How do YOU keep score?

[Randy Caparoso]

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?