I actually think the 20 point scale is more useful. The idea that a critic could repeatably tell a difference between 92/93 (or 87/88) point wine is kind of absurdânobody really thinks this is possible, do they?
The 20 point scale has been used by a number of countries for decades⌠long before the American 100 point scale became popular.
In some countries, wine shows used this as a benchmark for gold, silver and bronze medals at wine shows (eg Australia back in the 70s and 80s where 18.5 and above equates to gold).
You mention whatâs the difference between 18 and 18.5? Iâd say the same thing about 91 and 93 points.
Personally for the most part I find scores hard to decipher as stand alone numbers. What even is a 95 or a 17? To me itâs really only marginally relevant as a comparative tool to those wines tried side by side on the same occasionâsay trying all wines in a producerâs latest lineup. Then it serves as some measure of which wines a critic enjoyed more then.
Sorry but isnât the â100 ptâ scale really a 20 pt scale? Is any thing actually scored <80 other than as a joke or to make a point? Equally the 20 pt scale is probably an 8 or 9 pt scale.
All I look for is consistency by a critic, so that a 95 pt wine is almost always better than a 93 pt. And I usually do a a rough mapping into say three or four buckets ⌠good / excellent / truly outstanding sort of thing.
One wrinkle with âJancisâ ⌠make sure youâre looking at specifically her scores. Purple pages has quite the team now.
I think a big issue across critics is assuming the scale is a straight line at allâŚis the difference between a 98 and 99 actually the same relative difference as an 88 and 89? I think if you find a critic you align to, you just need to learn what their scores mean to you and go with it.
One thing I notice about use of the 20 pt score range is that I frequently see scores from 15 pts and up. For mot critics using the 100 pt range you rarely ever see score lower than 85. Even 85âs are very rare. I like the fact that more range in the scoring is used even if Iâm skeptical on scoring as a whole.
Itâs a long debate thatâs been had plenty of times but one of my very biggest pet peeves of scoring is that everything ends up in the 89 and above range. So the only wines worth talking about are the very best of the best. Which is completely ridiculous.
I love value wines that do certain things really well but obviously donât stand up to the greats. Things like Pepiere Briords should be a valuable wine that gets scored in the 80âs range. But since as you say âwhy botherâ and that weâve distorted the range so absurdly any wine worth drinking regardless of itâs actual merits HAS to be in the 90âs. Which is dumb. And flies in the face of common sense.
At least the folks using the 20 pt range donât fall in the trap of just having to have any drinkable wine 18 and above.
Certainly some. Jumping on the band wagon of the other posts. Still donât like the 20 point scale but Jancis did some great videos about the wine regions of the world back in the day.
One thing to note on score ranges from critics is that there can be some selection bias. Not all publications guarantee scoring a wine if itâs submitted. If if they are bad enough, are not rated or featured instead me publications, so the effective range of scores tend to be higher up.
I thought the US scale ran from 50 to 100, which would make it a 50 point scale and therefore 2%. I can do up to 20 on my fingers and toes, and I keep reading that some members of the UK wine trade arenât too brightâŚperhaps thereâs a link.