ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts:4877
 | | 12/06/2002 3:28 AM |
| | dr.t-i would agree with you that there is a margin of error when using the 100 point scale. i am just not certain what that margin should be. | | | |
|
GATC
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2420
| | 12/06/2002 4:40 AM |
| This is what the WS Forum should be. Congratulations and thank you to the NJ group for starting this Forum. It's nice to have a civil intelligent discussion with interesting perspectives.
I'm not a fan of overrating wines. It's like grade inflation in high school. It makes an "A" meaningless. | | | |
|
JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts:8568
| | 12/06/2002 5:00 AM |
| I do not share Dr. T's overt pessimism regarding the ability of a taster to critique with reasonable accuracy what is in one's glass nor do I subscribe to the assumption that the (admitted) subjectivity of wine tasting render one man's subjective impression of a wine to be by fiat no more or less credible than any other mans. I am more than comfortable asserting that if one claims Sutter Home White Zinfandel to be the best wine made on the planet then that person's assertion is wrong, the lack of a measureable characteristic or no.
I intentionally taste a wide range of wines so as to increase the accuracy of my palate. One cannot distill the goal of wine appreciation down to mere hedonism. Wine appreciation involves tasting the entire range of wines from over ripe Chenin Blanc from the Livermore Valley to 1982 Giacosa Barbaresco Santa Stefano Riserva. (By the way, if somebody says the Livermore Chenin is better than the Giacosa I don't have a problem asserting that taster is wrong as well.) | | | |
|
JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts:8568
| | 12/06/2002 5:04 AM |
| | Who is "blindly agreeing" to what has been asserted? | | | |
|
Jeremy Matthew
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2067
| | 12/06/2002 5:40 AM |
| What if all the experts in the world thought White Zin to be the bees knees and you hated it. Would this make it a reputable wine or would it mean that you are simply in disagreement with the worlds critics.?
Personally as far as Parker and co go they are guides, nothing more. very good guides but thats it. | | | |
|
Budman
Master of Wine
Posts:11879
| | 12/06/2002 10:40 AM |
| With all that has been said on this subject, here's where I exist at this time.
1. I'm relatively new at experiencing 'good' wine.
2. I've never tasted a wine that was rated higher than 96 by the experts,
primarily because I can't afford it.
3. I'm looking forward to improving the quality of wines that I drink, and maybe even
get to try one of those 98-100 point wines, just for the pure joy of the experience.
4. Most importantly, over the past 5 years, my 'average' wine score has increased
dramatically. Words like Woodbridge, Glen Ellen, Parducci, and Gallo Hearty Burgundy
used to be a regular part of my vocabulary. I had little or no appreciation for 'better'
wine, nor did I think it was worth the money. To look back is proof positive that you
CAN teach an old dog new tricks!!!
5. I envy (in a good way) people like TCK who got into this joyful hobby at a young age
and has an enthusiasm for wine, both thru acquired book learning and thru personal
experience, that can only be described as contagious!!!
Now, if I could only get my faulty sinuses to drain, so I could savor what many of you do.... | | | |
|
JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts:8568
| | 12/06/2002 1:13 PM |
| By saying they are "very good guides" you have proven my point. If no man's opinion had any more credibility than others (because nobody can be wrong or right) then by definition a guide could not be "very good", poor, or superlative. All guides would be the same - virtually worthless.
Critiquinq architecture cannot be reduced to providing the height and width of a building and when it was built. Critiquing wine cannot be reduced to reporting the alcoholic strength, the vintage, and the name of the winery.
| | | |
|
love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts:12501
| | 12/06/2002 1:28 PM |
| Jeremy: That is exactly how I look @ those guys. Exactly.
GATC: I believe I speak for all of us when I say, "THANK YOU". | | | |
|
TCK
Barrel Filler
Posts:1279
| | 12/06/2002 2:10 PM |
| I think I know what Jeremy is saying by "very good guides". People who have an understanding of what makes a wwine quality and who have a certain degree of experiece with tasting will usually rate wines within 5 points of each other, of course there are many exceptions to this but generally it's true. Often tasters here will all agree that a wine falls in to the "outstanding" category (a 5 point range), whether it's a 90 or 93 seems to be up to the personal taster. As a guide Parker or yourself (jones) can give a person an idea of what bracket the wine should fall into and a very good idea of general quality.
Jones when you rate a wine do you first decide whether you think it's a classic, outstanding, very good Ect...Ect.. and then narrow it down to a score within that range or do you have an exact number in mind very quickly. I ask because I'm interested in the thought process that a person who rates wines with the intention of other people reading them uses.
TCK | | | |
|
Matt Carton
Grape Destemmer
Posts:72
| | 12/06/2002 3:01 PM |
| I really enjoy this thread. I believe there are really two identities of an "average" wine...
1.) How the wine falls relative to what you drink
2.) How the wine falls relative to all wine made in the world
Let's face it, our definition of an average wine, being serious wine lovers, can be much different than the masses. We are privileged to be able to consumer the better quality of wine, where others might not. I drink wine mostly between 87-93 by the "professionals", so I would say that MY average wine would be right around 90.
But, please don't think that I think an average wine is 90 points. My palate is constantly "calibrated" to what a truly average wine is, and what a poor wine is, although I choose not to drink that juice on a regular basis. I think tasting those wines really puts what I drink in perspective, and makes me appreciate the wines I regularly drink even more.
| | | |
|
TCK
Barrel Filler
Posts:1279
| | 12/06/2002 6:04 PM |
| Hey Bud, thanks for the compliment  | | | |
|
ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts:4877
| | 12/06/2002 6:29 PM |
| | tck-i think a five point spread on any wine is too much. there is a big difference bewtween an 85 and 90, just like there is too much of a difference between a 90 and a 95. if one were tasting classic wines on a regular basis, one would also believe there was a big difference between a 95 and 100 point wine. | | | |
|
TCK
Barrel Filler
Posts:1279
| | 12/06/2002 6:47 PM |
| Ojeffso,
Yeah, Those would be the extremes. And I ran out of fingures discovering that the spread between 90 and 95 is actually 6 points HA HA.
- more likely is the 2 or three point spreads like in the Whitehall lane example. However, It's not unheard of for people who I respect finding diffrences in that range - for instance your opinion and Parkers on the MP Shiraz #9 is about 5 points I think.
From the 2 opinions I can conclude that, I may lean more towards your side or his when I taste this wine, but I am very positive that this wine is surely Outstanding.
TCK | | | |
|
ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts:4877
| | 12/06/2002 7:01 PM |
| | yes. parker believes the 9 is a classic. i do not. that's a big difference. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Barrel Filler
Posts:1010
| | 12/06/2002 7:22 PM |
| | I know that the numerical scale is not supposed to work like this, it's not logarithmic, but I think there is a definite feeling at least to me that the distance between 94 points and 95 points is larger than any other. Just what does it take to garner the "classic" ranking? | | | |
|
Bradley Molzen
Bayonne, NJ
Wine Lover
Posts:4992
| | 12/06/2002 7:47 PM |
| That 89 to 90 hope is also really big. For retailers that may mean whether they can move a wine or not.... so they typically don't post any wine scores below 90.
| |
If you drink wine, you get smarter.... | |
|
Budman
Master of Wine
Posts:11879
| | 12/06/2002 7:51 PM |
| Revlis,
Just to support what you said about retailers etc, I've noticed that every lot in winebid.com that has a rating of 90 or more from either RP, WS, or ST, has the rating and its description published with the lot. If all 3 reviews are below 90, no score or review is published.
This may not be true in every case, but certainly in most.
It pretty much backs your logic of a major jump from 89 to 90 (in some people's minds, at least). | | | |
|
love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts:12501
| | 12/06/2002 7:56 PM |
| GA: Interesting point. To me, that "distance" is 95 to 96
AND 89 to 90 (as Revlis stated). Those 2 are KEY. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Barrel Filler
Posts:1010
| | 12/06/2002 7:56 PM |
| On the retail level I concede that the 89-90 difference is important to the seller and buyer. Is the 94-95 difference more important to the wine lover such as ourselves. I say yes.
Human creatures that we are, we love to talk about the classic wines we have had and hold, more than the excellent ones. | | | |
|
JimmyV
Central Connecticut
Wine Connoisseur
Posts:5112
| | 12/06/2002 7:58 PM |
| Nice thread. As I neared the end, I thought I knew what I was going to post, but MCrtn said it almost verbatim. Like it or not, I think most people use "0" (or in the case of wine rating 65 or 70) as the lowest wine they have personally tasted, and use 95 as the highest. They then rate a new wine relative to the best wine in their personal memory bank. If it is almost as good as the best they ever had, it gets a 93 or 94. It is easy to see how ratings creep upward, especially if the taster has never had a truly classic wine.
Of course, the word "average" refers to a mathematical calculation that, by definition is supposed to take into account all wine ever made in its denominator. Not just all of the wines that a taster has tasted. So in essence, an individual could have three "averages". The true average that accounts for all wine; average as measured against all wines that taster has ever tasted; and average as compared to all wines currently in the tasters inventory. An "average" wine from my cellar probably has a WS or RMP rating of 89-90. An average wine among all wines I have ever tasted is probably 82-83. A true average wine, is, I believe, as Jones placed it, an 80.
Jeremy: in response to your question about White Zin, and what happens if you are the only one who doesn't like it. Interesting notion on a metaphysical level, but I believe that even wine and art have some absolutes. The day will never come when all automobile critics hold a Ford Taurus in higher regard than a Bentley. Or when all movie critics hold Porky's XXI in higher regard than Casablanca. So too with White Zin. It just doesn't have The Right Stuff (good movie) to challenge The Big Red One[s] (another good movie). | |
Beta testing a new signature. | |
|