A 99 pointer and a 97 pointer

WINE TALK
21

That was my thought - Togni is not an early drinking wine (at least IMHO). Give it some time and the tannins may settle down…

22

You’re surprised in a thread whose title is all about the points and where the original post is all about the points that people would react to the points and the use thereof?

23

“which is the same thing” in my above statement was shorthand for “buying wines you like (but don’t score) is basically the same as buying wines you score highly (if you do like to score wines)” but “Nevermind,” anyways. My statement was a similie. The correlation coefficient of my similie was less than 1.0. So, shoot me.

24

FWIW…Gary V. just rated the '07 Togni a 95 this week.

25

If you don’t want to read other people’s notes in context, then don’t. It’s a bit tiring to have the WA scale spit back with a sneer as if we haven’t all mentally translated it into a de facto 20 point scale with a heck of lot of arbitrariness, especially between 80-85 (borderline drinkable but still better than bulk wine) and 95-100 (subjectivity and bottle variation impeding validity). What Curtis was attempting to communicate was clear enough to me, and I’m sure to you, too. Dinging him for not following an outdated/poorly worded rubric is kinda petty huh?

If you are incapable of reading a TN with points without having an aesthetic hissy fit, then maybe you should skip threads with point references in the subject heading.

Sorry Berry, your notes and board presence are usually constructive and fun to read but this sniping is beneath the dignity of the board IMO.

26

But having a hissy fit in return is incredibly dignified, Scott?

27

Why do I feel like I just read a thread in Politics but the topic is wine [wink.gif]

FWIW, The Foley Clarets that I have had from several vintages have been terrific but seem as though they could always use more age or several hours in the decanter.
Have not had the Togni.

28

I just thought it was funny that vomit rated 82 points. You assumptions about my mindset and motivations when I posted that are incorrect. It never crossed my mind that my post would be taken in anything other than a humorous light or that it would be the inception of a serious discussion about points.

29

I think I’ll trust that Curtis was just employing poetic license with the vomit/retching description. 82 does seem a bit high for a wine that bad, and it could be a case of the original scores anchoring Curtis’ ratings. But more likely it reflects the QPR and disappointment.

Is it possible the Togni was slightly corked? Gary Vaynerchuck raved about it recently and commented it had some veggie flavors as well. He said it had a good core of fruit, though.

30

I have read Curtis’ notes for five years plus. My following impressions of his tasting scores are not a slam - just the way it is. You have to adjust to his point scale - maybe he will disagree with me but my impression is that he prefers huge extracted (not over extracted mind you) fruit laden well made (read that balanced) California Cabs that generally cost over 200 dollars a bottle. These babies need to score 95 points or more for him to consider them worth buying (and I think he has said so much in some of his posts along the way).

90-95 points - Decently made, worth drinking, not worth buying.

85-90 points - piss water

80-85 - vomit

75-80 - ipecac

less than 75 - activated charcoal.

Just giving you a hard time Curtis - have to figure you appreciate it and yes I know Ipecac is not recommended by poison control anymore - FWIW - I appreciate your notes - Curious if you have had other vintages of Togni - my experience has been that it is a wine that takes at least a decade of aging to come around although I have also had his Tanbark Hill wine and I suspect it drinks a bit earlier - kind of an old school wine and not in the genre of wines that you usually post about.

31

Oh brother…Rick is lecturing Curtis or anyone for that matter? [rofl.gif] Man, Rick, you gots nerve. neener

32

Yup, nothing screams ‘hissy fit’ like “your notes and board presence are usually constructive and fun to read”

This is only the 10th or so time I’ve seen the WA scale presented as evidence of someone else’s supposedly inadequate TN/scoring. It needs to be rebutted. Given this,

however, I overreacted. Fair enough. It seemed more mean than it was.

33

Eh. Curtis has always used points - it’s how he thinks. That’s fine. I think what berry was pointing out is the tendency for people to redefine the scale idiosyncratically. The whole point of using a scale is that it gives people a common reference point.

If Curtis’ 82 is ‘vomit’ and the common definition of it is ‘boring, but acceptable’ the meaning’s lost, or at least distorted. We don’t have to agree precisely, but if we don’t agree generally then what we have the illusion that we’re communicating - but we’re not.

And, well, if someone doesn’t want points to be an issue, don’t title a post with the point scores (not the wine names) and make the TN all about points.

That said, Curtis’ post made me smile. So did Berry’s.

34

And here is where I disagree on substance. I don’t think all that many people redefine the scale all that idiosyncratically. I think most people who use 100 point scoring apply (in a general way) the de facto scale as employed by Parker, Tanzer, and WS in which

<85 points = not the kind of wine our readers are interested in drinking, regardless of elegance, concentration, style or serving conditions

100 = one of the best wines that people who have an experienced palate (and budget) have ever had

Quoting the old rubric language says nothing about the person’s scoring, it only points out for the 1000th time that the rubric language doesn’t do a good job of describing the actual scale that the pro critics use and most amateurs mimic to one degree or another.

Of course some tasters value concentration more than complexity, some value balance over concentration, etc and there is a good amount of variation in what anchors people’s scoring. In all variations, however, you end up with far fewer than 100 or 50 gradations of quality, something more like 10 (99% of scores are between 85-95, no?) or 20 (80-100). Hence, the 82 points originally cited should be read as “I really didn’t like it” by anyone making a good faith effort to understand the original intent of the writer.

Berry was acting in good faith… but his attempted humor relied on a dated notion that 82 is supposed to mean “pretty good” to someone who drinks $15+ bottles of wine with any regularly. It doesn’t. Grade inflation has made wine scoring more valid, not less (except perhaps in the 95-100 range, which I am unfamiliar with anyway).

35

OK. Because it came across, at least in part, as “buying wines you like (but don’t score) is basically the same as buying wines that someone else has given a lot of points to.”

36

Jack Bierly,

Tru dat.

Overall my passion these days is also finding sub $70 wines that rival wines 2-3 times the price.

[cheers.gif]

37

Don’t lose any sleep over it. Even the master himself finds it hard to distinguish between a 93 and an 85 point wine: Figeac 2000 demoted - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

38

Yeah, after your post I realized I was ambiguous.

39

A very interesting read for a Monday morning. It all proves my point of not rating ‘vomit’ wines. Just keeps things simple.
By the way, I had one on Friday, If not the bad mood I was in, it would have went un-noted as well, but I was and it didn’t… [snort.gif]

My last Togni note was worded something like this: '…it’s a shame to kill so many trees…" pileon

40

Thanks for the notes, Curtis. They were informative. Shame they proved to be a launching pad for another course of sniping and personal attacks.