoring 94 points is likely to command a price of £200 and more. The hundred point scale has become a thing because of Parker but when you think of it a 20 point scale would really represent the world of wine we inhabit. Maybe Jancis is right. Besides, how are we to trust the opinion of a reviewer that gets sent free wine from a producer? Sorry Matt but they do it with that in mind. Glad you blind taste them.
What I've really come to appreciate is the opinions of great wine retailers. Independent wine retailers are doing their best to source great value wines as well as classics. There's no score but great descriptors. I also agree with going back to previous reviews and scores. They really can change.
It is more like a 10 point scales these days (90-100). I agree with your opinion on local retailers... They get to know YOUR palate and can find recommendations accordingly. This is the most valuable tool to a consumer.
While the first growths were originally classified on price, the quality of those wines was probably the main determinant of their high prices to begin with. If no rating system exists and a handful of chateaus are priced way above the rest, clearly there’s a reason why that is the case.
Agreed, with the exception of Haut Brion who back then pushed their prices as high as possible.
It is facinating to see that the inflation of scores follow the inflation of prices. In the Bordeaux book published in 1991 by Robert Parker it's hard to find a 95 pts, for exemple Latour 1989 (89pts) Latour 1988 (88pts) Latour 1986 (91pts) Margaux 1988 (88pts anticipated maturity 2000-2015). Petrus 1986 (88pts) Petrus 1982 (98pts). Wine Spectator (James Suckling published the top Bordeaux Châteaux in 1994 with the average score of the top 50 from 1981 to 1990. In the 15th place it was Clerc-Milon, Cos d'Estournel and Pichon Baron with 92 pts average. Ausone 90,2 !
Crazy right. When I am in old cellars and see cutouts from old magazines and 85 pt scores as a great score I think… wow times have changed
As a beginner, the only way I use scores is usually compared to the price of the wine. This is how I make sure I get good value for the money I spend on wine.
you mean, the highest score to lowest price?
@@drmatthewhorkey Ideally. Or in general, just to make sure I get a good quality product for the price I'm paying.
The underlying flaw with the 100 pt system is that anything below is 85 gets ignored. So it’s a 15 pt scale in reality.
I find wine searcher with an AGGREGATE score the most informative as it rounds out high and low scorers.
👏🏼👏🏼
Besides what was mentioned in both your videos, a big factor in the differences in scores is each critic has a different rubric. That means they have different criteria and different weighting of points for each criteria. Some of their criteria is also vague and highly subjective. For example, Parker used to give up to 10 points for ageability. Suckling gives a vague 35 points for overall impression. Some critics don't use a rubric or at least don't make it public. Of course, critics share a lot of the same criteria but the weighting is different. For example, how many points should I give for color? Personally, it's the least important thing for me. Are the critics projecting or rating the quality of the wine at that moment? It's great that they have a lot of experience drinking the same wine, but they probably give a lot of the "top" wines the benefit of the doubt having tasted their wines before. Some include QPR (Quality Price Ratio). Some care about how it compares to its type, vintage, region, etc. rather than how it compares to all wines they taste. As a teacher, I always use a rubric because it's more important than the overall score. A student can see where their strengths and weaknesses are. Similarly with wine, I think a better way to understand a wine is to have scales for each criteria. Therefore, if I don't care about color, I can ignore the extra points given for that. If I'm buying a wine to drink now, then ageability points wouldn't be as important. Some wine shop websites also give indicators on the style of the wine based on categories like acidity, oak, tannins, fruit, etc. to help you know if you want to purchase a wine. For example, if I prefer wines with higher acidity, then I can see that on the scale even though that's still somewhat subjective. Bottom line, I agree that scores are still useful as a general indicator of quality but they have to be taken with a grain of salt.
That is REALLY well said (or typed). I would like to see people move tto simplified stuff like (for acid junkies, tannin lovers, or easy to drink young). Thanks for bringing up some great points.
Hi! What do you think of Tim Atkin’s scores on wine?
Hi. I actually don’t follow his reports closely enough to give a good answer
@Alvaro Sebastian, from my experience, wine scores from critics can be very useful if you've tried several wines that a particular critic has rated and you find that your palate agrees with that critic's scoring. My palate more often than not agrees with James Suckling's when he is rating wine's from Argentina, Italy, and France. So I feel confident with his scores from those regions. I am more partial to Tim Atkin's Scoring of South African wines, and Janice Robinson's scoring for New Zealand wines. I would say try some highly scored wines from a critic that interests you and start from there. Once you Identify a critic's palate that is similar to yours, it makes narrowing down wine much easier when you explore. Best regards.
Something I’d love to see is how wines compare with same scores but different price points…for instance 90 point wines but priced at $120/75/45/26. They’re all 90 points but would they still be 90 points in that comparison 🤔
It's tough because critics often claim that wines are scored within context of a specific region or variety, not overall quality... Which again makes it a tough argument
I'm a year late on this. Of course I have an opinion. I stopped giving scores many, many years ago. I found that I rarely gave a wine over 90 points and most wines scored 84-89. I did have some really bad wines and a handful of wines that were above 90. I think the highest score I gave was 93.
Are scores useful? Yes. But I equate this to movie critics. Many critics have preferences. Some really like action movies, whereas others really don't like them. Same for any other genre. Oftentimes they only focus on certain qualities of a movie and discount others. Wine critics do the same many times. I'll say that Spectator doing theirs blind is the best way to do it. I can't remember if they do it competition style where they are given some information so that they can rate the wine within that category. I don't know what other critics do. Most of us TH-camrs don't do it blind.
For me, I'm looking for typicity in a wine. If it follows the expected style, then cool. If not, then what's going on? Maybe the winemaker is blazing a new trail, or maybe the winemaker made mistakes. In addition I'm giving descriptors and making references that hopefully make sense to the viewer. I usually take about food pairings. And I comment of the quality of the winemaking and also how it fits in the category. And who is the wine for. Essentially I do the equivalent of thumbs up or down with reasons why.
I think Vivino is a good thing. It's Wisdom of Crowds vs. one person's opinion. And while the "crowd" may be wrong in your opinion, at least you're getting what the averaged person thinks and not some snob. The negative with it is people's reliance on it and won't listen to wine professional when they are present or ignore them. There's more, but these are the highlights for me.
You’re a tough critic!!! Your analogy to movie critics is spot on. I do like seeing the varying opinions on wine and like you, I’m a fan of vivino too. What I like seeing the most is how irritated some wine people can get about it hahahaha
I'm using vivino to take notes because I haven't found a better alternative
Despite all the bugs I like it too
N my experience as a Majestic Wines former employee..the best is...go to many wine tastings you can and talk with store assistants .
They will know a lot about wine scores and tastings sometimes better than the judges of this wine awards…but there are always exceptions
Ahhhh nice tip about talking to store assistants and they are always willing to help
@@drmatthewhorkey yeah,at Majestic wines all the employees have at least minimum the WSET level2 plus all the webinars and extra training.
You will have some good advices
I find WS scores are more aligned with my taste. Decanter scores are inflated. For JS, I usually subtract 2 points from his Bordeaux scores, but add 2 points to his Napa Valley scores to come to my own verdict. I start to like Vivino where ratings reflect average, amateur palates like mine.
I do like Vivino too (the concept) the App can be pretty buggy
As depicted on your price graph you have shown on numerous videos, wine, when correlated to quality and price, scoring and prices starts out linear, but becomes non-linear at the 90 points/ $25 price range; hence, the issue is you can not use an integer scale. That is the dilemma. The Parker integer system is too simplistic, as discussed, and can't be used for the non-linear price quality reality. Moreover, if you are tasting mid range wines [$25-$50] , all of them should fall in the 90-92 range, so after just three wines, there will be a tie. By using a combination of not just notes nor integers but a systematic wine attribute system with vocabulary correlation to score, one can use a systematic approach by wine attribute with vocabulary and radio buttons for each attribute to gain more accuracy and precision, so instead of a 90, you can have a 90.XY with the math that is derived from the attributes and radio buttons, noting with vocabulary and numerous radio buttons [non linear Likert scale] for each wine attribute, the chances of a tie are very rare and the price correlation to the scores remains non linear going from 93 upwards. Another aspect about the online wine attributes sensory model, is it asks for what you think the wine is going to be to the hundredths place before you submit the results of your attributes scores, so for each tasting you get not only an idea of what wines you like, but why you like them [attributes driving the score] and you find out what the wine is worth to you to the penny based on your particular evaluation, notes and the output of the model score and price based on your input evaluation. Obviously, this would be for more "serious" tasters that want more precision and accuracy and want to know definitively what wine they like better and why and then what the price is worth to them to the penny.
Ohhh wow, well thought out take!
@@drmatthewhorkey Indeed it is, Dr Matthew! I have been using the aforementioned Wine Attributes Sensory Model (WASM) for some months now. Originally, I used the model solely for wines bought from Naked Wines (NW)but I'm also now including wines from Total Wine, Costco and Trader Joe. The accuracy of the model is quite staggering. I was interested to compare the WASM results with the Market Price claimed by NW. The quality and value results are the most interesting and enlightening. For anyone seeking to expand their understanding of wine quality and $value this model is highly recommended. No more judging bias or BS scores, what's not to like?
What would be the counter argument to scoring wine with more than one number? Why not in addition to the overall score give a level rating from 1 to 10 for example for acidity, tannin level, fruitiness, oak influence etc. Filling out a standardized scoring sheet like that wouldn’t take that long and it would give a much better picture of the wine than a single quality score plus a couple free form notes.
No counter argument at all. I do like the 1-10 scale too
Problems with single number scores. First, smell and taste are subjective. That is why there is no or very low consensus even among wine experts (RP=98, KB=91, JS=88). The second problem is that wine is too complex to be scored with a number e.g. 92. The third problem is that we like different aspects of wine; some like sweet wines others wine with full body or with a lot of tannins. What is needed is a method to describe wines unbiased and objective. Such a method is AI-Winetaster developed by a Swedish company. It uses chemical analyses as input and predicts aromas and sensory experiences such as fullness, fruitiness, sweetness, and astringency. It can also estimate shelf-life. What you get is a neutral profile of wine to compare with your taste preferences. The method based on artificial intelligence is now being introduced by Expert Products Sweden AB.
Wine is way too complex for just a score and our neurology is so complex. Company and situation play a big role too
What do you think of Alice Feiring’s writings on wine ?
I liked her book on Georgia (because I knew most of the main characters). I didn’t read her book on Parkerization. She has a certain point of view but I don’t always agree.
I'll be working at Decanter 2023 London 😊
Niceee, as a judge??
@@drmatthewhorkey noo,not yet but hopefully soon
When was the last time you reviewed a meal or a movie or a holiday as a 91 (good?), 98 (once in a lifetime) or 81 (ok but just 2 point above the dreaded 80 point limit because we all know a 79 is a nightmare). Nothing beats a well described wine from someone who avoids nonsense words like elegant ?? (I was instructed I would get a slap if I ever used this word in a past wine course.!!). The wset section on assessing the quality level of wine comes closest to coming to a conclusion to the quality of a wine without a score: faulty, poor , acceptable, good, very good and outstanding. Thats it . Don't complicate it. The more wine you taste the easier it is to place a wine into one of the these classes.
I actually like the world elegant as a descriptor hehehhe. But very interesting takes indeed
Yeah,decanter gold is between 95 and 96 points and above of that is platinum
Yeah…
This is a very controversial and subjective topic, as scores are based on an individual's frame of reference and experience. Also one has to understand scores within a price range. A 90+ wine in the 20-30 U.S$/€ range will taste completely different to a 90+ wine in the 50-100$/€ range.
An argument can be made that the 100 point system is really a 20-30 point system. As it's very rare for a wine to be scored lower than 75-80. As to wine critics I agree that some critics give overly high scores, Suckling especially.
Recently I have been following Falstaff and also Guia Pena and Luca Maroni for a different perspective.
Ahhhh ic. I would argue that it’s more like a 10 pt system 90-100 and in Maroni’s case, a 5 pt system - 95-100 😝
I've read an interesting interview with Heiner Lobenberg, one (the biggest with 40M€ annual revenue?) wine merchant in Germany this week. He tastes and rates all wines from his catalogue and is known for his high scores. I never buy anything from his shop below 93pts and always check for a second opinion because he rates that high. But he said something very interesting in that interview. He said, just as Konstantin did in his video, that wines are getting better and better every year. He says, if you compare the Mouton Rothschild from the 80, which was rated 100 by Parker, with the 2020 Mouton, you have to give higher points. Therefore he gives 100+. His idea for a perfect system is an open 100-points-scale, in which the 2020 Mouton would have get 103 from him. What do you think about this?
Thanks for the thoughts. First it makes sense for Heiner to be a high scorer if he is using the scores to sell his wine. Second yes wine is improving a lot and overall is leaps and bounds better than the 80s and even 90s! Third, I don’t know what to think about the open scale. If things go over 100 where will the limit be?? How much better is 115 pt wine than 103 pt wine?
I think the open scale makes sense in theory but I think it would be even harder to understand for the average consumer than what we have now.
For this scale to work you need a reference point, if everyone knew what the 1980 Mouton tasted like, then it would work but most people will never experience that.
I find it easier to calibrate with the current system. 75 points is the average wine that is available from current vintages and you can get a feel for what the average is by just buying fairly inexpensive wines from a local wine shop or even supermarkets, from there I find it easier to extrapolate to a current 80 or 90 point wine.
I think it makes more sense for the scale to be adapted to current times, anyone who wants to buy a 1980 Mouton will probably have enough wine knowledge to extrapolate back, or they might even buy it more on a personal recommendation from friends or experts rather than a score.
score is very good...!
I like them too.
I generally trust Parker for Bordeaux but he has been wrong before(see Pichon Lalande 1989). I do not agree with his tasting of Australian, "parkerised" wines!
I used to like Suckling when he was still in Wine Spectator, his tastes seem closest to mine. Lately, however, I tend to discount his scores by 2 points as well.
Good call on the minus 2 point rule hahaha
@@drmatthewhorkey I know, right?
How many fine wines you have a score points in the bottle...????
I've worked for Majestic Wines UK and I've sell so dam good fine wines that never been scored ...and cost more than 50 pounds per bottle...
Agreed! I've had so many amazing wines that have never been scored
I couldn't disagree with you more about decanter...each to their own.
Clinton Lucas WSET Diploma.
Yes to each his own. What do you like about Decanter?
If I buy wines to drink I only trust my senses, if I buy them as an investment I follow Galloni and Suckling scores. I don't think they can be useful for anything else. Parker conditioned 30 years of making wine, obtaining the result of finding on the market only fruit driven wines full of wood and alcohol, fortunately for some years things have been changing.
Good to hear, I’m a big fan of Galloni’s writing as well. I like Suckling’s coverage but subtract 2-3 pts from his scores
Why not 0 to 10 scale and that's it...??? No one drinks wine less than 50 points...so, why robert parker scale is so dam important if he never learned nothing about wines when he started to score them...???? Just tasting them ...and because he was a lawyer he knows how to write a statement to convince people around the world about what he is scoring...???
0-10 scale is nice too IMO