Yes, absolute. Its hard enough to gauge one’s 89 vs my 93 only to then factor in someone’s view of “class”.
The scoring system is not perfect. It generally starts at 70 and progresses to 100. I try and work within the general norms of it on an absolute basis. Yet I’ve had times where I’ve seen wines that I’ve enjoyed and had at 90 tossed a 65. Why? Because someone else uses the entire spectrum of 100. To each their own, yet I found that supremely annoying and likewise another thread for digression.
I think generalizations like this are inaccurate. There are some California Chardonnays that are world class and some white burgs that are quite ordinary.
Independent of price, relative to the category of wine, and absolute with respect to my enjoyment. I score with respect to what a nominal wine is for the genre. By genre I mean a category such as left bank Bdx, CA syrah, red Burg, etc. A village Burg would have no advantage/disadvantage to a GC. A good to very good representative of a particular genre is a 3. Something significantly above average and/or compelling is a 4, less impressive than an average is a 2, etc, then add modifiers, pluses (for what I like) and minuses (for flaws). I really don’t like the 100 point scale. 1 is pour down the drain, in case you’re wondering, and 5 is my max reserved for standard-setting wines (to my palate).
I score absolute. But this of course is influenced by what price points I drink, which is relative to other people. Said another way, a person who only drinks $10 wines may score an awesome $25 wine really high, where a person who only knows $200 wines may score that same $25 wine really really low… and they will both call themselves absolute scorers.
Great question. Sometimes I think varietal is a factor. There have been countless Napa Cabs that have scored 100 points but I don’t recall ever seeing a Zinfandel get 100 points. Why is that? Is Zinfandel at its very best only worth of 98 points?
There seem to be a couple of definitions of “absolute” in play. I’m personally with Anton on this - I rate absolutely but within grape/variety. So a red burg gets rated relative to other red burgs regardless of price and pedigree, but not relative to a Syrah.
Of course, it’s a moving target. When considering red burgs I’m not sophisticated enough to differentiate CdN from CdB, but were my palate better then I would consider that when rating. (I also do do points so I’m a 93 on whatever)
Lots of good “points” made up thread by some usual suspects. What Don points out here is what I was going to say. Most people are going to say they rate on an absolute basis. If you read across a range of notes and scores by the vast majority of people it will become quite clear it’s just not happening that way.
There are likely more than a couple reasons why. One of the big ones is that 90 is the sort of bottom line score for anyone if they want to say a wine is good. We would only like wines that are at least 90 pts of course. But what that means is that some cheap wine that was surprisingly good even if it’s not actually a wine of top quality will get a 90 pts. But so will a solid 1er Cru or mid tier win from a top house that is clearly of better quality than the $14 close out cheapy that hit us right on the right evening.
The flip side of this is that any wine rated under 90 is assumed to be not worthy of drinking. Which by any average definition of what the scales are supposed to be would be completely false. Something rated in the 80-89 pt range should be worthy of drinking and enjoying.
The “100” point scale that is a de facto 9 point scale ends up creating a big distortion. It’s difficult not to fall in with because the greater dialogue out there reinforces the distortion. To use the scale more reasonably creates situations where people wonder why someone trashed a wine by giving it an 89.
I can answer that for me. Notes, notations and absolutely no compulsion to give a wine a rating at all.
“Needs at least 15 years.”
“Nice now, but will probably be much better with at least a decade.”
“92+”
“92++”
“(92-94)”
“(94)”
“There’s a lot of stuff going on in this wine. With enough time, it may evolve into something impressive, or at least drinkable, or it might always be unpleasant. No idea.”
“This is really good now but has so much going on and everything it needs to age well and improve quite a bit. 92++”
My standard is the pretty common NOTES-SCORE-DRINKING WINDOW format. If I say “Drink 2035-2060” I absolutely mean don’t drink before 2035 - and there should be something in the notes indicating why clearly enough.
I’ve always found this one of the biggest flaws in scoring wine, at least for most critics. There should be a “perfect” example of any type of wine. But you’ll never see anyone rate the most delicious Soave or Kerner possible 100 points, no matter how great it might be. When I score wine, it’s by what that type of wine should be in my mind. So while I’ve never tried a wine I would consider totally perfect, theoretically I could have a 100 point Soave, Morgon, or Zinfandel.
The other flaw with most critics is giving points for “future potential” or other such garbage. You should only rate the wine on what it is showing when you taste it, not a guess as to what it might become. There are so many 95+ wines now that it means absolutely nothing (if you think it ever did), as all of these are factoring in what the wine might become, not what it actually is. It would be like a teacher grading a “B” paper an “A” because the student might learn to write better papers.
In that case, how in the world would anyone score new releases that need to lay down a long time? You could have some really great wines that need time getting absolute garbage scores, because they are nowhere near ready to drink.
But what about wines like classic claret that are not meant to be drunk today but in say 10 or 20 years time?
To evaluate say Ch Batailley (not a fancy wine) five years after vintage on “what it is showing when you taste it” would lead to a score of about 80 or less. I’m not sure how that helps anyone.
I dont think score are only about whats good to pop tonight. They are partly about “should I buy it”, and partly about intrinsic worth.
I have tried to address this with the scoring on my Inside Burgundy website. Wines get their score out of 100 which is theoretically absolute, and inevitably means that nobody looks twice at a really good Bourgogne Rouge of Macon-Villages scored in the high 80s.
So alongside I add a star rating (up to 5) which is aimed at being relative. So Bourgogne at 89 is ***** but Musigny at 89 is just *. The idea is that really good wines from lesser appellations get their moment in the sun.
It is easier to do this given that I am critiquing wines only from one specialist area.
The judgement is by appellation not by price, so obviously those who charge much more than their neighbours for the same appellations are not delivering value at *** whereas an inexpensive cooperative bottling would be.
I try to make it absolute but I also am a little more generous with really good value wines.
If a $30 wine that drinks wonderfully, I’ll bump it up a point or so because I feel like it should be rewarded. Likewise, if a $100 bottle is just okay, I may be more inclined to go with a lower number if I’m deciding between, say, an 88 and an 89.
That said, I’m not a high scorer, and I’m a firm believer of actually using the low to mid 80s. I think an 85/86 is a good, solid wine. I’m also comfortable with using my own palate as a guide and understanding that any scores I give reflect my own preferences. I’m not going to give the flabby, low-energy Chardonnay a 92 just because I know SOMEONE would like it, even if I can acknowledge it is objectively well made.
Robert Parker tastes wines from all corners of the world. His scores are the result of his blind tastings or those of his faithful collaborators who take care of tasting in different parts of the world.
Wine tasting is done using the following scoring system. Any wine is given 50 starting points and then added according to:
• Color and appearance have 5 points.
• The aroma and bouquet receive up to 15 points.
• The passage of mouth and aftertaste receive up to 20 points.
• Finally, the overall quality level and the potential for future evolution and improvement receive up to 10 points.
When I see a review on CT with breakdowns 50+5+15+20+10=100 I take that score more seriously. Sure the points in each category can still be relative, but using a scoring sheet at least helps minimize emotion factors such as price.
I also read something about why some regions will never get high points under absolute scoring system.
This is where blind tasting gets difficult, I may find this harsh now, but if I know what it is, I may know that the Batailley mentioned above needs a decade. So absolute, but with an acknowledgement that now may not be its time.
The answer to both of you is that the critics who do use a future prediction in there scores should say something like “92 currently, with possibility of a 6 point improvement with 15 years cellaring.” I totally understand that many wines (and many of the wines I enjoy) need cellaring of 10-30 years, but it’s simply IMPOSSIBLE to give an accurate, firm score to a wine’s development that hasn’t happened yet. Otherwise every wine could possibly be 100 points…you never know, right? Of course maybe that explains the “score creep” over the past 30 years ?
I am definitely an absolute guy. I am sure that I have been swayed by influences other than the wine in the glass, but I try to be as impartial as possible.
I think you’re right - mostly because I’m bemused when I come across a critic’s note that reads something like “Showing absolutely nothing, reticent, will be magnificent in time but as of now completely inexpressive…93+.”
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
?