Thursday, December 27 2007
Pointing Out the Obvious
Choices, choices . . .
I've given a lot of thought to wine scoring systems. The one I use most frequently as a professional tool is a modified version of the UC Davis 20-point scale. It's not necessarily the best way to evaluate wine, but it does give some very good guidelines for interpreting the appearance, flavour and aroma of wine, in a concrete way, and with practice you can compare scores you've given to different wines and see patterns in which bottles are performing well, and which ones are less satisfactory.
Where it can fall down is in the way individuals choose to interpret it. When I was taught to judge wine I learned was that a glass of water would have to be scored 11 points out of 20, merely for being free of flaws--makes sense, doesn't it? Unfortunately I've seen acceptable (if underwhelming) wines scored in the single digits, even though they were without obvious flaw, due to the preferences of the taster. While anyone can become a wine judge, it's a skill just like playing the piano or ski-jumping. The more you practise, the better you'll get, and nobody is an expert the first time out.
That's just my hobbyhorse, though. The scale that most people are going to be familiar with is the 100 point system used by notables such as Wine Spectator Magazine and Robert Parker'sWine Advocate. Essentially it's a first-past-the-post sort of rating system, where the most desirable wines get 95 to 100 points, folks who think themselves shrewd chase after the 90-94 point wines, and everything else is undrinkable swill--at least that's how it tends to be interpreted by consumers who follow the ratings closely. I've been told that the difference between 90 points and 89 points is worth an extra twenty to thirty dollars per bottle, so producers who are keenly aware of the influence of point-raters tend to make wine that pleases them, or (as is darkly rumoured) to do anything necessary to get the numbers up.
I'm pretty much anti-numbers. I think it's simplistic, and far from being a service to consumers who need a quick recommendation, I think such systems allow for so much abuse, and dumbing down of wine appreciation that they hurt consumer perception of wine and the wine lifestyle. I'd rather have a magazine article or a wine shop clerk tell me, "That wine is pleasant but a little simple. If you're looking for more complexity, this wine has layers of flavour and interest, but it's not as dry as you're looking for", as those two sentences tell me a hundred times more than, 'His Holiness gave it 90 points'.
So I was browsing Wine X Magazine today, and clicked a link to JustWinePoints, a website that has no descriptions of the wines it reviews. It has no suggestions for pairings, indications for drink or hold, or evaluations of the prospects for future vintages. Just the wine, the price, and a number. It also has a solicitation for producers to send wine in, and pay an extra 'fee' for listing their wine with a picture and a link to their winery website. There are just so many things wrong with this that I don't know where to begin, but mainly I think it's all going to end in tears. When a thing as complex, alive and delightful as wine is stripped down to mere numbers on a page, it not only commoditises it until it's as anonymous as chalk or paper clips, it also loses whatever poetry and mystery it had to begin with.
Funny enough, Tom over at Fermentation Blog has a couple of Blogger interviews up with Alice Feiring of Veritas in Vino, and Lyle Fass of RockssandFruit (yeah, two 's' in that. I dunno) and they both chimed in on point rating systems. Asked about point rating systems, Lyle said:
Well you need to know I am anti-points and rating systems. I used to not be and when I posted stuff on bulletin boards I used points but then one day I said to myself "Who the bleep are you to give points to a living breathing thing that is changing constantly and all you are getting is a snapshot in the life of this wine." Since then no points and no ratings. But if pressed I use the tried and true, would I buy it again?
Alice was a bit more forceful about rating systems:
I don't believe in them. I believe in words and making people read. But now that I'm thinking of it, if I had to, Alice's system might be something like.
* I can't put it in my mouth.
* Down the drain, not the hatch.
* I can drink it, but I'm not happy.
* I can drink this. It does no harm.
* Every day? Sure, why not.
* What a quirky wine. Interesting.
* I really like this wine.
*I love this wine.
*I can't stop thinking about this wine.
* I can't live without this wine.
Of course there would be a few descriptive tells on each, but I would never reduce it to a #1 or a #3
I think I like Alice. That's some honest wine reviewing. But it can never be the whole story, because wine judging is always subjective. Folks disagree with me, but after 20 years in the business I've had it pounded into my head often enough. Just because I think Concorde wines taste like underpants doesn't mean that there aren't people out there who think the world of them. Similarly, my favorite flinty-dry Sauvignon Blanc with lashes of bracing acidity might taste like drain cleaner to others.
You be the judge--after all, it's your wine and your palate.
| Posted by Tim AT 12:19AM | 3 Comments |  |
Post A Comment |  |
 |
Comments
Bill Rennie
Posted 4 years ago
Tim ....I have been a wine maker and judge (and consumer) of wine for a considerable number of years. I also have lead wine judge training sessions and one of my observations re. the judging and rating of wines - regardless of the system used - 20 pt, 100 pt, or Alice's is that judges or critics generally omit to comment on the category or standard that they are judging against. I don't wish to defend critics such as RP, however if he were to state that his red wine standard is a tremendously oaky, deeply coloured, low acid, alcoholic fruit bomb, then we could perhaps understand his ratings. Using your example of Concord grape wine, if you are judging to a standard or wine class that is only Concord grape wine, then the highest ranking wine in this class should be the one with the most pronounced jock strap aroma, and be an 18 pt. or a 92 pt or a gold medal winner amonst the Concord Class. The way I often try to explain to novice judges is to compare it to the judging of antique cars. Every competition has entry classes such as mid-fifties Chevies. To judge the entries you need to know what a vintage '57 chevy should be like and compare the entries to it. The '55 chevy is slightly different and a '65 chevy, isn't in the same class even if it is a more authentic restoration. The other most difficult concept for novice judges and for critics such as Alice, apparently, is to distinguish between what you personally like and what is representative of the wine class, varietal or standard that you are judging against. Wine judging has nothing to do with what you like, it is the comparison of a wine to a predetermined standard. Wines can and should have different ratings depending what the standard is. Just some of my ramblings for you to chew on....Bill Rennie
Dan Thomas
Posted 4 years ago
You are completely correct about the absurc degree to which folks rely on "His Holiness" to rate wines, but I think it's still the closest to objective rating available. You'' have to agree, Tim, that a 95 point $100 Bordeaux is usually better than an 88 point $20 vintage. The real question for me is "How Much Better?" Is it worth $80 more? Not if you're on my income, but if I could afford it, you can bet your little wine glass I would drink better wines! And, I think, so would the "non-raters".
Jay Archer
Posted 4 years ago
Excellent points and Alice is my new hero! I think the commercial wine industry, especially in the U.S., is really hurting itself more and more each year by dumbing down wine education in so many ways. Absolutely we need to demystify wines and allow for a less pressured and less-snobbified form of wine appreciation, but I just continue to be shocked by how people here in the U.S., smart, educated people, just latch onto the three varietals they've tried before (cab sauv, merlot, chardonnay), and combine that with the 100pt scale to do all their decision-making. How's that is a run-on sentence for you. :) On the flip side, I'm finding that as a home winemaker using WinExpert kits, I have an extraordinary wide selection of varietals to pick from and share with people, and 100 point number-ratings are meaningless. I use the product descriptions and sweetness-body-oak intensity to get a feel for what to expect. My point here is that I think people like Tim and companies like WinExpert, combined with home winemakers, are doing more to educate people about wine and enjoying subtleties of flavors and learning to enjoy and expand their palate, than the commercial wine industry, at least here in the U.S. I'm continually shocked with the number of varietals carried by WinExpert that I can make, but that I can't buy in a wine store because they don't carry more than a handful of the basic varietals. All the more reason to make more kits!!