 | | VinoCellar.com Wine Forums | |
| |
| |
"Average" Wine Last Post 02-24-2004 10:24 PM by Pool Boy. 98 Replies. | Sort: |
|  Prev Next | You are not authorized to post a reply. | |
Blair Ridley  
Wine Labeler
Posts: 3980
 | | 12-05-2002 06:24 PM |
| We are all familiar with the 100 point rating system employed by most 'professional' wine critics.
I've been using it since I started in wine (3 years ago)mainly because it's widely recognized and seems to provide a decent barometer for all to relate.
Just today on another thread (the '98 Domaine Drouhin thread), Wintex and ojeffso2 discussed 'average' wines.
My question --- if 99% of all the wine we drink is between 80 and 100 points on the 100 point scale, isn't an "average" wine (in our perception) really 90 points?
Next, are the scores between 0 and 60 or 70 points really necessary? | | |
|
|
love_cab_chard
Master of Wine
Posts: 12580
| | 12-05-2002 06:33 PM |
| For me: 99% of all the wine I drink is between 80 and 100 points. YES.
For me:
90+ --- above average.
93+ --- very good Wine.
96+ --- WOW.
99+ --- Not experienced enough to tell 100point Wine. I stated that before.
80+ to 90 --- Drinkable to nice Wine.
Scores between 0 and 60 or 70 points really necessary? NOT to me, but I know people that drink Wine like that all the time & enjoy it.
...So, the answer is: Not to me, but is necessary.
P.S.: Good topic. | | | |
| JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts: 8568
| | 12-05-2002 06:37 PM |
| An average wine is 80 points not 90. Most people consistently overrate wines by 5 points thus the perception that a 90 point wine is average. 90 points connotes a wine that is very fine and should be a relatively rare rating. People who want to rate a wine in the mid nineties need to stop and ask themselves "If I rate this Pinot Noir a 95 and a 69/71/85/90 DRC Romanee Conti is a 100 is this Pinot Noir really within 5% of the greatness of the 71 RC?" I submit that the answer to the foregoing is usually going to be a resounding "No".
People seem to think there is some shame with drinking or having in one's cellar an 85 point wine. There isn't so long as the point rating scale the taster is using is properly calibrated.
| | | |
| TCK
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1279
| | 12-05-2002 06:38 PM |
| To us it might be, but truth be told the scale must include all wines produced. We are coneseurs (I can't spell) we educate ourselves and make a effort t odrink wine above alleast 85 points on this scale. Fact is most of the wine that is drank in this country is woodbridge, Carlos Rossi and Hearty burgundy and sutter home- wines in the 70's an 80 on it's beast day. And since were talking about all wine then aged bottles must also fit in the scale - flawed due to over aging possibly. This might be a wine in the 60's and no longer enjoyable. Hey and my Uncle Dave makes his own wine, I'd rate it about 70 points or - a beverage on par with a glass of water completely unexciting but can be consumed (sorry Uncle Dave).
Fact is with our drive to find good wine and desire for quality it's rare that we will be duped into buying something rated lower. And for that matter producers that are trying to make wines of lower quality aren't worth professional reviews so you will rarely see them.
TCK | | | |
| ChangeMe
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1010
| | 12-05-2002 06:41 PM |
| Interesting point Jones. And probably true.
I really have gotten into the habit of thinking that an 80 point wine is bad in some way. I guess I should just realize that it may not really be bad (major flaws), it may just lack that excitement factor.
Dammit, just what I wanted to do, think more.  | | | |
| ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts: 4877
| | 12-05-2002 06:48 PM |
| i totally agree with jones on all points.
i once started a thread on the spectator board about the meaning of an 88 point rating. i think too many people use an 88 for an average wine, when actually it should designate a very good wine. qpr has nothing to do with point score and should be left out of the equation. people should look at parker's explainations of the point scale and try to calibrate themselves in the same manner.
the above is also why i sometimes have a difficult time determining what the lay person means when they rate wines. | | | |
| Blair Ridley
Wine Labeler
Posts: 3980
| | 12-05-2002 06:49 PM |
| Good points by all.
I'm with you, GA. I certainly think an 80 point wine is not very good. I don't want to drink anything below 85 points - quite honestly I'd rather drink a beer. (Part of this may stem from a comment Jones made once a while ago --- I try to be 'Wowed' every time I open a bottle). I think I'm beginning to feel the same way!
Sometimes it's inevitable to get an 80 pointer when I take a guess (or am limited on a wine list), but I won't ever drink that wine again. And in most circumstances, I won't enjoy it that much. | | | |
| TCK
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1279
| | 12-05-2002 06:55 PM |
| Ojeffso,
I totally agree that when using a Parker Style rating system an 88 is not an average wine, and that in general that is what people think they are.
I also think that diffrent styles of ratings for instance ones that take QPR into consideration are interesting. However if people use this type of system they need to let that be known in their notes.
I have had a few 84 point sub ten dollar wines that would be 88 on a QPR scale that can be useful info. An average wine but an above average value.
What I really like is the Letter grade QPR rating people on this forum are using along with the unmodified numerical score, that can be very helpful and is less confusing then two numbers.
TCK | | | |
| Joseph Bembry
Advanced Sommelier
Posts: 9423
| | 12-05-2002 07:00 PM |
| I agree with the ideas above and have been reminded by others who thought I rated a wine too high in the past. An average wine is 80 pts. A 90 pt wine is outstanding. A 95 pt wine is classic, an all time great. One thing I take out of the equation that Parker adds is the ageability of a wine. I honestly don't care if a wine is ageable and refuse to reward a wine just because it can be consumed in 2025. If it is drinking well now, I won't penalize the wine. I am a tougher critic than I used to be, though.
jb | | | |
| winebrat
Sacramento, Ca.
Barrel Sampler
Posts: 2326
| | 12-05-2002 07:02 PM |
| Jones- I have to give it to you again, and say you hit the nail on the head. I had this arguement with someone a few months ago and I only wish I could have put it in the words you just did. I FULLY agree with your stance on this matter. Too many times I see amateurs rating wines at between the 90 and "heralded" 95 point range and all I can do is LMAO. I will end this on a nice note though. The more you drink and experiment with new wines the easier it gets to understand the ranges without always assigning numbers for each category (Color, Aroma, mouthfeel, length, ageability, etc.)
Here is the way Parker comes up with his scores. This is also the way I try to score as well.
Taken from Erobertparker.com:
The numeral rating given is a guide to what I think of the wine vis-à-vis its peer group. Certainly, wines rated above 85 are very good to excellent, and any wine rated 90 or above will be outstanding for its particular type. While some have suggested that scoring is not well suited to a beverage that has been romantically extolled for centuries, wine is no different from any consumer product. There are specific standards of quality that full-time wine professionals recognize, and there are benchmark wines against which others can be judged. I know of no one with three or four different glasses of wine in front of him or her, regardless of how good or bad the wines might be, who cannot say, "I prefer this one to that one." Scoring wines is simply taking a professional's opinion and applying some sort of numerical system to it on a consistent basis. Scoring permits rapid communication of information to expert and novice alike.
The score given for a specific wine reflects the quality of the wine at its best. I often tell people that evaluating a wine and assigning a score to a beverage that will change and evolve in many cases for up to 10 or more years is analogous to taking a photograph of a marathon runner. Much can be ascertained but, like a picture of a moving object, the wine will also evolve and change. Wines from obviously badly corked or defective bottles are retasted, since a wine from a single bad bottle does not indicate an entirely spoiled batch. Many of the wines reviewed have been tasted many times, and the score represents a cumulative average of the wine's performance in tastings to date. Scores, however, do not reveal the important facts about a wine. The written commentary that accompanies the ratings is a better source of information regarding the wine's style and personality, its relative quality vis-à-vis its peers, and its value and aging potential than any score could ever indicate.
Here then is a general guide to interpreting the numerical ratings:
90-100 is equivalent to an A and is given only for an outstanding or special effort. Wines in this category are the very best produced of their type. There is a big difference between a 90 and 99, but both are top marks. As you will note through the text, there are few wines that actually make it into this top category because there are not many great wines.
80-89 is equivalent to a B in school and such a wine, particularly in the 85-89 range, is very, very good; many of the wines that fall into this range often are great values as well. I have many of these wines in my personal collection.
70-79 represents a C, or average mark, but obviously 79 is a much more desirable score than 70. Wines that receive scores between 75 and 79 are generally pleasant, straightforward wines that lack complexity, character, or depth. If inexpensive, they may be ideal for uncritical quaffing.
Below 70 is a D or F, depending on where you went to school. For wine, it is a sign of an imbalanced, flawed, or terribly dull or diluted product that will be of little interest to the discriminating consumer.
In terms of awarding points, my scoring system gives every wine a base of 50 points. The wine's general color and appearance merit up to 5 points. Since most wines today are well made, thanks to modern technology and the increased use of professional oenologists, they tend to receive at least 4, often 5 points. The aroma and bouquet merit up to 15 points, depending on the intensity level and dimension of the aroma and bouquet as well as the cleanliness of the wine. The flavor and finish merit up to 20 points, and again, intensity of flavor, balance, cleanliness, and depth and length on the palate are all important considerations when giving out points. Finally, the overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement—aging—merits up to 10 points.
Scores are important for the reader to gauge a professional critic's overall qualitative placement of a wine vis-à-vis its peer group. However, it is also vital to consider the description of the wine's style, personality, and potential. No scoring system is perfect, but a system that provides for flexibility in scores, if applied by the same taster without prejudice, can quantify different levels of wine quality and provide the reader with one professional's judgment. However, there can never be any substitute for your own palate nor any better education than tasting the wine yourself.
| | | "Everyday is worthy of a glass of sparkling wine" - Andrea Immer MS | |
| ChangeMe
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1010
| | 12-05-2002 07:03 PM |
| jb,
What about a wine that has the potential to improve with age?
Just curious.
GA | | | |
| JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts: 8568
| | 12-05-2002 07:06 PM |
| | Mixing one's concept of QPR into a qualitative point rating only confuses people. Rating a surprising $15 quaffer with an 88 only makes people think they are drinking equivalent quality wine with the person who is drinking an 88 point second growth from a decent vintage when they most assuredly are not. | | | |
| TCK
Barrel Filler
Posts: 1279
| | 12-05-2002 07:08 PM |
| I agree, that's why I like the Letter grades being assigned. Much less confusing people know your overall evaluation of the wine and your opinion on value.
TCK | | | |
| ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts: 4877
| | 12-05-2002 07:09 PM |
| | winebrat-thank you. | | | |
| Eric White
San Ramon, CA
Advanced Sommelier
Posts: 9425
| | 12-05-2002 07:10 PM |
| | At the risk of sounding repetitive, Jones is right on with this one. I freely admit I've been guilty of overrating wines in the past just as he has described. I've gone back latter with a what was I thinking attitude. As with all things, experience is the key and I feel my ability to acurately rate wines is constantly evolving, as is my palate and my preference. I honestly don't know how it could be any other way. | | | 2008: the end of an error | |
| JonesWineNo1
Sommelier
Posts: 8568
| | 12-05-2002 07:12 PM |
| | Great topic, STW! | | | |
| Joseph Bembry
Advanced Sommelier
Posts: 9423
| | 12-05-2002 07:19 PM |
| GA, I don't have a crystal ball or the depth of experience needed to know how a 1st Growth will taste in 20 yrs. Quite honestly, I'm not sure if Parker or Suckling do either. I feel that my rating is taking a snapshot of the wine as it is now. That being said, I can sometimes envision said wine improving, by looking at the structure, balance, tannins and fruit. But my number comes more from what the wine is performing like today, rather than down the road.
jb | | | |
| mountainman
Mammoth Mountain
Wine Addict
Posts: 6155
| | 12-05-2002 07:21 PM |
| | If I drink what I consider an 87 point wine, I would call it average. In reality, I know that an 87 is above average for a wine in general. So it depends on how you look at it. What is an "average wine" in wine world or if you pop a bottle at home for yourself. (I didn't read all the previous posts...this may of been said already). | | | |
| Budman
Philly Suburbs
VinoCellar.com Extraordinaire
Posts: 23630
| | 12-05-2002 07:47 PM |
| STW,
Great topic!!!
It certainly has generated a tremendous amount of intelligent and informative discussion....
all while I was slipping and sliding home for 2 hours!!  | | | |
| Blair Ridley
Wine Labeler
Posts: 3980
| | 12-05-2002 08:01 PM |
| Thank YOU mm!
We all know that an 85-89 point score is 'very good' in the world of wines. However, to me an 88 point score is indeed average since that's about the midpoint of all the wines I drink (unfortunately).
I am guilty of overrating wines - I like to think it's because I am still fairly new to the wine scene and I don't have the drinking experience to rate wines relative to each other (the only way I can really give a wine a rating).
This being said, I can tell a 95-100 point wine pretty easily.
EDIT: And thanks for the compliments Jones & budman. I'm glad this topic stirred up a few thoughts... | | | |
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
| |
| |
|
| | Proposed Change to American Viticultural Area Naming Standards Monday, March 10, 2008
| Wine Primers - Links to Your Wine Education Tuesday, February 12, 2008
| Wine Country Report: Day trip to the Willamette Valley Monday, February 11, 2008
| VinoCellar's Favorite Wine Links Saturday, February 09, 2008
| Wine Retailer Reports - Thanks Winetex! Monday, February 04, 2008
|
|
| |
| |
| |  | Membership: |  | Latest:cmsyrah |  | New Today:1 |  | New Yesterday:0 |  | Overall:2078 |
 | People Online: |  | Visitors:44 |  | Members:7 |  | Total:51 |
|
|
| |
| |
|