“The 100-point system is irrelevant”? Umm, sorry, no it’s not
Haha, people have been saying the 100-point system is irrelevant for at least 100 years. Well, maybe the last 10 years. And now comes this blog from the Napa Valley Wine Academy that makes it official.
Well, who or what is the Napa Valley Wine Academy? They call themselves (on their website) “America’s premier wine school” and say they are an “approved program provider” for the WSET. So they must know what they’re talking about, right?
Here are their reasons why the 100-point system is “irrelevant”, according to the author, Jonathan Cristaldi:
- “Parker’s influence continues to wain” [sic; he meant “wane,” but what’s a little spelling error now and then?)
- no other critic’s influence is as important as Parker’s [true, dat]
- people “don’t just buy when a wine garners big points” [well, nobody ever said points were the only criterion by which people make buying decisions]
- and besides, WSET seekers “will have the power to raise a collective voice that is louder than any one critic.”
I need to break this last point down. Do you suppose that there ever will be a “collective voice” of sommeliers? I don’t. Put ten somms in a room and you’ll have more smackdowns than a mixed martial arts bout. These people seldom agree on anything, unless it’s that Burgundy is the best red wine and Riesling is the best white wine. So how, exactly, will this “collective voice” operate?
- “the future of wine ratings is a future of recommendations, not points or scores…”
Proof? There is none. “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride,” the old nursery rhyme tells us. Merely wishing that individual critics will fade away, in favor of crowd-sourced opinions spread via social media, is the biggest wish-fantasy around. When Cristaldi tells us that “Friends and confidants will replace the lone wine critic,” he has absolutely no proof; no evidence supports it, except anecdotally; and even if the Baby Boomer critics, like Parker, are retiring or dying off, there is no reason to think that their places will not be taken by Millennials who just might be the future Parkers and Tanzers and Gallonis and Laubes and Wongs and, yes, Heimoffs. (Certainly, you know as well as I do that there are ambitious bloggers who ardently wish that were the case!)
So do I think the 100-point system will still be around in the future? Yes. It will, because schools still grade test scores on the 100-point system and Americans “get it” and know in their bones the difference between 87 points and 90 points. Will there be other graphic systems around (puffs, stars, and the like)? Sure. Will there be long-form wine writing that relies on the informative impact of words, rather than graphic signifiers? Yes. All of the above will make for a robust wine-reviewing scene.
Honestly, I continue to fail to understand why some people get so worked up over the 100-point system. It’s like a mania, the wine-reviewing equivalent of Obama birtherism. People: calm down. There are so many more important things to get upset about.
Where I will end this post is to re-quote Cristaldi’s quote from Jon Bonné, the former wine critic for the San Francisco Chronicle. Jon said (according to Cristaldi), “The 100-point system is flawed.” Well, breaking news! Thank you, Jon, for pointing that out.
Of course the 100-point system is not perfect. What system is? But the 100-point system has educated more people, sold more wine and benefited more wineries than anything else ever invented. That’s pretty cool, and like the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
- You Will Read This Post Just Because It Mentions The 100 Point Wine Rating Scale In The Title | 1 Wine Dude - […] This spurred a rebuttal by another friend of mine, Steve Heimoff, formerly of Wine Enthusiast, via his blog: […]
“So do I think the 100-point system will still be around in the future? Yes. It will, because schools still grade test scores on the 100-point system and Americans ‘get it’ and know in their bones the difference between 87 points and 90 points.”
From a statistical perspective, a score of “87 points” is no different from a score of “90 points,” given the margin of error.
Steve, as you cogitate over reviewing wines on your blog, consider introducing a “forced ranking” on flights of wines: first preference, second preference, third preference and so on. That conveys much more information than a numerical score without context.
(Recall my anecdote about Parker awarding a 100 point score to the 1986 Mouton. Sounds like a “bucket list” drinking experience, no? Until you read his accompanying review and realize the wine is a tannic monster, undrinkable for 20-plus years. The desire to taste it now wanes . . .)
From The Wall Street Journal “Weekend” Section
(November 20, 2009, Page W6):
“A Hint of Hype, A Taste of Illusion;
They pour, sip and, with passion and snobbery, glorify or doom wines.
But studies say the wine-rating system is badly flawed.
How the experts fare against a coin toss.”
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html
Essay by Leonard Mlodinow
. . . teaches randomness at Caltech. (His book titled
“The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives”
includes a chapter on the fallacy of wine scoring scales.)
. . . what if the successive judgments of the same wine, by the same wine expert, vary so widely that the ratings and medals on which wines base their reputations are merely a powerful illusion? That is the conclusion reached in two recent papers in the Journal of Wine Economics [by winemaker, scientist and statistician Robert Hodgson when he analyzed the judging at the California State Fair wine competition, “North America’s oldest and most prestigious.”]
. . .
The results astonished Mr. Hodgson. The judges’ wine ratings typically varied by ± 4 points on a standard ratings scale running from 80 to 100. A wine rated 91 on one tasting would often be rated an 87 or 95 on the next. Some of the judges did much worse, and only about one in 10 regularly rated the same wine within a range of ± 2 points.
. . .
Steve,
A couple of different points:
1) If the 100 point system is waning in influence then I happen to think it is falling apart internally rather than externally. I think the general public likes the 100 point scale, but because higher and higher ratings have become so ubiquitous, I don’t think the public knows what to do with a 93 point rating. And I write this as a parent of a 15 year old, who can get a 108 on a test because he is in an Honors Course. That seems great to me, but it then makes me wonder if the 96 he received in another course is really that great.
2) I wonder if anyone has ever looked at whether the rise of the “collective voice” is actually good for the industry? I remember a study done by Princeton University some decades back that, in part, linked the decline in movie attendance to the waning influence of Siskel & Ebert. Have collective Yelp reviews helped new restaurants more than a great Frank Prial review would have back in the day? I think it is a question worth pondering, and looking at perhaps on an industry by industry POV.
Adam Lee
Siduri Wines
Who knows if the 100-point system will become irrelevant at some point in the future? And who cares? Regardless of what system rules for the long term, there will always be some way to assign a score to wines because people need to keep score. I’m reminded of the father who asked his 8 year old daughter who had just finished playing a soccer game, “Who won?” She replied, “Oh, we’re not allowed to keep score, but we did, 3 to 1.”
The 100-point system is just a handy way to keep score. As the acknowledged pre-eminent wine critic (at least in terms of influence) Parker himself is aligned toward the top of a 100 point scale of wine critics. Adam Lee points out the new way of grading in high school provides a way to achieve a score greater than 100 — but the higher score is not higher than 100%. It just means that the new maximum score (110?) now represents 100%, so a 96 is really the 87th percentile (please don’t check my math).
So, as much as some new order might want to eliminate score keeping, it will survive. So will the 100 point system.
What the critics of the 100-point system fail to recognize is that it has never been about the system but about the words that make up the evaluation of the wine.
Mr. Parker’s rise to fame and fortune was not predicated uniquely on the one-hundred point system. We had famous and revered critics before him who used four and five level systems and we had widely read critics who used some version of a 20-point system.
There was even a reviewer in Australia who used a 200-point system (and give the use of decimals in the 20-point system, it was also really a 200-point system).
It was Parker’s “authority” in his writing and his fortunate choice of subjects to ballyhoo (Bordeaux futures circa 1982) that changed his life, and he followed on with a wider, richer body of work than other critics, including me, of the time.
It is true that we almost all adopted the 100-point system and turned it into the lingua franca of wine reviews. I have no problem with that.
But, it is as Adam Lee has said so wisely, it is grade inflation that is harming the system today. That was sadly predictable and it does rather diminish the value of the midlevel ratings for good wines. It is then, at that point, that the readers of a critic use their knowledge of that critic to decipher the true intent of the critic.
As one of my readers said, “I don’t care if you use points or stars or puffs or the “ten chopstick” system. It is your words and their meaning that guide me.
I would contend that the majority of folks who pay for wine reviews have the same attitude towards Laube, Tanzer, Parker et al.
100 points, schmundred points. I agree, one rating system is as good as another, and some are more popular. But what I think what Mr. Cristaldi is trying to say is that rating systems become less valid as consumers realize that numbers or ratings are no substitute for substantive descriptions or recommendations of wines.
Consumers *are* getting more sophisticated by the day. Ipso facto, systems like 100 points are bound to become less important to that growing segment of the market. That growing segment that realizes that “94” or “92” does not truly differentiate a Scharzhofberger from a Steinberger, a Williams Selyem from an Au Bon Climat, a Bandol from a Chateauneuf du Pape, a B.V. Private Reserve from a DAOU Cabernet, et al.
These consumers are seeking verbiage that illustrates differences in terms of terroir, regional distinctions, winemaking style, grape composition, vintage variation, etc., and purely numerical stamps simply cannot provide that information upon which a consumer can make an informed decision. That’s when numbers become superfluous, even nonsensical.
We all know this (re Charlie Oken’s remarks), and I think this is all Mr. Cristaldi is trying to express. So I think we should cut him some slack and look at the crux of his argument. Of course, it’s easier for me to say because I agree with him.
I’ve said this before: I used to love Connoisseurs’ Guide when they relied only on their three puffed asterisks. That was plenty enough for me, because their explications effectively did all the rest. I understand the need for going to 100 points as well, but I’m feeling the same “so what?” response cited in Bob Henry’s references. I realize that I’m not the normal “consumer,” but I’m really no smarter that anyone else. If that’s the case, I can easily see more and more people finally wising up and feeling the same thing, too: that systems like 100 points are simply not up to the task, and never will be, except for those who are so new to the thought process of wine evaluation that they are willing to believe most everything they read.
Kudos to Jonathan for sticking his neck out and saying what many of us are thinking!
Taking that same Parker score, of 96 points, for example. If the description that is attached includes word “leather/y” in it, just how is this same “96 point” wine perceived by A) someone really into wine and B) someone who simply wants a “96 point wine” as a trophy? In case A, one knows its brett and will most likely avoid it, 96 points or not. And in case B, someone will drink the swill and extoll its virtues based on “96 points score”, brett, high pH or high VA never being an issue. Shoe polish on the nose in Tokaj white? No problem, its got 98 points from Parker, you just don’t understand the wine like he does! Brett in Pegau? No way, Parker’s description never mentions that! Its 96 points! Seen it way too many times by now…
People talk in points these days, almost never in terms of taste and nosing.
Sadly, its Consumer B “The Point King” that makes up the vast wine drinking populace today. And yes, I have run into too many somms who have no idea what brett is, or high VA, not that too much oak in wine having a huge score ever stopped any of them from having it on the list, with their proclamations of “food match” or not.
And how does one score a bottle of Pinot on color, when in reality color in Pinot does not really mean much and rather, darker is NOT better in most cases (enzyme use for color extraction is endemic these days, which also chews on seeds for green tannins infusion). Or color in Sauternes were its pretty much the same, or in Riesling, or … What do points assigned to color in whites really mean as long as wine is not cloudy?
Score means absolutely nothing these days when pretty much every wine is in the 90+ point range, I think Parker started that downward curve with his glowing review of Tres Picos (2001?), which I found barely drinkable, but consumers bought by the case. “Its a “93 pointer and its cheap”.
I knew 100 point system was a huge issue back in late ’90s when a customer walked in one evening wanting a bottle for his dinner and when I handed him a bottle of Dehlinger he had an absolutely blank stare and no “registration” at all of what “Dehlinger” is, while he was happily clutching a 90+ oak bomb he already grabbed off the shelf, his wife siding with me made no difference to him. Or a miriad of other customers who used to walk in with issues of Spectator with high scoring wines they already were able to buy elsewhere circled, wines they never even knew existed nor tasted (had interesting conversations with them on the subject), but bought by the case.
Its not the points, its the description. Always. For an educated consumer.
I have come to understand that articles like the one you cite are constantly necessary to educate and validate newcomers to wine.
The scale is useful as an informational shorthand and you’re right, it’s not going anywhere. But it IS eye-opening to people that they may like an 89-pointer more than a 96-pointer.
The kind of sophistication contained in Randy’s post is completely lost on 95% of the wine consumers. Such Inside Baseball observations are followed by the cognoscenti only. The whole world is moving to crowd sourcing which includes sourcing critics collectively (=finding the median or average). Numbers become an easy shorthand for how delicious a wine is.
The 100 point system, however, because it is unnaturally precise, will be replaced by simpler evaluations like the five star/half star rating, plus preference ranking as noted above. Or even thumbs up or down. Rotten Tomatoes is the gold standard for assessing merit (yelp has credibility problems). Regular People want to know if a wine got above 90 pts or 4 our 5 stars and then how low can I go in price to buy quality as determined by many palates, particularly those of my friends or other consumers who buy their wines not receive samples.
It is always interesting to read Steve’s blog and even more interesting to read the comments.
I run WineRelease.com. A site that lists wines by their release dates launched 15 years ago.
I recently re-ran a survey (fielded in 2009, 2012 and last month) and include questions on wine critic influence and confidence with the major wine review sources. The WineRelease audience responded in 2009 that 77% were influenced by wine scores and in 2012 76% were influenced and last month 75% responded that they were influenced by wine scores. Parker’s “confidence” level went from 76% to 75% and is now at 73% “high/medium confidence” but still leads the pack.
Results can be found by clicking the website link (questions 10-12) or found on WineRlease.com “other”. It would be great if Steve did a similar study to gauge our collective responses.
Connoisseurs puffs and Cal Grapevine’s true rankings are the best combination, but the most important thing is finding a source of reliable info that can be compared with one’s own taste. This can be a critic, a retailer, or Aubert Villaine.
I think the issue with the 100 point system is not the system itself, but the person responsible for it. Not like it would take a genius to come up with a 100 point system.
I personally think any system that doesn’t use the entirety of the scoring is a poor one, which is why I like to grade things on the ice skating scale (6.0) , but that’s just me.
people seem to be throwing out the baby with the bathwater on this one. Parker seems like a real dick, especially to those on the way outside, which a lot of new upstart wine critics are. they are seemingly inclined to get rid of all things him, even if the scoring system is universally accepted.
Randy, it’s funny you would take those positions, since you write for The Tasting Panel, where–let’s be frank–you are the best columnist. I love Fred Dame’s column, which is gossipy-fun. But yours always makes me think. There’s just some irony in your critiquing basically everything The Tasting Panel does.
Adam’s grade inflation anecdote about his teenager’s Honors Course test scores updates the news reports I cited as my third comment to this blog by Steve:
http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2015/01/14/einstein-wine-quality-and-a-great-san-francisco-day/
The Los Angeles Times reported that Millennials do not follow the advice of movie critics.
Excerpt from the Los Angeles Times “Calendar” Section
(March 9, 2010, Page D8):
“Critics’ Ranks Thin Out”
Link: http://articles.latimes.com/print/2010/mar/09/entertainment/la-et-bigpicture9-2010mar09
By Patrick Goldstein
“The Big Picture” Column
. . . Virtually every survey has shown that younger audiences have zero interest in critics. They take their cues for what movies to see from their peers, making decisions based on the buzz they’ve heard on Facebook, Twitter or some other form of social networking.
Charlie wrote:
“. . . it is grade inflation that is harming the system today. . . . readers of a critic use their knowledge of that critic to decipher the true intent of the critic.”
Randy wrote:
“. . . what Mr. Cristaldi is trying to say is that rating systems become less valid as consumers realize that numbers or ratings are no substitute for substantive descriptions or recommendations of wines.”
GregP wrote:
“Its not the points, its the description. Always. For an educated consumer.”
To his credit, in 1989 (you know, back when dinosaurs roamed the planet) that Parker observed in a Wine Times (later renamed Wine Enthusiast) interview:
“. . . The newsletter was always meant to be a guide, one person’s opinion. The scoring system was always meant to be an accessory to the written reviews, tasting notes. That’s why I use sentences and try and make it interesting. Reading is a lost skill in America. There’s a certain segment of my readers who only look at numbers, but I think it is a much smaller segment than most wine writers would like to believe. The tasting notes are one thing, but in order to communicate effectively and quickly where a wine placed vis-à-vis its peer group, a numerical scale was necessary. If I didn’t do that, it would have been a sort of cop-out.”
And GregP wrote:
“I knew 100 point system was a huge issue back in late ’90s when a customer walked in one evening wanting a bottle for his dinner and when I handed him a bottle of Dehlinger he had an absolutely blank stare and no “registration” at all of what “Dehlinger” is, while he was happily clutching a 90+ oak bomb he already grabbed off the shelf, his wife siding with me made no difference to him. Or a miriad of other customers who used to walk in with issues of Spectator with high scoring wines they already were able to buy elsewhere circled, wines they never even knew existed nor tasted (had interesting conversations with them on the subject), but bought by the case.”
Reply; http://www.winecommonsewer.com/.a/6a00d8341cbb0453ef017d418bc2aa970c-pi
ERRATUM
Adam’s grade inflation anecdote about his teenager’s Honors Course test scores updates the news reports I cited as my SECOND comment to this blog by Steve:
http://www.steveheimoff.com/index.php/2015/01/14/einstein-wine-quality-and-a-great-san-francisco-day/
To Bob,
Well, his old interview or not, but when he decided, on his web site, to make me an example of his wine tasting and wine making knowledge prowess, he failed miserably, each and every time.
He claimed and publicly stated that “filtered wines have no soul”, I then reminded him that his 100 pointer Sauternes were ALL heavily filtered, as were ALL of his sweet German high scorers, for example. He then jumped in on brett discussion claiming that a bottle of Pegau he just pulled out of his cellar was pristine and with absolutely no brett in it whatsoever, none! Shame that at precisely same time he posted, THIS IS REAL TIME we’re talking about on his web site, Laurence happened to post that ALL of her wines have brett (anyone visiting her cellar would know why). On more arguments in that same time frame over a couple of months’ time, he also failed, big time. On the last such occasion he had a revolt on his web site with many posters stating that his ratings for Cal Pinot are now null and void. Now you know why the site then went private soon after.
Never mind that a few days later after the Pinot revolt I received a call from my NY area distributor telling me they just got a call from (you know who, insert his name here), I was looking for another distributor a few days later.
This is the wine critic that still drives the show and whose scoring system, and worse yet, his supposed and almost never challenged wine knowledge, entire market takes for granted to this day. 100 point system was an interesting idea when it arrived, but it has been so overused and abused since that another way of conveying wine’s qualities is now on order, IMO.
And we’re supposed to still go by this 100 point scale when, as I already pointed out above, no one can tell me what does color in Pinot or pretty much any white varietal really mean for a score. I really liked the 3 puffs system, was introduced to many a great wine by it and descriptions attached, I just don’t think any numerical score means much when same wine in front of X tasters will most likely end up with X different numerical scores and just a 2 point swing may mean an 89 or a 91 point wine, a huge difference to consumers Pavlov dog trained into seeing at least a 9 in that first position.
And besides, what does a 100 point score really mean? I asked this question who knows how many times in the last 20 years or so. Does it mean that at no time going forward a better wine will be produced? And, say, a better wine is produced 3 years from now, by same winery, how do you score it? 100, still? Does it demean the new release somehow and does it NOT show its real evaluation?
To Neil Monnen’s point: I use the 100 point system when I review wines, and periodically survey my paid subscribers as to their preference on how they want to be informed given the options of score only, tasting note only, or both. Somewhere around 80% want the score along with the note. Cristaldi’s article (like others on the same theme) attributes the new path for discovery to a friends recommendation. I don’t doubt that influence happens and now people have an exploding quantity of resources to choose from. How good are you about filtering the noise? Ultimately it all goes back to the producer. Yet it is the third-party opinion of the wine professional, either retailer, sommelier or critic who help the ‘alpha case’ discover a wine in the first place. At the end of the day people who are spending money on any luxury will seek out reliable and consistent influencers for advice. Wine critics aren’t going away.
GregP,
(A preface. I still don’t know all of the “back stories” of commenters on Steve’s blog — including your own. Please elaborate for my edification.)
“. . . what does a 100 point score really mean? I asked this question who knows how many times in the last 20 years or so. Does it mean that at no time going forward a better wine will be produced? And, say, a better wine is produced 3 years from now, by same winery, how do you score it? 100, still? Does it demean the new release somehow and does it NOT show its real evaluation?”
When you look back at early Parker reviews[*], he was very conservative in his scoring. I attribute it to his building up a store of knowledge based on drinking experience.
[*See W. Blake Gray’s June 4, 2013 posted blog titled “Grade inflation at a Glance: a look at Robert Parker’s 1987 Wine Buyer’s Guide.”]
We agree: it would be folly to assign a “perfect” score to a specific wine too early in one’s tasting experience, when better wines may be just over the horizon waiting to be sampled.
(Tanzer has maintained a reputation for conservative scores all these years. And I believe I am correct when I state that Meadows has only awarded one “perfect” score to a red Burgundy. So grade inflation doesn’t appear to be a criticism of these two.)
Influential wine critics and wine writers and wine collectors consider the 1947 Cheval Blanc to be the greatest red Bordeaux of the modern era.
[See Michael Steinberger’s February 13, 2008 posted piece for Slate titled “The Greatest Wine on the Planet:
How the 1947 Cheval Blanc, a defective wine from an aberrant year, got so good.”
And Jancis Robinson, M.W.’s December 26, 1999 published piece for the Los Angeles Times “Food” section titled “Top o’ the Century: The best wines of the 1900s.”]
If the 1947 Cheval Blanc is the ne plus ultra [**] — and a red Bordeaux reviewer has never tasted it — then it begs the question: Does his/her internalized reference standard for assessing “perfection” need to be upwardly recalibrated?
[**Substitute say DRC or Leroy or Jayer as the ne plus ultra red Burgundy.]
Recall that the world never thought a man could long jump over 29 feet until Bob Beamon did so at the 1968 Summer Olympics in Mexico City.
That Europeans never thought black swans existed until they visited Australia in the late 1600s. (Hence the modern-day metaphor for high-profile, hard-to-predict, and rare “black swan events” that are beyond the realm of normal expectations in history, science, finance, and technology.)
Bob
Grade inflation is a problem and hurts all who use the 100-point system whether they “inflate” or not.
But worrying about what 100 points means is a meaningless exercise because it means whatever the taster wants it to mean. So does 93 and 89. So does three or two or one puff, or Joe Roberts ABC system or any other system that exists or will ever exist.
The readers of the critics, the ones who actually read them, which means that they subscribe to their publications, know pretty much what the critic means. As for the rest of the world, those folks are irrelevant because they are not reading the critics and have no idea how to calibrate Parker with Tanzer with Connoisseurs’ Guide and our three-star system. But our readers do.
There have always been ratings systems and there always will be. Greg P wants a new system, but any system will have pluses and minuses.
There is only one way–ONLY ONE WAY–to use a rating and that is in concert with the words of the review as they sit in context with the critic’s greater body of work.
Charlie,
NO, I do NOT want a new system, YOUR 3 puffs was just right for me, although like with all others, I go by descriptions, anything more on top of that is an extra piece of information.
In regard to 100 point system, I just want someone to clarify very specific aspects of it, so far everyone seems to avoid the discussion on that same color scoring part, as just one example. And if someone can explain how a wine, ANY wine, can ever be a 100 pointer, when in all likelihood a few vintages down the road same producer WILL make a better rendition. There is absolutely nothing that is perfect in this world, IMO. Main reason a system like your 3 puffs seems a much better one, at least to me. make it 5 puffs, 6 or whatever, but base it on the DESCRIPTION MAINLY, not a numeric value of any sort. Yes, I know, people will then be walking with a 3 puff wine circled in their guides as they step into stores :-))
Bob,
With all the talk about Parker’s supposed superior palate, doesn’t it seems strange that he wasn’t able to easily identify obvious fakes presented to him by Sokolin? Talk about color and flavor id in a supposed decades old never ending supply of Bords (which should have raised a HUGE question mark in any experts’ head right there). And wasn’t he the one who called a ROAR Pinot, as New World as Cal Pinot gets, a Burgundy in a blind tasting of Old/New World Pinot he organized himself, to boot. The few times my tasting group did a blind Old/New World Pinot tastings it was not that difficult to id them.
He’s a self promoted myth, nothing more. I won’t even go into score inflation discussion, from 2 direct sources. Or specifically down rating wines as well, in that last “Parker is now irrelevant as Pinot reviewer” thread on his own online board. Way too many witnesses to that one.
Scoring is only as accurate as reviewer is, no? And I have yet to see same wine scored exactly same numerical value by different reviewers using same 100 scale. Says a lot about the scale, doesn’t it.
Tell you what, if you really want to see great tasting palates at work, put Adam Lee, Greg LaFollette and probably Ed Kurtzman at the same table, and feed them wines blind. Live and learn. I did, a good number of times. Happily so. No hyping, no self promotion, just great evaluation with plenty of on-point explanations as they go through wines. Best education one can get.
GregP:
Because I don’t “hang out” on Parker’s websites, or websites that champion or criticize the man (because I believe in “getting a life”), these anecdotes are unknown to me:
~~ “He [Parker] claimed and publicly stated that ‘filtered wines have no soul,’ I then reminded him that his 100 pointer Sauternes were ALL heavily filtered, as were ALL of his sweet German high scorers, for example.”
~~ “[Parker] . . . claiming that a bottle of Pegau he just pulled out of his cellar was pristine and with absolutely no brett in it whatsoever, none! Shame that at precisely same time he posted, THIS IS REAL TIME we’re talking about on his web site, Laurence happened to post that ALL of her wines have brett”
~~ “[Parker] wasn’t able to easily identify obvious fakes presented to him by Sokolin”
~~ “[Parker] . . . called a ROAR Pinot, as New World as Cal Pinot gets, a Burgundy in a blind tasting of Old/New World Pinot he organized himself”
As for your observation:
“Scoring is only as accurate as reviewer is, no? And I have yet to see same wine scored exactly same numerical value by different reviewers using same 100 scale. Says a lot about the scale, doesn’t it.”
The research by Robert Hodgson, statistics professor emeritus at Humboldt State University, on the inconsistent judging at the California State Fair Wine Competition bears this out.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that the awarded scores by wine critics for the same reviewed wine are numerically different.
The wine critics are NOT using the same 100-point scale.
Each critic is using a different yard stick. Employing a different taste and olfactory sense. Assigning different “weights” to different values. (See Matt Kramer’s new book/booklet titled “True Taste: The Seven Essential Wine Words.”) All filtered through the prism of their experiences.
(Recall how Robert Parker and Jancis Robinson, M.W. forcefully disagreed about the 2003 Ch. Pavie. He loved it. She loathed it.
Link: http://www.sfgate.com/wine/article/Robinson-Parker-have-a-row-over-Bordeaux-2755642.php)
As Caltech professor Leonard Mlodinow observed in his November 20, 2009 published Wall Street Journal essay on wine judging titled “A Hint of Hype, A Taste of Illusion”:
“There is a rich history of scientific research questioning whether wine experts can really make the fine taste distinctions they claim. . . . There are eight in this description, from The Wine News, as quoted on wine.com, of a Silverado Limited Reserve Cabernet Sauvignon 2005 that sells for more than $100 a bottle: ‘Dusty, chalky scents followed by mint, plum, tobacco and leather. Tasty cherry with smoky oak accents…’ Another publication, The Wine Advocate, describes a wine as having ‘promising aromas of lavender, roasted herbs, blueberries, and black currants.’ What is striking about this pair of descriptions is that, although they are very different, they are descriptions of THE SAME CABERNET. One taster lists eight flavors and scents, the other four, and not one of them coincide.”
Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574533840282653628.html
Bob
And speaking of the California State Fair Wine Competition (waiting for my comment above to pass “moderation) . . . this breaking news from today’s press release:
“Korbel hit the mother lode at the 2015 California State Fair Wine Competition. In results just announced, Korbel California Blanc de Noirs was named ‘Best of Show Sparkling,’ ‘Best of Class Region’ and was awarded a Double Gold Medal. This premium California champagne’s unbeatable combination of quality and value makes it the perfect summer sparkler priced at $12.99.
“Adding to the winery’s award-winning tradition, Korbel also garnered Double Gold Medals for its California Brut Rose and 2011 Russian River Valley Natural . . .”
Greg–
Thanks for the kind words.
The reality of the real world, however, is that our system, which we still use, got usurped as a ratings regimen by the overwhelming use of the 100-point system.
What happened next is that we added points to our Stars (per the Michelin “etoile”) so that each star/puff then had four gradations. I kind of wish now that we had made it three gradations, but the real value to me is the ability to show “close calls”. For example, the top one-star wines and the bottom two-star wines are very close–so close in fact that the difference in star-rating exaggerates greatly the real qualitative difference between the wines, and matter how hard we tried in our descriptions to overcome the perceived difference in the ratings, we never really did it accurately. So, now the top of one-star is 90 points and the bottom of two-stars is 91. And what 91 means as opposed to 90 is that we liked the 91 point wine just a little better than the 90-point wine.
That benefit of the 100-point system overcomes one major weakness of the three-star system (plus wines with no stars and flawed wines that get awarded the dreaded downturned glass, meaning don’t drink it).
As for color variations, there are reviewers who try to give points for color, for varietal correctness, for terroir typicity, longevity, but many who do not have a specific formulation.
In our case, the rating whether in stars, puffs or points, is entirely a measure of our understanding of the wine’s ability to be great–either now or later. We do not hold out, for example, ten points for longevity, but we do try to understand where a wine will get to over time and to consider that as part of its personality.
We used to pay more attention to color than we do today. Yes, aberrant color is a concern, and a black-appearing Pinot does raise eyebrows, but it is not appearance that interests us nearly so much as character of aroma, flavor, balance, precision, depth, harmony (now or later), etc.
As for 100-point wines, CGCW has never awarded any rating over 98 for exactly the reason that you mention. There is likely better coming down the road, and how do we know what perfection tastes like anyhow. Grandeur is recognizable. Perfection is less so–in our opinion–and so we do not award 99 or 100. But, that is an intellectual argument and not really an absolute right or wrong. It is simply part of our belief system.
Bob–
I stopped going to Fair judgings years ago because of results like those you mention.
However, we do not know whether those wines were small, special lots, as Franzia has been wont to do, or Korbel’s regular bottlings. And if Korbel’s regular bottlings, I will says that some of them have shown quite decently in my tastings and turn out to be great values for certain settings. They do fall behind lots of other bubblies, but they are not all plonk and cheap glop, and we have no idea what the competition was like. That is also the problem with Fair judgings–awards must be given to the best of the entries, and heaven help a set of judges if they refuse to go above Bronze for the top awards regardless of what is entered.
Bob,
I once happened to attend a blind tasting with one of the Cal State Fair judges, actual make up that night was 3 winemakers, 1 part timer at wineries, said Cal State Fair judge and a well known wine blogger with plenty of accolades and awards on his shelf since along with huge following (scores almost everything in the 9-10 range). Flight one, wine 2, was bretty, in your face brett actually. All 3 winemakers along with winery part timer agreed and brett got worse with air time (duh!), both wine judge and blogger argued we simply do not understand the varrietal (Sauv Blanc that night) and there is absolutely, none. They ended up voting that wine as their No. 1 in flight, wine judge then ended up voting this bottle as her WOTN. And no, it was not “Sauv Blanc cat piss”, but brett, no mistaking it.
Will not post names.
Charlie,
Appreciate the reply and update/explanation of your evaluation system. Color wise, I rarely pay attention to it, unless, as you point out, it does look aberrant, or wine seems cloudy. But, in general, few wines have an issue there, and I simply do not understand why its given so many points in the 100 scale. But I’ve seen way too many wine buyers (wholesale and retail), never even mind consumers, who expect Pinot, for example, to have a rather deep, dark crimson color.
And do not get me started “wine legs”.
My wife works in a retail wine store. She said the young people that come in don’t even want advice on a wine. They go down the aisle looking up the wines on Vivino or Delectable. So much for the future of the 100 point score (and maybe wine critics).
Peter–
This line of reasoning is now as old as the Internet, and yet we see no dropoff in the number of involved wine enthusiasts who pay for critical evaluations of the wines on the market.
And if the wine critics do not disappear, then the 100-point system will exist or will be replaced by some of shorthand notation associated with the written judgments of the critics. But, as long as their is critical analysis, there will be some system, and that system(s) will have strengths and weaknesses just like the currently in vogue system.
Allow me to use this blog piece to interject a corollary subject: “pay for play.”
To the uninitiated, the term refers to quid pro quo agreements in which companies are favorably publicized/reviewed if they, in turn, support the publicizing/reviewing “media” with advertising support. (Could also be event planning support — such as donating product “gratis” to paid admission events.)
From today’s Los Angeles Times “Arts & Books” section: paid stage play reviews, as a response to declining compensated media jobs previously underwritten by paid subscribers and display advertising revenue.
“Jeers, Cheers Over Paid Reviews;
Some see good in Bitter Lemons’ offer to theaters, but many others are aghast.”
Link: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/culture/la-et-cm-la-stage-website-causes-a-stir-20150612-story.html#page=1
How many “citizen journalist” wine bloggers are nothing more than shameless shills who exchange free samples for favorable reviews?
Excerpt from the above Times article:
“At the full price, Bitter Lemons’ cut remains $25, and reviewers get $125. Another perk for the critics is all the space they want. . . .”
How does that compare to paid book reviews?
See this December 17, 2009 Los Angeles Times “Op-Ed” page column:
““Kirkus Reviews may have been annoying, but its successors are inane; The rise of free-associating customer reviews — think Yelp and Citysearch — makes the demise of the book-reviewing publication downright sobering.”
Link: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/17/opinion/la-oe-daum17-2009dec17%5D
Excerpt:
Kirkus . . . was notoriously harsh. Whereas Publishers Weekly often seems like a booster for the trade, and Booklist, another book industry magazine, usually manages to find something nice to say about even the most mediocre prose, Kirkus took no prisoners. On Dave Eggers’ bestselling and much-revered memoir, “A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius,” Kirkus proclaimed: “It isn’t.”
Alrighty then!
But like that impossible-to-please crank who haunts every writing workshop or book club and makes everyone else feel like a middlebrow chump, Kirkus was both maddening enough that you were inclined to dismiss it and estimable enough that you really couldn’t.
I well remember the day my agent looked at me soberly and said, “Your novel got a not-great Kirkus review.” Having already received a not-even-good Kirkus review for my previous book, I could only reply with a (tediously adolescent though not all disingenuous) “Yeah, so?” But it also kind of stung.
I still feel more “Yeah, so?” than “Oh no!” about the end of Kirkus. But for all my indifference, I will say this in defense of Kirkus (and professional review publications in general): At least the critics had some cred.
Granted, at Kirkus many of those critics were anonymous freelancers who were paid about $50 per review (an executive salary compared to Publishers Weekly, which in 2008 dropped its rate from $45 to $25 per review). But as dangerous as it can be to instill power in reviewers who work for cheap (and are therefore less experienced), there’s now an even more menacing form of arbiter in our midst: the customer reviewer. [Read: “citizen journalist” blogger — Bob] And he works for free.
Bound by conventions of neither spelling nor grammar, nor by the need to put anything (plot, theme, typeface, anything) in context, the customer reviewer is so enthusiastic about his own opinions that he not only reviews diffusely and emphatically (showing no fear of the Caps Lock key), he reviews just about every person or thing he comes in contact with.
That’s right, you no longer have to be an author, musician or filmmaker to be subject to the haphazard views of people who don’t have to sign their names to their rants. Thanks to websites such as Yelp and Citysearch, everyone and everything . . . can be praised or pummeled online for all to see. . . .
I know, I know. The whole phenomenon is supposed to coalesce into some kind of equal-opportunity jubilee. It’s supposed to be a healthy, if occasionally gratuitous, manifestation of democracy itself. And as much as I gripe, I’ll admit that it can be helpful to read what others have said about various products and services, though too often it seems as if it’s one guy with an ax to grind or a lot of guys who never quite explain themselves enough for me to figure out whether to believe them.
Whether you’re for or against this new model of judgment-passing, you have to admit that the concept of “reviewing” — indeed, the entire idea of what constitutes value — has been turned on its ear in a way that goes beyond online versus print. No longer an intellectual or aesthetic or logical exercise drawing from objective facts (e.g., what’s in the book), careful observations and real expertise (sometimes called connoisseurship), reviewing is more and more simply a vehicle for personal narrative.
Too often, customer reviews read like diary entries: . . . Too often, the pretense of sharing advice devolves into oversharing the contours of one’s navel.
And that’s why the passing of Kirkus deserves to be mourned. Sure, it was a captious beast. Sure, its reviews sat on many authors’ Amazon pages like indelible stains. But unlike the bedlam of the customer opinions that can pile up on those pages like graffiti on a bathroom wall, Kirkus’ reviews were real.
Everyone’s always been a critic, and never more so than today — but at least Kirkus valued the job enough to pay $50.
“Breaking news . . .”
From BusinessWeek magazine e-mail blast:
“TESLA’S NEW CAR IS SO GOOD, IT LITERALLY BROKE THE CONSUMER REPORTS SCALE”
Summary: “The new P85D is so insanely good that it earned a 103 out of a possible 100 in an evaluation by Consumer Reports magazine.”
Link: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-08-27/tesla-with-insane-mode-busts-curve-on-consumer-reports-ratings-idu1hfk0?cmpid=BBD082615_BIZ
Its betterer!!!
Have no idea who even tries to defend the 100 point scale by now. Move to a 200 point scale is in sight, any day now… Pick at 35 Brix, 400% new oak, double up on Color Pro and voila!
GregP:
Welcome to “the new math!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIKGV2cTgqA
Bob
Bob,
Funny video! Used to multiply 4 digit number by 4 digit number in my head back in 7th grade in no time at all, back when calculators were non-existent in Soviet schools.
No wonder this 100 point system has been a joke from the start. As Stalin put it way back when, and as it applies to today’s scoring systems, “Its not who votes, but who counts the votes.”
An old Russian joke:
Teacher: Johnny, how much is 2 plus 2?
Johnny: Are we buying or selling?
GregP:
I only know one old Russian (Soviet) joke:
“We pretend to work. And they [the communist government] pretend to pay us.”
~~ Bob
GregP:
I only know one old Russian (Soviet) joke:
“We pretend to work. And they [the communist government] pretend to pay us.”
~~ Bob
Bob,
Unfortunately, a joke very accurately reflecting reality (as were all during the times), and as most jokes are regardless. Not that much has changed for them since, entire society is by now well conditioned into subsistence that depends on huge government to take care of you, very few have ambition to reach for something better.