Help Me Understand Critic Jancis Robinson

[DougS]

I have to say though, I think she’s the most inconsistent critic that I’m aware of in en primeur. I’ve not run the stats, but typically most critics will end up in the high side of their ranges they provided EP, I find very poor consistency between barrel and bottle scores from JR (and website in general).

I appreciate it wasnt her who did Bdx2020 EP tastings, but her correlation with other critics scores is pretty much the lowest of anyone.



That being said, I’ve just tried to find some examples of bottle scores quickly on Farr and I cant find many wines that have both an EP and in bottle score from JR… So it may well be imagined.

I wouldn’t assume the wines themselves are all that consistent from EP barrel samples to finished, bottled wines. A lot of critics probably make it seem that way because they don’t taste blind.

[RichardFlack]

That’s an excellent point about blind. I recall some discussion about EP in particular.

Also regrading EP scores vs on release…. I think in some cases the blend may not be final.
Anyone who buys on simple score alone is riding for a fall IMHO.

[Andy_Sc]

I have to say though, I think she’s the most inconsistent critic that I’m aware of in en primeur. I’ve not run the stats, but typically most critics will end up in the high side of their ranges they provided EP, I find very poor consistency between barrel and bottle scores from JR (and website in general).

I wouldn’t assume the wines themselves are all that consistent from EP barrel samples to finished, bottled wines. A lot of critics probably make it seem that way because they don’t taste blind.

Or maybe she’s just not good enough to anticipate how the wine will be in the bottle when tasting it En Primeur while other critics have these capabilities.

I see that with many of her ratings, not just Bdx EP that she suddendly tells you after 20 years that you should have bought it on release and it’s now a 19 or 20 points wine (vs the 17 she gave on release) - at least the others try to asses the peak potential of each wine.

[HenryB]

I wouldn’t assume the wines themselves are all that consistent from EP barrel samples to finished, bottled wines. A lot of critics probably make it seem that way because they don’t taste blind.

as posted elsewhere, its not whether the sample is consistent, but if you buy a wine that’s scored 97-99 and it suddenly drops to a 91, you’d be cheesed off whether you buy on points or not really. I find most critics have pretty consistent scores, often ending up at the top end of their initial EP range.

When there’s little correlation between barrel and bottle score, then it makes the exercise of the critic pointless from the scoring perspective. It’s still great to have their notes and view, but in terms of judging quality, its useless. and, by extension, I personally buy EP wines that are likely to sell out and increase in price - having their opinion in EP is thus useless for many people. If JR is the one critic whose palate aligns to yours, then its fine, but for other people…

[Scott_Watkins]

What is this 20 point system. 18.5 and I have to do math to get it to an equivalent fraction out of 100.

You teach 6th grade math. I’m sure you have no problem converting the scores

I am a believer that mathematics is the key to understanding the universe but what the hell does math have to do with tasting wine!?

[DougS]

I wouldn’t assume the wines themselves are all that consistent from EP barrel samples to finished, bottled wines. A lot of critics probably make it seem that way because they don’t taste blind.

as posted elsewhere, its not whether the sample is consistent, but if you buy a wine that’s scored 97-99 and it suddenly drops to a 91, you’d be cheesed off whether you buy on points or not really. I find most critics have pretty consistent scores, often ending up at the top end of their initial EP range.

When there’s little correlation between barrel and bottle score, then it makes the exercise of the critic pointless from the scoring perspective. It’s still great to have their notes and view, but in terms of judging quality, its useless. and, by extension, I personally buy EP wines that are likely to sell out and increase in price - having their opinion in EP is thus useless for many people. If JR is the one critic whose palate aligns to yours, then its fine, but for other people…

I guess I wasn’t clear. I’m saying the EP barrel samples might be quite different from the finished wines.

[HenryB]

Yep, I get that, but as Andy points out, one of the key things is the ability to forecast this and account for it. All the other critics can score fairly consistently for the most part.

[Ian_Sutton]

It’s rather a shame that a discussion on Jancis is dominated by a discussion about points, given that other critics make a much bigger deal about their score, and especially their ‘100 point wines’.

Perhaps time to get back to the thrust of the OP in this series of threads, and focus on what types of wines she favours / doesn’t favour.

[John_Morris]

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 absurd—nobody really thinks this is possible, do they?

Someone once observed that the scoring scales reflect the school grading systems of the critics’ native lands.

[HenryB]

UK education doesnt score out of 20.

[Peter_Kleban]

It’s rather a shame that a discussion on Jancis is dominated by a discussion about points, given that other critics make a much bigger deal about their score, and especially their ‘100 point wines’.

Perhaps time to get back to the thrust of the OP in this series of threads, and focus on what types of wines she favours / doesn’t favour.

I agree. Haven’t read enough of her TNs to have a good sense of her tastes. One issue is that a lot of what she reviews is not very available in the US, IIRC. And I haven’t paid for a sub, so I just see her notes in wine ads. Writes very fluently, which is a plus.

[lleichtman]

I like a 10 point scale…A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D. Reminds me of school days.

I also kinda like Jasper Morris’ system where he adds to his numerical rating of Burgundies the 1-5 stars (* - *****) indicating how the wine performed in light of its classification or level. A 90 point village wine may merit 4 stars, perhaps punching above its grade, while a 92 point Chambertin may merit 2 stars as disappointing for its level.

And there is the 2 point system of Bill Nanson, at least for older wines…Buy again / Don’t rebuy.

I don’t like numerical scoring, but I guess scoring of some type expresses how much one likes or dislikes a particularly wine, particularly relative to other similar wines tasted at that time. It is just too bad that it became the main way wine is marketed.

By the way, I really can’t stand reading tasting notes that go on and on about the 15 different aroma and 23 different flavor descriptors the writer perceives. (Maybe I am just challenged in recognizing them and peeved as a result!) But it just seems useless to me. I want to know about body, concentration, ripeness (and particularly over ripeness or roasted notes), acidity, balance, finish, sense of place, etc. A summary comment is always enjoyable to read.

I am just curious…were wine critics’ notes always stuffed full of such descriptors, and if not, when did this come into vogue?
Was it a Robert Parker thing?

I’m with you here. The A-D scoring system is easier to decipher and compare. I can appreciate the difference between an A+ and A- more than 98-92.

[Arv_R]

It’s rather a shame that a discussion on Jancis is dominated by a discussion about points, given that other critics make a much bigger deal about their score, and especially their ‘100 point wines’.

Perhaps time to get back to the thrust of the OP in this series of threads, and focus on what types of wines she favours / doesn’t favour.

I’ve read some of her work (Wine Atlas, Companion etc.) and don’t really grasp what she might specifically like that others might not. Maybe she’s better at telling the story of a region, or an estate, than articulating what’s in the glass that might matter.

I find that Rosemary George is similar in this manner, although she’s not a critic (that I know of).

[David_K2]

Back to the critic, she’s British and has the eccentricities that any British wine writer will have. She writes in a fluid, garden-party sort of way that makes you feel as if you are in the room tasting with her and sharing in the knowledge.

Yep. Love her notes. She’ll call a wine “skinny” or “mean” and I’ll get it. She says more in a sentence or two than most do in an extended paragraph of ridiculous fruit salad associations.

As for supposed inconsistency, it might, just might, mean she’s honest about what she’s tasting in the glass in that moment. Nothing more, nothing less. And you’ve got to respect that.

[Andy_Sc]

As for supposed inconsistency, it might, just might, mean she’s honest about what she’s tasting in the glass in that moment. Nothing more, nothing less. And you’ve got to respect that.

Sure, when I taste my wines, I score what I have in my glass. When it’s young or going through an awkward phase I can score a wine 90pts only to score it 15 years later with 97 pts… just because it was drinking on these levels at different points in time. As a critic however, you have to be able to look through this muted and awkward phases in order to be helpful for your subscribers. It doesn’t help me, when she tells me 15 years later that now it is good and I should have bought it 15 years earlier. A critics job is to tell me what peak drinking will look like.

[Robert_Sand]

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 absurd—nobody really thinks this is possible, do they?

Seriously how is an 18 different than a 18.5?

18.5 is better than 18

The 20 p scale is much more compressed, half points have to be used, and even xx.5+ to express preferences.

92/93 points may not be consistently repeatable, but neither are 18/18.5 … and a serious professional taster will have consistantly rate one wine better than another … provided same age and condition …

[HenryB]

dont forget with the 20 point thing you now get ++, so you can do 18.5, 18.5+, 18.5++, 19
I may have even seen some X-, which i dont know wtf that means, is 19- better than 18.5++?

[John_Glas]

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 absurd—nobody really thinks this is possible, do they?

Seriously how is an 18 different than a 18.5?

18.5 is better than 18

The 20 p scale is much more compressed, half points have to be used, and even xx.5+ to express preferences.

92/93 points may not be consistently repeatable, but neither are 18/18.5 … and a serious professional taster will have consistantly rate one wine better than another … provided same age and condition …

Why not add 18.25 to the mix?

[David_Bu3ker]

You can’t score to two decimal places unless you have a palate calibrated to three. Gotta deal with those measurement accuracy issues.

[Brian_Glas]

I like a 10 point scale…A+, A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C, C-, D. Reminds me of school days.

Actually that scoring system brings back bad memories of my college days… I was an undergrad in Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota. For one of my electives I took a 500 level Statistics class, Applied Regression Analysis. The class consisted on 1 undergrad student (me) and 10 graduate level students who were all working at 3M in their Quality Control division. I felt like I was in little league competing against major leaguers. I flunked and got an F. Ouch. Oh well I recovered. When I took a similar class in graduate school at the University of Washington I got an A… LOL