Wine scorers: Absolute or Relative to "Class" ?

Let’s see if I can get this question out coherently. . .
The question is for those of you who score wines, regardless of whether you score numerically (e.g. 0 to 100) or qualitatively(e.g. “not recommended, recommended, recommended+, highly recommended, highly recommended +”). Is your scoring ‘absolute’, regardless of the class of wine. In other words, do you use the same criteria for scoring for a $20 wine as you would for a $200 wine. Or is your scoring ‘relative’ in some sense to the class of the wine?

What prompted this question? I looked at CT scores for a well regarded white burgundy in the $100 range and saw an average score of 91. I also see the occasional $25 +/- bourgogne blanc or chablis rated about the same average score. If you were the person who gave each of these wines a 91, can I conclude that you judge these wines in some sense to be “equally good”, or is the score relative to other wines in the “class” - e.g. premier cru burgundy scored relative to one another?

Whew, that was a lot of effort and I am still not sure I was clear!

Yes. One thing I’ve learned that high price doesn’t mean high quality.

If I rate a $15 wine 95 and a $150 wine 94, that means I’d favor that cheaper wine if both were poured to me blind. However, it’s always more difficult to compare if wines are made in very different styles.

However, if a friend offered me a pour, I’d probably go for the $150 wine just because those tend to be harder to come across.

Absolute.

You see CT ratings influenced by critics all the time. The old cliche was people giving a high (like 94) rating to a big, over-ripe, overly oaky wine they did not like. Absolutely nuts. “This wine is undrinkably revolting. 94 points.”

As has been discussed in recent threads, some of the most prominent Burg critics are notorious low scorers. It’s not surprising their readers would calibrate to them. Like any good lemming would.

Absolute by grape/variety.

Absolute regardless of price.

How does Wine Spectator rate? To me it’s puzzling that for instance this year Oregon whites or California chardonnays have more 90+ points than White Burgundies. No offense to Cali whites which I enjoy - but they are on different categories of quality altogether.

I guess the moral of the story is that all 93 point wines are not created equally. When critics rate with numerical scores, it’s important to know are they judging short term desirability or long term potential. While two wines may receive the same score, they could be based on very different assessments.

Personally, i try to rate them on absolute enjoyment. I will say though, that sometimes part of that absolute enjoyment is the surprise of finding such a great deal. If that is the case, I will typically note it as such in the tasting note ("+1-2 points for being an absolutely killer deal at $20!")

I tend to imagine that the price can influence the score in both directions though. One person knows theyre drinking a $200 bottle of white burgundy and so they are going to rate it 95 even if they dont like it because it was expensive. the person next to them is going to drink that same bottle, enjoy it less than a Walter Scott Combe Verte for $25 and so they are going to give it an 81 and call it an atrocious value. just depends on the kind of person you are and what kind of mindset you are in when thinking about the wine.

I try to rate on an absolute basis within variety but must admit that bias certainly creeps in.

This may be controversial, but I don’t see them in the same category, so I wouldn’t expect the ratings to be California Chardonnay ‘against‘ White Burgundy.

Like comparing dollars to ‘francs.’

That’s how I interpret those things.

This.

And what Otto said.

Or other critics are notorious high scorers.

Depends which end of the telescope you’re looking down. I recall 90 points used to mean excellent, as opposed to its current meaning of quite good.

It should be absolute. In reality it’s usually relative. Kim Crawford Sauvignon blanc 91 points and so forth.

If by “class” you mean price, then absolutely absolute. To do anything else double-counts the QPR aspect.

I would say, absolute within class. Price should not be a factor. QPR is for the comments. Isn’t that the point of blind tasting? You may know what the subject of the tasting is but that’s it.

Im not sure I see the point of scoring wines non blind, or worse tasted in a social setting. “There are no good wines , only good bottles” applies in spades when social setting and food are in play. “We had the Chablis with the jerk chicken which didn’t work so well, 85 pts” By all means comment but don’t score. This is directed CT type scoring milieus not the pros.

Absolute, irrespective of variety or anything else.

Lots of slightly different takes on interpreting what I was trying to get at, probably based on my confusing wording. Otto, I think you have distilled my wordy stuff to the essence of my question. Price correlates pretty well with the idea of “class” that I was grasping at. Rephrased : “do you use the same criteria for scoring for a Village Chablis as you would for a Premier Cru Chablis?” If the answer is yes, this is what I meant by “Absolute”. If the answer is no, this is what I meant by “Relative to Class”

Thanks for highlighting this and for your straightforward answer.

And course there is the Johnson system I’ve mentioned before (Hugh, not Boris), which I guess is relative at least when it gets into buying cases or the vineyard.

Seriously though, how does a 95 pt rating for Pinot compare to a 95 pt rating for Zin, unless one like both absolutely equally (that applies to both critic and reader).

I agree, but are you scoring for the drink now aspect or the potential?

Yes, as they are both in the same class.
What about Chablis vs Sauternes? Or Mosel Kabinett vs TBA. Surely the expectations are different.

New thread.