When i asked Dr(forgot his name, but not his person) how i got a C- with a 17 on my final, he grinned and said, he used a bell shaped curve and my 17 was middle of the class. The point, tho obscure, was he didn’t ever give any 90s, 80s, 70s, and rarely any 60s. His exams were unfathomable, and you had to get used to getting a 23 on an exam where you really knew the material. In summary, if someone doesn’t give 100s to 97s, that is just judgemental, and subjective. I don’t particularly agree with that sentiment, but i don’t agree with WS jacked up ratings either. There probably is a mid ground somewhere, but the fact you made the statement above makes me appreciate those 96s to 88s all the more. You probably have posted this before, long before i started following you; but it was helpful for me to know how you view a 97 or higher. It certainly explains your rating system more clearly. This post was valuable if for no other reason than to better know what your 96 or thereabouts, really means.

Honestly, when i read your reviews, i, like others above, am much more interested in the text than the score. What I have learned since following you is that your descriptions are very rarely off. The numerical ratings are more subjective, but taken in context to the text, usually seem pretty darn close to the mark. In your defense of no high numbers, I probably have never tasted a 100 point wine, nor a 99er either. I have had some “put out the lights” great wines at my grandma’s bakery in Bordeaux, but never knew what they were because they were all bought twice weekly from barrel samples and brot home in 20 liter jugs. I suspect i probably won’t ever taste a 100 pointer. But that doesn’t mean i won’t keep trying.

In your first post, Charlie, you complain that ”no amount of points in any system ever invented . . . tells us anything about the wine except how much the taster or publication liked the wine relative to others.

Charlie, for the vast majority of consumers, that’s ALL they care to know.

(same post) “If one wants to know what a wine tastes like, as opposed to how much someone likes it, then reading the words is required.”

Charlie, those who do care, read. Those who don’t, don’t. You needn’t be threatened by people who just want to shop, not study.

(same post again) “Points are not a substitute for words. They are simply an extension of the discussion about the wine, a bit of value added, another means of expression, a system of symbolic notation.”

Charlie, no one’s arguing with you. So why the rant? Points have their own utility. You kinda sorta seem to accept it. Then, in your final post, you serve up this gem: “numbers by themselves are a farce and a fiction.”

I think everyone who has contributed to this thread knows the opposite to be true. Scores, points, puffs, stars – these are the shorthand that is required in a crowded marketplace. Doesn’t matter if it’s wine, cell phones or mattresses, shoppers need shorthand.

Wine score aren’t going away anytime soon. Consumers need them because there is an overwhelming number of wine labels and virtually no wine brands. (You can observe this truth by simply comparing the body language of shoppers in the cereal aisle to those in the wine aisle.)

Scores are helpful to consumers. Prices are necessary. Wine Blue Book’s Q(quality)-P(price)-R(relationship) model simply illustrates the relationship between the two so consumers can pursue the most bang-for-their-buck.

Not everyone shops for Value all the time. (Sadly, value-shoppers will never know the pleasures of d’Yquem.) But for those who do, the usefulness of WBB is clear.

Neil: if you have the ability to show how many scores went into the average score I would hope you would to do that. I want to know that only one or two “experts” did the scoring vs. 8 to 10. The latter has much more significance (for us pro number yahoos).

Of course its theft. He is not a dedicated consumer by your very example. He is taking the work of others and charging for it. He calls himself Blue Book, yet Kelly Blue Book is original work. There is no orignial work here yet he charges for it.

There are a couple of reasons why he has not put us all out of business. The first is that numbers by themselves are a farce and a fiction. They say nothing about the character of the wine, and the way in which Monnen’s publishes them diminshes the wine to non-existence. Have you been reading the comments here?

And all of that which he copies is copyrighted–every single bit of it. It is not in the public domain. People are entitled to use it by permission–not by theft and certainly not for re-publication.