How do YOU keep score? - Printable Version

How do YOU keep score? - Printable Version

+- WineBoard (https://www.wines.com/wineboard)
+-- Forum: GENERAL (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-100.html)
+--- Forum: Rants & Raves (https://www.wines.com/wineboard/forum-12.html)
+--- Thread: How do YOU keep score? (/thread-12947.html)

- Randy Caparoso - 03-26-1999

This topic is spilling over from "Different Noses - Power of Suggestion" in the Novice section, and I thought it should be brought over here: discussion of how everyone rates wines.

Curmudgeon, of course, has a great variation of the 100 point system -- X/Y, X for quality, Y for value. I definitely think it should be adopted by every 100 point guy. In fact, some publications might want to add a Z -- X/Y/Z, the Z for drinkability-now -- because, face it, the vast majority of people buy wine for drinking now (and they should know whether they can really enjoy it when they buy it).

Personally, I can't use numbers. It's just not practical in, say, a normal tasting situation for me, which is a roomful of people and anywhere from 25 to 500 wines lined up on tables -- and an hour or two to go through as many as possible. I know lots of people do it, but I personally can't see how anyone can give come up with any reasonably accurate numerical scores. You're just like everyone else -- just throwing darts.

So here's my personal system, which is has held me in good stead since I started my first sommelier job in 1978 (I've been a wine lover since getting out of high school in '74):

EX - for Excellent
VG - for Very Good
G - for Good
F - for Fair or Flunk

A also use plus or minus signs to cross lines. And so a wine -- like a '97 Latour Puligny Folatieres I tried two days ago -- might rate a VG+/EX-. In the same tasting I scored a '95 Latour Pinot Noir "Valmoissine" a G- (a barely acceptable excuse of a Pinot). Something I think is extra, extra good -- which is rare and far between -- might rate an EX++. The last time I found one was just over a month ago (a '94 Pesquera Reserva Especial).

15-20 years ago, as you might imagine, most wines were for me either G or F. But nowadays wines are so basically sound that Fs are far and between.

So in actuality, then, my scoring is really a four category rating, but potentially a 12 part rating when you include the pluses and minuses. This way I can totally avoid the use of numbers; especially the 100 point scale, which is now so totally varied amongst the different publications that they are difficult for the average consumers to reconcile.

In fact, I'm absolutely sure that many publications "adjust" their scores after they actually count them up in order to bring them closer in line with their competitors. I don't know this for a fact, but how else do you keep some semblance of credibility. If your tasting group, for instance, ended up scoring a Ramey Chardonnay an 88, and Parker and the Spectator are giving them 95 and 96, what do you do?

'Nuff said. How do YOU keep score?

- RickBin389 - 03-26-1999

This is a good topic you've breached, i often wonder what criteria people use at tastings. I taste between 5-20 wines a week, my system consists of check marks along with + signs.....i take into consideration 1)the drinkability of a wine when grading, as i buy for immmediate consumption (primarily).
2)quality value ratio ( i put a dollar figure in my mind BEFORE i find out the price). 3) quality within varietal & appelation ...my style points if you will ( does it possess the character for the appelation it represents or is it old world acting new????) i am a firm believer in placing wines on my list that represent the appelation in the character for which it is known - i think my customers expect that.

I will add comments on style and/or possible food matches & i try to store my notes by varietal.....the check marks work for me, a quick glance & i can generally recall my thoughts on any bottle......(now my distributors might tell you different?!?).

I can't imagine personally scoring on a 100 point scale, I don't have the palate/experience that Jerry, Robert, et al have. I do like the 100 point system when the pro's wield it - it keeps things simple.
(I think Randy has hit a winner by asking for a drinkability rating....this is very important to a lot of people in my estimation). Most readers fall into comfort zones with one or more publications, probably due to the tasting notes more than the actual points they reward..this is true in my case...... ok, ok i'm rambling.

- Randy Caparoso - 03-27-1999

Well, can you give some specific examples, Rick, using some wines that you've tasted recently. I think it would be interesting to see your thought processes, so that we can better understand where you're coming from when you do share your assessments.

- Jerry D Mead - 03-27-1999

Randy, Randy...It's all shorthand. I use a hundred points these days (both for quality and value), but I've used the old 20 system too, and when I judged for Craig Goldwyn in the early days of his Bev Testing Institute, I even used his 14-point hedonistic system. I've rated by stars (usually a four or five point system...6 if you count no stars at all) and other numbers in between. I've used a negative point system preferred by the OIV at their international shows. It doesn't matter. It's all shorthand...it's all about communicating.

Without realizing it you just told us you use points too...yours is a 12 point system. You could just as easily write 12 as Ex+ and know perfectly well what you meant.

Re drinkability, I usually (though admittedly not always) cover that in my descriptive text.

JDM

[This message has been edited by Wine Curmudgeon (edited 03-28-99).]

- Randy Caparoso - 03-27-1999

Curms, well, not exactly. While I did admit that the 12 part system I use can be translated into a 100 point, or even a 20 or 14 point system, you have to understand that I guy like me just cannot stand at a table and assign numbers to wines. It's completely foreign to my comprehension. When I'm doing my rating, I am NOT thinking 12 when I rate a wine EX++. I really am thinking "Excellent-Plus-Plus," or way beyond my quality expectations. To me, it's like going to the beach and looking at the girls and saying, "she's a 10,and she's a 7+." I just don't think like that.

Now I totally realize these are personal predilections. The difference is seen especially when I actually write. Thank goodness, of course, I do not have to make those weighty decisions about whether or not I should use a 100 point system to communicate to a broad cross-section of readers. I think you do it well, and your secondary value rating is a really clever compromise between reader expectations and your own convictions. However, my readership is still local, and so it is perfectly okay for me to just recommend the best wines I have found (usually the VG-pluses through EXs), and concentrate on words to convey the taste and quality level. I write about wines in the Honolulu Advertiser the exact same way I write in the Wine Board threads. In other words, completely ignoring numerical equivalencies.

- Jerry D Mead - 03-28-1999

In other words, completely ignoring
numerical equivalencies.

I did it that way myself for nearly 20 years.

JDM

- RickBin389 - 04-01-1999

ok Randy, see if i pass your little hazing ritual, BTW - nice write up in Wine & Spirits ( got your name wrong however ) still a good plug for your NY place.

EBERLE 1996 SAURET ZINFANDEL
caramelized sugar & herb garden nose, great acid fruit balance, lingering finish of tar & black fruits. ready to go now $14 ///+
(charred or spice/herb/rub cured game meats)

CINNABAR 1996 ESTATE CHARD
toasty earthy nose, fresh green apple & oak palate. big oak on the finish. a big chard from a little winery
needs to soften. $17 // - pricey
( too big for food)

ZIND-HUMBRECHT 1996 GEWURZTRAMINER
incredible - big floral/apricot/pineapple nose. mouthful of dried fruits, grapefruit & almost effervescent chervil/fennel quality.
$18 ////++++ a steal.
(cries for fennel crusted pork & dried figs)

that is a pretty good representation, i have'nt been tasting the last week or two due to my being plastered on a daily basis (height of season)with work load. i'll become more of a regular when things let up after easter. enjoy your comments.....

- Thomas - 04-02-1999

OK.

I like Randy's system with this exception:
once the wines are described (and rather well, by Randy), why do you, or anybody, feel the need to rate them with numbers, x's, pluses or any such symbols?

Given the upscale level of the recent wine market, I assume most wine consumers can read.

- Randy Caparoso - 04-03-1999

Thanks, Rick. I know I'm easy to haze. I also kinda get the picture in your ratings. Feel free to use them around me (snicker, snicker). Seriously, though -- what's your maximum number of checks and pluses, and to what exactly do they correllate?

And, was there some kind of mention in Wines & Spirits that I missed? I don't subscribe, and buy it only if I happen to be in a Barnes & Noble or Borders magazine section.

Actually, foodie, my method of rating is completely private. My eyes only. My torture MY readers with rhetoric. And personally, the only reason why I use pluses and minuses is because my four categories -- Excellent, Very Good, Good and Fair -- really are too simplistic. I noticed in a recent Tanzer/IWC, for instance, that Joel Butler uses a simple 3 star system. That's not good enough for me to remember what I really like (and besides, I'm not nearly as wordy as Butler). So I may rate both a Ken Wright Pinot Noir and a St. Innocent Pinot Noir "VG." But to remember that I like the Ken Wright a shade better, I give it a "VG+." Of course, this is, for me, a "universal" standard -- the same as if I were rating a Dujac, Williams Selyem, or Bannockburn. But nothing complicated; which is the idea. I like things simple... and saying it like it is.

- Jerry D Mead - 04-03-1999

One reason for the shorthand beyond the pretty prose of a Randy (and that's a compliment not a dig)is that reviews often end up as quotes on shelf cards and bottle neckers.

Back before I used numbers (or anyone else did for that matter) I was probably the most quoted writer in the nation...which was good for my ego if nothing else, but also helped me peddle the column to more outlets because it added to my notoriety.

But when Parker and WS came along with numbers AND descriptions...my quotes disappeared and their's never did appear. As people walk down the aisle a merchant or vintner has seconds to grab the customer's eye. Getting them to read a full review was tough.

But they could see PARKER 91 or WS 95 from across the room. Proof that the trade and consumers wanted numerical shorthand. I think part of the reason I have survided for more than three decades is that I try to give my readers what they're looking for...reviews on wines they have a chance to find, can afford...and, as it turns out, with a numerical score beyond the word description.

Randy...Here's a challenge. Experiment with using your 4-star with plusses and minuses scoring every other week (in addition to your usual description). I'll bet you a bippy that the local retailers will tell you that more people were motivated to seek out the wines you review when you give your top score pointwise...than when you just use words to describe a wine you like equally well.

So this week rave about a 4+ wine with words only. Next week rave about a 4+ wine and use the numbers too...and see if I'm not right.

And after all...what are we here for if not to motivate consumers to try new things.

I'll even bet you two bippies to one!!!!

Curmy

- Randy Caparoso - 04-03-1999

I'm aware of your history, Curmudgeon, and your movement towards numbers because I've been reading you here and there since '75 (when I first got into the restaurant & wine biz).

But you've posed an extremely interesting challenge. Local retailers here in Hawaii tell me that occasionally people walk into their stores with clippings of my columns. I wonder if the frequency would increase if I added numbers. It would be a little against my religion, but I just might take a shot at it. I'll mull this over, and maybe get back to you on this in a few weeks or months (presuming I gather up the guts to make the conversions and follow through).

- Jerry D Mead - 04-04-1999

Well, you could do as I suggested...one week use scores...the next week not...and seek retailer feedback.

Or talk to your readers about scoring and ask for their opinions. Explain the weaknesses...beg them to continue to read the words...but would they like the shorthand?

JDM

- Botafogo - 04-04-1999

In re Shelftalkers, we absolutely prohibit any winery generated POS and only use magazine scores when they give a REALLY LOW score to one of our favorite wines in order show our customers that they should think for themselves. Examples:

Tired of insipid, squeaky clean, â€œbetter juice through filteringâ€, mass consumption wines made by UC Davis graduate food-chemists who should be working for Pilsbury instead of making wine? Then get a whiff of this:

Nicolis Amarone Classico â€˜93

Our favorite â€œterroir-istâ€, Matt Kramer, would approve of this one: it smells like aged beef, wild mushrooms, dried currants and dirt from the hills of Verona, yummy!

or:

Californiaâ€™s most Burgundian Chardonnay?!?
You decide!

You may humor yourself while you glug down Chardonnays whose gushing press releases talk about â€œlush tropical fruit and a creamy vanilla finishâ€ that they are Californiaâ€™s answer to Montrachet and Corton. WE think those winemakers accidently tasted some of the excellent white peach liqueurs produced in Bourgogne! This extremely limited production wine is made from the low yielding â€œMartin Rayâ€ clone (taken from Corton Charlemagne), is bone dry, can age for ten to fifteen years and, since it has not been sterile filtered for wimpy restaurateurs, may throw some tartrate crystals when chilled.

Jory Lion Oaks Ranch Selected Clone Chardonnay

Stirring the Merde while I pack for Italia, Roberto

- Jerry D Mead - 04-05-1999

Merde is French...what is it in Italian?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Curmy

- Botafogo - 04-05-1999

In Italian there are many shades of brown:

Just plain "shit" is "merda" but the wonder of suffixes allows much delineation of meaning:

"Stronzo" is "turd" but "mio caro stronzoletto" says that your toddler is a "cute little shit" while "questo stronzone odoroso grande" calls your ex-husband a "that great big stinking pile of shit". Language is a beautiful thing, Roberto

- Botafogo - 04-05-1999

I somehow duped the above post, went in to edit and there is no "delete" option so here is this instead.

[This message has been edited by Botafogo (edited 04-05-99).]

- Jerry D Mead - 04-05-1999

Inquiring minds didn't need to know quite so much...thank you, Roberto!

Curmy