Rating Wines

I've been thinking about this for a while, actually.

For the most part I don't like scoring wines, but I understand the utility so I do give a rating to the wines I drink. The system I use is 1-10, for serveral reasons:
-50 points for just making a wine? Come on, at least rate 0-100 or 1-50 rather than the 51-100 point scale that it really is.
- Variability. The difference between an 89 and a 90 is huge as it marks a critical dividing line. But between an 83 and an 84? Not so much even though it is still 1 point away, and that 1 point can be for so many tiny reasons (the room is a little too hot making the wine seem unbalanced, a bad bottle, palate fatigue, wrong glass, etc). With a 1-10 point scale, there is a much more defined distinction between a 6 and a 7 or even a 3 and a 4. I know I'm not being very clear on this, but I think 51-100 is too many numbers.

I left my book at home, but I'll post what I wrote down for giving out scores, the average good bottle of wine is exactly a 5 out of 10. A 9 is an absolutely stellar bottle of wine. A 10 is a 9 with ample age (a 10 from me is extremely rare).


Outstanding vs. exceptional, at least for me, really comes down to balance, power, and polish. I've had outstanding Barolo. But the exceptional examples combine all of the power and brute force with just the perfect hint of polish, something only time seems to create. Mind you, this is only my palate, it is completely irrelevent to everything should believe.

How do I prevent yourself from giving a very drinkable, yet innocuous wine, exceptional points? This can be tricky, and I'm sure I've fallen victim to it. Usually I try to take everything into consideration - is it complex? What about the finish, is it long? What about the attack? The evolution? The balance? If a wine is pushing each one of these to newer and better levels, should we not consider it exceptional? Or are we so often put into the trap of "this is just an AOC level Burgundy, and they just aren't allowed to be exceptional"?


How do I taste a wine varietal, that you do not really care for, and due to this, give it undeservedly low marks, even if it conforms to its varietal to an "exceptional" degree? For me, it's an understanding of what makes an exceptional wine. For instance, I had the Alban Syrah not too long ago. It was not my style, a little over the top for my personal liking. But it had a magical nose, more complexity right in the nose than 80% of wines on the palate. I knew it was an excellent wine, such pedigree, but I have a personal preference for subtlety. I rated it high but indicated that this was simply not my preferred style and this might have made a difference in the score. I'd still recommend it to anybody.

I don't really know much about wine but from what I do know I don't understand the reasoning behind a 100 point system. Maybe it's just me but I have a hard time believing that a person can replicate the same 100 point score when tasting the same wine on different ocassions.

Itend to, as my baseline, keep at the apex of "extraordinary" a number of personal favorites from the great italian vintages of the late 90's and compare from there.

Competing wines need to balance acidity and fruit, alcohol etc. I don't want them so puckery I feel I have sandpaper on my teeth. I want plenty of fruit forward- a flavor that immediately tastes of the grape and doesn't make you hunt for it among the vinegar and heat.

I want something where the complexity is immediately obvious; something that aerates fairly quickly and isn't a jeckyl and hyde, meaning that as it is from the bottle, it's not dramatically better or worse one hour after decanting.

And I'm picky- I have my 90+ bottles and care very little for anything below that line.

I see the reasoning behind 50 scorable points, 100 points being the best makes sense for many people and it seems like it has been a standard in any medium for a long time. I just think 50 available points gives way too many options and wine is something that changes with a multitude of environmental and personal nuances. A RP score of 89 can condemn a $50 bottle while a 90 can cause people to search it out. But come on, this is just a 2% difference on the 50 point scale.


I totally agree about adopting a system. And making note of that system and writing it down. I'm constantly referring back to my original scale for reference. And take notes!!! More than just "good blackberry and a soft tannins. 90." ... give them substance, only half my notes these days seem to be about the flavors, the rest are about things like viscosity, acid to malo acid balance, tannin structure in relation to fruit, etc. If I score a 5, I say why it wasn't a 7. This, to me, is more critical than the actual number and is why you've seen me post tasting notes on this forum, but never a number.

As undesirable as i find it to disagree with a senior member of over 19,000 posts, I do. Strongly. Why do we even call it a 100-point scale, when at best it’s only a 45 point scale, since no wine scores below 50, and scores above 95 are as rare as a friendly ciguapa? All through university I never scored 100 on anything, but there were plenty of 20s and 30s. More importantly, how do you attach numerical significance to a matter of the heart? I have a 50 year old motorcycle that rates 100 to me. But is it really a 100 point machine? Hardly. With all due respect to Mr. Parker and the other young chaps…I’ve had wines rated in the 90s that to me should rate no higher than the 70s and I’ve had 70s that I would easily rate in the 90s. Therefore, simplification is in order. I propose a system based on a methodology of rating underwear developed by Deiter Everhardt. No – I’m serious – stay with me. “Deet” and I flew together in the last stages of the war. He had an interesting habit of keeping all his gear in one central pile. This included clothing previously worn and clothing fresh from the laundry. (not much military discipline by this time) Each morning he’d rise, grab shorts from his pile and bring them to his nose. Immediately he would rate his find on a scale of 1 to 3, as follows… 3. Unacceptable – for reasons needing no explanation here. 2. Acceptable – except if there was a possibility of exposure to others such as emergency personnel, evening liaisons, etc. etc. 1. Fresh If nothing met the minimums, Deet would don what he called “vaporwear”. The application to wine ratings should be obvious. 3. Unacceptable wines, certainly including anything in a pink can, or any other consumable, that would be considered appalling by any civilized person. For example, anything in a glass adorned with a miniature umbrella. Also included here would be wines that have oxidized, have cork contamination, maderized or refermented. Trust me – some of Deet's shorts would qualify in all these categories. 2. Acceptable with reservations. This includes almost everything in the wine world we enjoy. It would include anything today rated 60 to 85. Just explain to me what you’re tasting, that you think it’s #2 and what food pairings may apply. I believe 90% of all the wine in the world would fall into this #2 category. It may be helpful also to know why this wine isn’t rated #1. And, just as Deet would reject a #2 if special events were planned, perhaps we would designate #2 wines for everyday enjoyment. Also included would be solid #2s that would benefit from holding for a year or 2. Although, 95% of all wines sold in this country are probably as good on their release day as they’re ever going to be. 1. Ah yes, the #1s. You know what they are. I guarantee your list is different from mine, maybe vastly different. That’s why today’s rating system is so unreliable. Were you and I to do a blind tasting, it is unquestionable that many wines in the 91 to 95 range would seem inferior to others in the 85 to 90 range. Why? Is it really fair to say some of these wines are better than others? If it were that simple, all lists would be identical. My conclusion is this - while wine ratings and reviews contain some useful information, they are for the most part opinions. Even more accurately, feelings. Isn’t that what a great wine experience is? Feelings? Have you ever opened a wine you remembered for its greatness – and it just wasn’t the same? Of course you have. Well there’s a better than even chance it wasn’t the wine that was different, it was the wine drinker. So be careful out there. Remember, it was some bloke’s perception, opinion, feeling it would be a great idea to put sweet swill in a pink can with attached straw and market it as a serious wine! I suspect motives having to do with lucre rather than excellence in wine. Just my opinion of course. By the way, our last day on the base, while Deet was flying a mission, someone piled all his gear on a taxiway and hit it with a flamethrower. The nose was unforgettable P.S. Another point of disagreement: I've never experienced a wine of any varietal with a great nose and terrible flavor. I don't believe that to be possible. The nose always betrays the flavor, especially so in all the reds. JMHO

Some excerpts from my personal rating scale, highly edited for my typing's sake:

10 - perfection w/ ample age and that hint of that hard to verbalize grace.
9 - classic in every way. Balance, power, some elegance, everything on the road to perfection
8 - An excellent bottle of wine worthy of sharing. A great mix of complexity from start to finish, though just lacks the "it" factor of a 9
7 - The standard for a really good/great bottle.
6 - Solid+. Shows well, though it stuck on solid. Lacks something, whether it be more fruit or sturcture or integration, but still a well-made bottle
5 - Average to good+. Pizza wine some might say. A pass if this costs more than inexpensive, though rather delightful on the cheap.
4 - Boring. Noting showing, lacks flavor, acid, tannin, balance, etc. But, doesn't offend either.
3 - Offends, clear errors in the wine
2 - Terrible
1 - wine?

Great nose and terrible flavor might be strong adjectives, but I have had similar experiences. I've had wines that have had totally different noses and tastes. There may be some overlap (that vanilla you picked up in the whiff came out with some stiff oak on the palate), but I've had nice and fruity wines on the nose smack me with massive acidity or bitter tannins on the palate. While I wouldn't say that I've had great nose and terrible flavor, I've certainly dramatic and surprising changes.



I see the rationale behind the 3 point system, but to me that is too low, it takes away some of the nuances that make spectacular bottles spectacular. With your 3-point system and Pio's 50 point scale, I guess I'm what Aristotle called the medium Yay Nicomachean ethics!

I'm terrible at describing what I like/don't like about a particular wine.

My rating system is:

1. yuck, don't buy/drink again.
2. ok, but would find something better in same price range, or be willing to jump up a few $ to find something better.
3. mmm good, would drink again and again.
4. wow!

I'm willing to try many different wines, and most of them wind up in the #2 bucket. I'm totally happy to find one in the #3 bucket, and usually don't have the money to splurge on a #4 winnar.

I really haven't reached the point where I feel comfortable or qualified enough to extend an actual rating on a wine beyond my own tasting notes. In my Journals, however, I tend to grade each wine with a letter grade starting with A+ and then deducting from there based on colour, aroma, taste, finish and price. I don't really have a set point value for each and the over all grade really only means something for me.

I have copied the Parker system above and have started to evaluate wines based on that system but if you don't know what a standard tastes like it seems rather difficult to get a proper reading.

I am a wine novice but very interested in learning. I like reds more than whites.

revival from the basement for a really interesting article:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...282653628.html