Scoring based on color: My debate with James Suckling

[Paul_Seah]

My group often does black glass tastings where we cannot see the colour of the wine at all - I thought this both sharpens the palate and allows us to gauge the intrinsic quality of the wine better. Looks l have been wrong all the while

[Gordon_ZenMasterOfZin_Ng]

@Paul Seah

My group often does black glass tastings where we cannot see the colour of the wine at all - I thought this both sharpens the palate and allows us to gauge the intrinsic quality of the wine better. Looks l have been wrong all the while

There is value in being able to see the color of the wine. It gives an indication of potential flaws, maturity, age of the wine, if the wine is too far gone for a known data point on that wine.

But what if you were blind? Would you still be able to rate a wine 100pts, guess not by Sucklings standards? But then then don’t assume you are blind.

Color can be misleading however. You could have a lighter shade of red wine that’s a few years to decades old, from a famous vineyard and yet have a superlative wine with long length on the palate, and wonderful flavors. Whereas a 2-buck-Chuck Shiraz from 2009 is a medium dark purple?

Of course then Suckling and others ascribe a certain value depending on the varietal and known age of the wine. Then you get into preferences/styles of wines that the taster prefers. Super dark, extracted Oz Shiraz, 15++ for color? What does it all mean?

For me, color is helpful; but I’m more interested in what I can’t see…what a wine does to me on the palate when combined in a synergy with tasty food…everything else is just winegeek mental masterbating, imho.

See, when I’m with wine geeks, we talk color to small degree, but I’d rather be at home or a restaurant, or on a deserted island with only one bottle (but that’s another thread ), or take your pick location, with people I enjoy, with food I enjoy, with wine I enjoy…F8ck color!!!

Drinking any old decently tasty plonk, looking through the rim of the glass, admiring the good glycerol ‘legs’ of a nicely concentrated wine…across from her…eh, what was this thread about again< yeh, put me on ignore, for some reason I can’t ignore a wine with great legs…or her either:

[Gordon_ZenMasterOfZin_Ng]

@Evan Dawson

James Suckling claims to set aside 15 points for a wine’s color in his scoring. He has also demonstrated that he scores wines in all manner of lighting, and sometimes not very good lighting. And then in a recent free video, titled “Why the Best Brunello Have Color,” he says, “Sunlight is the most natural light and (in it) you can really see color.”

I decided to ask him about it on Twitter, and he responded. Here’s our conversation:

Evan Dawson
If sunlight is best way to view color, why judge color indoors like you do?

James Suckling
Isn’t that sort of a dumb question? Tasting outdoors doesn’t work. You know that.

Evan Dawson
Right. But 15% of the wine’s score is color, and you admit you judge the color in sub-optimal conditions.

James Suckling
What do you do? Do you have anything better to do today…or is it a slow news day?

Evan Dawson
Just honestly curious. If a wine’s color is 15% of its score, why judge in conditions that don’t let you see it optimally?

James Suckling
May be you use your daylight flashlight when you visit cellars to taste? Can get one?Evan Dawson
Ha! That would be great. But perhaps another reminder that assessing color for points is questionable.

Evan Dawson
And yes, I confess that I think it’s strange to put so much weight on a wine’s color. But your mileage may vary!

James Suckling
Giving points for color works for me, UC Davis and lots of people.

Umm, yeah, so Suckling and others are admitted haughty pompous blowhards, nothing new here…next issue?

Why sure Jimbo, my friend made me a custom single AA NiMH High 95 CRI LED flashlight you can put in your pocket. Not super bright, those are coming to the market in a few years, but still useful> cost $20.

Need more accuracy, try and Pantone light box for your Tuscan villa tastings:

http://www.thepapermillstore.com/product.php?productid=24114" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Wes_Barton]

@H Wallace Jr

Got into a discussion with an old bird in Sacramento last night regarding color and appearance- she loved the flavor of a wine (young, skin fermented SB), but said she could never buy it because it wasn’t clear (unfiltered, unfined, and young)-- But I asked again if she liked it-- “Yes. It is great. But you also taste with your eyes.”

You’ll never find her body.

Many of my favorite wines are unfiltered. Some great reds are very light. Many highly extracted wines are bitter to me. Why obsess over some superficial B.S.? Why compromise a wine’s quality? Some of these people would take off 20 points for a torn label…

[Evan_Dawson]

@Tom Lee

@Evan Dawson

James Suckling
What do you do? Do you have anything better to do today…or is it a slow news day?

\

Have to give him a little credit for that line.

Tom

Yeah, had a good laugh at that one.

[Ken_V]

@Larry P

@K V a s t o l a

15 points is a lot more. Recall that 50 points is automatic, so it’s really a 50-point scale. That means that for Parker, color is 10% of his real score, while for Suckling color is 30% of his real score.

Ken, if you watch the Suckling video on component scoring, he doesn’t give 50 free points, it was a 15+25+25+35 so 15 points is 15% of the score.

I did not know that. But has he ever given a wine less than 50 points? I don’t recall ever seeing a rating the Spectator less that 50 points.

[Tom_Gutting]

Evan brings up a valid point, and if it’s such an important component of the score (really, ANY component of the score should be considered important), it deserves something more than a flippant response of, “I’ve done this a long time, so I know how.” Just because you say so doesn’t make it true. It’s a valid point of discussion … I, for one, am a believer that color matters not at all in wine.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

Paprika is graded and sold based on a standardized color scale, no?

[dave_cuneo]

The color of a healthy, mature Barolo/Barbaresco in natural sunlight is the most gorgeous color in the wine world, for me. It changes if you go inside and look at it under the new CFL bulbs, and is different again under the old style incandescents. Natural sunlight though is the best, it has no mercy, if the wine is oxidized it will show immediately in the color - a shade of brown, mahogany, caramel etc. The healthy wine glows in red, garnet red, brick red, to orange and even yellow at the rim, but is vibrant, vivid, amazing. How you quantify that, or why you would want to, is beyond me. dc.

[Hank_Gillespie]

@dave cuneo

… Personally I can’t imagine he actually uses that system - the dude sniffs, slurps and spits and “I’m 92 on that”, boom. dc.

I believe you have the Suckling System down pat, Dave.

As the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. For me color is important, but it may not be as pertinent to wine appreciation by someone else. Whether it’s 15% or 3% or something in between, the aspect of color forms a part of my own evaluation of any wine. A deep ruby Pinot Noir is far more attractive for me than one that borders on an orange hue. Since I don’t make points evaluations the weighting isn’t important.

Why in the World would anyone care what Mr. Suckling has to say about any wine, I wonder? I believe, on the other hand, that Mr. Suckling could be an expert on pomposity and bluster.

Hank

[M_A_T_T_H_A_R_T_L_E_Y]

Seriously Suckling needs to just stick to giving points…his personality does not translate well on the written page and it definitely is not doing him any favors in his videos…

If I were him I would just pull a parker and go to pts and tasting notes…no video, no interviews…he is his own worst enemy right now…

[dave_cuneo]

Hank,

Agree, color is a big part of the pleasure of wine drinking for me, but as you noted it is quite subjective, and trying to quantify what the “perfect” color is for any type of wine is absurd, really.

In whites, I love that rare wine that is young and fresh and has a literal green tinge to it, like lime, it always amazes me.

As for Suckling, there is a market for what he does, people want to be told what is good for a variety of reasons. You and I may not need him, but I need advice in other areas, like cars, home repairs, financial etc. where I do not have the passion or experience required to go it alone. dc.

[Xavier_Lavoipierre]

This is giving me a headache. Makes me glad I don’t score wines.

Seems like the simple solution to the color issue is to simply reserve the right to deduct a point or two for “inappropriate” color, whatever that may mean to the individual scorer. For example, for a wine which is prematurely showing visible signs of oxidation, or a Brunello which is nearly black (not to revive an old subject), etc.

[Evan_Dawson]

@Xavier Lavoipierre

This is giving me a headache. Makes me glad I don’t score wines.

Seems like the simple solution to the color issue is to simply reserve the right to deduct a point or two for “inappropriate” color, whatever that may mean to the individual scorer. For example, for a wine which is prematurely showing visible signs of oxidation, or a Brunello which is nearly black (not to revive an old subject), etc.

Fair enough, but don’t you think that a wine showing visible signs of oxidation is going to be, well, oxidized enough to lose points based on aroma and taste? In regards to darkness, I realize Mega Purple is ostensibly indiscernible. But still. A black Pinot probably tastes like a fat, over-extracted, blend, with the Syrah showing its edge.

[Paul_Jaouen]

He must really like the color of 09 bordeaux -

“The 2009 vintage is the greatest modern vintage of our time for Bordeaux. Believe in the hype.” James Suckling 1/11

[Larry_P]

@K V a s t o l a

@Larry P

@K V a s t o l a

15 points is a lot more. Recall that 50 points is automatic, so it’s really a 50-point scale. That means that for Parker, color is 10% of his real score, while for Suckling color is 30% of his real score.

Ken, if you watch the Suckling video on component scoring, he doesn’t give 50 free points, it was a 15+25+25+35 so 15 points is 15% of the score.

I did not know that. But has he ever given a wine less than 50 points? I don’t recall ever seeing a rating the Spectator less that 50 points.

I don’t know if he’s ever rated a wine that low, but with a fresher mind this morning I’m not sure I’m buying my own 15% argument. Why? If RP color is 10% (5/50) and JS color is 15% (15/100) then JS 80 must be the same as RP 90, no? Both have won 80% of possible points. Does anyone actually believe that, even if it is statistically true?

You can see application of the JS scoring system in any of his recent blog posts, and it seems that a wine which “has color” (all wines) get 14, here and here and here:
My Article: Thoughts After an Imperial Bottle Dinner - JamesSuckling.com" onclick=“window.open(this.href);return false;
My Article: The Problem with California Wine - JamesSuckling.com” onclick=“window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.jamessuckling.com/my-blog-traditional-and-modern-barolos-diverge.html” onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Larry_P]

@Bill Tex Landreth

Paprika is graded and sold based on a standardized color scale, no?

…and Maple Syrup, eh?

[Robert_Thornton]

@Bill Tex Landreth

Paprika is graded and sold based on a standardized color scale, no?

Yes, because it’s related to quality. Color is important is assessing everything from fresh fish to gemstones. I just never understood how color is related to the quality of a wine independent of aroma, body, length, etc.

Cheers,
-Robert

[Wes_Barton]

@Larry P

@K V a s t o l a

@Larry P

Ken, if you watch the Suckling video on component scoring, he doesn’t give 50 free points, it was a 15+25+25+35 so 15 points is 15% of the score.

I did not know that. But has he ever given a wine less than 50 points? I don’t recall ever seeing a rating the Spectator less that 50 points.

I don’t know if he’s ever rated a wine that low, but with a fresher mind this morning I’m not sure I’m buying my own 15% argument. Why? If RP color is 10% (5/50) and JS color is 15% (15/100) then JS 80 must be the same as RP 90, no? Both have won 80% of possible points. Does anyone actually believe that, even if it is statistically true?

You can see application of the JS scoring system in any of his recent blog posts, and it seems that a wine which “has color” (all wines) get 14, here and here and here:
My Article: Thoughts After an Imperial Bottle Dinner - JamesSuckling.com" onclick=“window.open(this.href);return false;
My Article: The Problem with California Wine - JamesSuckling.com” onclick=“window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.jamessuckling.com/my-blog-traditional-and-modern-barolos-diverge.html” onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, since he gives a wine 14 points on color, just for showing up, what are his floors for the other components? What is his effective minimum score? Same goes for Parker. He gives a wine 50 points for showing up, but also 4 points on color, and however much for the other components. You need their effective minimum scores to calibrate their point ranges. (Theoretically, a flawed wine would rate below their effective minimums, but they then wouldn’t likely scored it.)

Anyway, it seems Suckling is confused by this questioning because it’s really over 1 point. Or really, a one point range. It may, in reality, only influence his rating on a fraction of wines. Say, if he’s “92.5 on that”, it would influence his rounding.

[dave_cuneo]

Does he round up or down??? dc.