18+ is (roughly?) the same as 18.25 … but nothing is as easy as … 94, 95 96 …
it simplifies the process 17 good, 18 great, 19 best, 20 perfect. the nuances of the .5 helps to distinguish wines that are slightly better in the wine critics opinion than the rest of the pack or other years.
Although I have used the 100 point scale for the last thirty years, I loathe it. It suggests that there is some objectivity to wine scoring which is completely nonsensical. To me, the one point difference between 93 versus 94 is absolutely bugger all. And since it is a scale known and operated only by the person scoring, it is a crapshoot whether it can translate well to others.But that doesn’t stop the unwitting from using them in making their buying decisions.
Worse still, it has been abused to the point where any kind of meaning to the scores, have been utterly obliterated. There is a powerful financial incentive to score high, and I promise that nobody is going to notice you if your top score is 93 with so many 100 pointers out there.
The 20 point system worked very well, and is so little used, that it has not been diluted. A 19-20 point wine is sensational; and there aren’t many of those. Now compare that with the critic who has found a dozen 100 point scores in a single vintage.
I respect Jancis, but do not find tremendous overlap with my palate.
1 Like
I appreciate that many of her wine reviews are limited. She often captures more in a few sentences than the lengthy, flowerly, tedious reviews with absurd fruit descriptions, sliced and diced many ways, often leaving me wondering whether the critic has even tasted such a fruit. Her reviews leave me with a strong, takeaway impression, that I can bank on.
3 Likes