Have you ever watched a Miss America contest?
1 Like
I donât use points for scoring because I donât think they really have much meaning. I think most people who read my notes can clearly understand what I think about the wines without arbitrary numbers.
She was the most beautiful girl I have ever seen.
One of the board natives got one. To know Jim is to love Jim.
1 Like
I donât use points either, but I donât mind in the least if others do, including 100 pts.
For my part, Iâm mostly with Brad England. When I see a score of 100 pts, I think it means the wine was damn good. Something that inspired you to use superlatives, to reach for the a way of categorizing it which exceeded most others and put it in the most rarefied category. We all reach for superlatives from time to time, even if we canât always explain why.
2 Likes
Well said Sarah!
The 100 point scale has a big problem, which is displayed here in this discussion: people assume that
a) that 100 points means THE ONE perfect wine, when it does not. For almost all here it seems that the think that there is just space for one wine at the top. For the critics, for myself and many others (nicely displayed on CT), there is a lot of space at the top of the pyramid. 100 points is a plateau with enough space for ALL wines which achieve that certain level of quality. Of course, not every critic, taster, drinker has the same definition of 100 pts and the same amount of space at the top. Every wine drinker has to find its own definition (and you have to find the critic which defines it similarly). I defined it once for me: Every wine that achieves good marks in these 12 (13) categories will get 100 pts:
-
expressive nose, palate, finish -
high complexity -
high aromatic precision, purity, not too ripe -
evolving aroma profile -
intriguing sweetness, balanced by other aroma categories -
creamy texture and yet airy and light -
perfectly ripe and round tannins -
high but perfectly integrated acidity -
very balanced and harmonious -
long and expanding finish -
has to create an emotional response -
I have to like it, I have to like the style
(13.) extra points awarded for singularity
As an add on. The definition one has for perfection is not something steady. Taste and preferences change all the time.
b) that the 100 pts of a critic mean that the wine is perfect now, when in reality all the critics say that they try to assume which wine will reach perfection in the future/once mature. It would be not a big help for customers when a critic comes back 20 or 30 years later to tell that the wine he once scored 93 points because it really was a 93 point wine at that time is now a 100 point wine and the customer should have bought it 20 or 30 years ago.
1 Like
The ratings system has become saturated with 100 point scores, and itâs overflowing with 98s and 99s. All of those seemed way more rare and elusive in the 90s and early 00s. 100 pointers seem to serve the critic these days almost more than the wine drinker/buyer. Iâm not sure putting a higher standard would even be in the best interest of a critic for majority of their audience(?)
Personally I do not agree with the concept of a 100 point wine as some sort of objective standard based solely on technical criteria. I think itâs silly, and mostly marketing nonsense sold to us by the trade and critics. Itâs impossible to eliminate the experiential aspects of drinking wine. The 100 point wine is effectively a product being sold by critics to consumers in order drive influence and revenue (whereby they in turn sell that to the trade to effectively increase both of those things even further). Hence Parkerâs evolution from consumer advocate into the despot of wine criticism, and now AGâs latest move at Vinous.
Consequently, I see the possibility of a 100 point wine as a once in a lifetime experience. And if itâs later eclipsed by another wine experience, then itâs either a result of time blurring that memory and/or the fact that the original wine wasnât truly a 100 point experience. For me, itâs like Highlander⊠if I ever have a 100 wine experience, there can be only one.
Someone mentioned that if we donât allow for many potential 100 point wines, then 99 becomes the new 100. I actually disagree. 100 / perfection has a psychological influence and inferred meaning that drives consumer buying patterns. While 99 point wines will certainly experience appreciation, I doubt that it would truly have the same impact.
Agree that itâs a bracket. A range of quality. The same way you could rate two of the wines you are blind tasting side-by-side 92, yet still rank one above the other.
As far as perfection goes, should we be going through life refusing to see any sunset as perfect? If you try to apply objective standards of measurement to art and nature, youâre just doing it wrong.
Then again, a simple wine can be joyous, perfect for what it is, perfect for the context its enjoyed in, but not be a âgreatâ wine, and not justify a huge rating.
Ratings are a tool, a means of communication. We shouldnât be giving too much weight to them. We can fully understand why a critic rates a wine highly - along their lines of subjective and objective standards - see the consistency of how they assess wines. But, still not enjoy those wines ourselves. We can have our own metrics. They donât have to be bigger is better or whatever.
100 points means you find the wine truly and uncommonly great. We should be uncomfortable awarding higher ratings, especially if we donât have the very extensive tasting experience to make such assessments, thus these discussions.
It means that person on that day with that specific bottle of wine in that specific setting was âperfectâ to them - and only them. Nothing more and nothing less.
I for one do not feel it is possible to have a âperfectâ wine - and to me, the little âimperfectionsâ make a wine better and more appealing to me . . .
Cheers
1 Like
There is an old joke that a guy is interviewing people and asked the first interviewee, what is 2+2. The guy is a statistician and says that 2+2=4 with a 100% level of confidence. This goes on for a while and the employer finally interviews a lawyer. He asks the lawyer how much is 2+2? The lawyer goes and locks the door, pulls down the shades to the window and goes over and asks the employer, how much do you want it to be. I would say 100 points means what you want it to mean.
Statistically, since we are for the types of wines most of us drinking really dealing with a 30 point system (70-100), 100 points could be given to the best one out of every 30 or so wines you taste. So, yes, then some 100 point wines would be better than other 100 point wines. Alternatively, one could score based more on say a bell shaped curve where fewer wines are given 100 points. Still, this would not mean 100 points is a perfect wine. To leave the top wines only being for perfect wines, you probably need more of a million point scale, or more.
None of this really troubles me. Points are just points. They are what you give a wine. They have no intrinsic meaning. The world does not shift if I call something a 100 point wine and clearly some 100 point wines are better than other 100 point wines, just like some 80 point wines likely are better than other 80 point wines. I guess you could rate one wine 80+++*# and another 80±±$, but at some point doesnât this get silly.
I know that this year you seem really obsessed with points - this has to be the third or fourth thread you have started with a very similar theme. To me, points are just a way for one person (often a wine critic) to compare different wines they have tasted and to tell you which one they like better. I donât tend to think about wine in terms of points, but once in a while I do. And, I like critics to score in points (with tasting notes), but that is just because I remember what it was like to read wine reviews before the 100 point scale started to be used and it was really hard to finish an article and have a good idea what wine the reviewer likes better than another wine (especially with the British wine writers who were so tied to the Bordeaux trade).
I have no idea what it means for a wine to be perfect. Seems silly to me. I know people who if I had to rate them I would rate them 100 points. One would have been my father who was really a fabulous person. But was he perfect - absolutely not, he had flaws like everyone else. And, I view wine the same way. Discussing a wine as perfect seems awfully silly to me.
1 Like
Sometimes.
I donât use points, but to me it means I caught a spectacular wine at the right time and in the right setting. (I think mood and company affect our wine experiences a fair amount.) Sometimes everything just comes together - I can still remember what my first bottle of Pousse 1990 60 Ouvrees tasted like, or the first time I had 89 Leflaive Batard.
I donât really agree with the cynical âitâs means itâs expensiveâ take on this question. Besides, sometimes opening up an expensive bottle of wine youâve been saving is part of the experience.
It means I canât afford it.
1 Like
Totally agree. To me, the difference between a 1-10 scale, 1-20, 1-50, or 1-100 is merely an issue of granularity, and I donât believe that any critic can reproducibility score the same wine (blind) over multiple times (among other wines) within 1 point. So, if the error might be +/- 3 points on any given day, then whatâs the point of having such a refined scale? I joked (tongue in cheek) in an earlier post that a 100 point wine is 1 point better than a 99 point wine, meaning that 95-100 might as well mean the same thing. And if thatâs the case, then the granularity is pointless.
If they are all â100â, then they are equal, so equal ranking.
How many 1, 2 or 3 ratings have you seen on the 20 point scale?
âThese go to 11.â
Nigel Tufnel
It means that I canât afford it.