I've started seeing more and more +'s after pt ratings in people's posts. Wine X- 91+pts, for example.
Interestingly, I have not seen anyone post -'s after pt ratings. Mathematically, this should happen in a random sample regardless of timing.

Don't want to instigate a fight, but this is illogical to me. Reading these TN, it is clear a ? may be more in order. These +'s seem to be as much wishful thinking of the future as they are reflection of tight full bodied backward wine.

I seldom use '+' points, but do so only when I think it will improve with age. I suppose I could use '-' points for wines I feel will deteriorate quickly with age, but somehow that doesn't seem to convey the same thing.

I should rephrase that - I use '+' points when I think with age it is likely the wine will warrant a higher score.

I think for most people the minus points are the phrase "drink up if you have 'em".

I think the plus sign '+' is useful in some situations. I would use it in a situation where I don't feel I was able to get a good read on the wine (my palate felt tired or "off", there were some conflicting aromas in the air, the food didn't match well, the wine was closed down tight, etc). I can rate the wine as a felt it was at the time, but leave the possibility open that it could actually be better in a better circumstance.

Also, I try to be optimistic.

92+ or 93-.....

"but these go to eleven".........

I don't use a minus sign. I believe it is superfluous because a 91+ is basically equivalent to 92- in my scoring system. Aging/potential development is already reflected in the overall score. As such, the plus sign does not mean anything other than the wine was not good enough to merit the next highest rating but was clearly better than an unmodified score. A point score is not a single distinct point rather it is a specified range on the quality continuum of wine.

Iguess since +/- are the same sort of, 91+ is the same thing as saying 91-92, right?

Unfortunately, I'm not blessed with the gift and the experience to taste a 2000 Bordeaux and say, "Ah, that will be a perfect wine" so usually a numerical score from me is how the wine is drinking right now. A "+" would mean that it's at least an "X" now and going to get better. If the situation is cloudy enough, I'll just describe the wine and give it a NR (not rated).

I only use a + sign when I feel that I opened the Wine "too early" & clearly it displays characteristics that it will be better with time.

Using a - sign, it not important to me. Instead, I say, "drink now".

I don't think a 91-92 is equivalent. That score tells me the taster was unsure as to whether the wine was a 91 or a 92.

It's interesting to see how people interpret scores. I'd love to peak inside of peoples' heads to see what they rate a 90 versus a 91, or more importantly an 89 to a 90, or a 94 to 95 (you know, the 'cusp' scores) and what measures or qualities they use to make those decisions.

And what about folks who give a three point range?

Also, when people rate, do you rate based on the wine at that moment, or do you already factor in its potential?

just curious.

It is interesting that you say that TJ. I remember we discussed it before.

To me, a bottle of Wine has to work pretty hard (sort of speak) to earn 90points. That is a special #. It is NOT very often that I rate a Wine 90 & above. 95 & above, I can probably count on my hands the # of time I gave out those kinds of ratings.

I almost always give a flat number (i.e. 91 points). If I am wishy washy for some reason then it is usually stated 91-92 points. Occasionally, when I am being totally lazy about rating a wine I'll just say "mid 80s".

So much for the highly complex and world renowned WIML wine grading system.

Jones said it best when he said "A point score is not a single distinct point rather it is a specified range on the quality continuum of wine."

To me, "+" represents that the wine could be drastically improved in the future. Specifically, I designated the 2001 Castano Solanera a 90+ because I didn't feel the wine was showing particularly outstanding right now, but it definitely possesses qualities that should come into focus in 3 years. Even if it never improves, I see it as nothing less than a 90 point wine.

LCC:

it's interesting to see your approach to rating, particularly given the comments lately about "grade inflation", attributed to ratings both by Parker and others. that said, as you mature in your wine tasting abilities, and wine buying abilities, don't you find that you generally only buy the better wines, the ones that should in theory garner the higher ratings. i've found that has been my buying pattern. it's interesting that if you have elevated your purchasing, yet still rate few 90 or over, you must be one tough grader.

Copilot, I'm glad you understood what Jones wrote. Too early in the morning for me. LCC wrote what I consider the best use of the plus. I don't thing of 91+ as being something that is currently better than a 91, but less than a 92. I think of it as something that is a 91 now, but when it was tasted it was somewhat shut down but showed signs that it could much higher and that it is.

I agree (with Jones) that the aging potential should be reflected in the score. I remember reading that Parker assigns as much as 10 points to this. This could explain why Laube scores wines that show well early and have limited.

I also agree with Jones that a range indicates that the taster is not sure. Ranges for barrel tastings make sense because the taste is not tasting the final blend.

Frankie:

I do not know that I am more conservative with ratings than someone else or not. I do not look @ it that way. To me, 90 is barrier (for lack of a better word) & a particular Wine has to deliver certain characteristics to earn that score. To me. No matter the price.

And yes, I try to buy the better Wines (as I get more educated). But, I also like to experiment & try different wines (& with everything as a matter of fact, not just Wine). So, although I try to buy the “better” Wines (which should BUT not necessarily will garner 90 & above), I will take a chance or try something new or different very frequently. There is that “fun”-factor of this hobby (I believe Jones referred to this also).

And, I buy a good amount of Wine & still a 90pointer + is not a common occurrence (no matter the price range). Wrong or right, that’s my viewpoint of this.

i am up for trying different wines as something new or something different, although then price plays a definite role in it. for instance, lately i've been buying some of the spanish offerings even tho i've never tried them before, but they are priced reasonably and i'm willing to give them a shot. the problem with trying something new, eg, grape or region, is when they get expensive, then you could be out $50 or so for something that doesn't fit your style. that is the bad part about trying new things. with new wines, i also go in with less preconceptions as to how it should fall out on the ratings scale.

I am fascinated by the psychological aspects of numbers. Just as $19.99 wine appears to be much cheaper than a $20.00 wine, a 90 point wine appears to be much better than an 89 point wine. The difference between an 87 and 88 point wine is perceived to be much smaller than the difference between 89 and 90 point wines.