Question about ratings

[Machforce1]

I was just curious about something. When a wine is rated by someone, is that rating a comparison to like wines or just an overall rating in general. If a California Cab receives a 90 rating, does that mean it rates 90 as compared to other California Cabs? Or does it just mean that the person rating it thinks it's good compared to any red wine?

[wondersofwine]

Bucko or someone else can confirm this but I understand that most raters are rating a wine for its type--i.e., a red burgundy against other red burgundies, a sauvignon blanc against other sauvignon blancs, etc. It should exhibit the characteristics of the varietal grape (or blend in the case of bordeaux reds) and of the region where produced. However, that said, I think it's possible that a rater might never give a classical rating (i.e, 95 or higher) to certain wine types that they feel are from inferior grapes and incapable of being designated as classic wines (maybe a labrusca native grape of North America with a foxy nose and flavor or a pinot blanc or muller-thurgau.)

[Thomas]

In my experience, I have come to understand and to believe that ratings are ostensibly based on comparisons, but mainly wind up being based on bias, if not down right contempt for anything misunderstood or not within certain confines, et al.

I am one wine guy who wishes those numbers would fade away--completely! When a rater can illuminate me, lucidly, as to the difference between a wine scoring 89 and one scoring 91, I will perhaps reconsider.

[Machforce1]

Foodie, I agree with you. That's sort of my reason for asking that question. When a rater, such as Parker, gives a relatively unknown, inexpensive wine a 91, and then scores a certain vintage Haut Brion a 93, is he saying that the unknown wine is nearly as good as the Haut Brion? Or is he saying the Haut Brion is good compared only to first growth Bordeaux of the same vintage? What exactly are they saying with these ratings? Or do they just use these things to pump certain Chateaux and vineyards?

[barnesy]

I Like Kermit Lynch's view on ratings. Whats the point in comparing wines in a competition. Every well made, natural wine has its place, purpose and context.

Barnesy

[vinman]

Agree with all of you. My only uncertainty is: I am an entry level wine drinker and have no way of knowing what wines on the shelf are average, good, very good, etc. Can the ratings be of value to me since most store clerks are behind me, if you can believe that!

[Bucko]

The only time that wine ratings are of value are if you agree with the reviewers palate. For instance, I find Robert Parker's palate to like more highly extracted, oaky, high alcohol wines than I care for. Wine Spectator is hot and cold. Tanzer is more closely matched for my palate than most. Read some reviews, try the wines, and if you agree with what the author has to say, then you can feel a little safer in purchasing there recommendations. Don't forget the retailers as well -- same thing applies.

[Thomas]

You have to remember that ratings are either done in a relative vacuum (rated against only a portion of the wines that are produced on earth) or ratings satisfy an agenda (palate-based, advertising sales based, newsletter sales based, et al).

The only rating that matters is your own, and to do that you must taste and explore a lot--luckily, there is a lot of wine out there to help you get it done.

To those who wonder why they should spend their money before knowing at least a wine's rating all I can say is that I have spent my money on many things--movies, clothes, wine, whatever--that I later regretted. That is the risk of living your own life!

[Innkeeper]

Ratings are the result of one or more "experts" quantifying subjectivity.

[vinman]

All of the comments have been a big help. And if you don't believe it, got my butt kicked in the March 2002 issue of Wine Enthusiast for challenging their particular rating system. Guess I better keep my big mouth shut! You have helped me understand.