tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post1636796793301099555..comments2023-10-10T14:43:29.795-04:00Comments on Brooklynguy's Wine and Food Blog: Thoughts on PointsBrooklynguyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16321573602782343974noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-28531151682165981312009-03-08T11:51:00.000-04:002009-03-08T11:51:00.000-04:00Will I buy it again is the only ranking system tha...Will I buy it again is the only ranking system that matters for me. Points are so beyond me and I believe they had more meaning in the beginnings of wine criticism when wine was not treated like celebrity, like it is today. I can never remember a time in wine history when points were more meaningless than they are today. With everybody and their mother rating wines does anybody really care if Wilfred Wong gave Chateau St Jean 96 points, Gary V gave it 97 ponts, and Parker did not rate it? <BR/><BR/>I really think as the wine critical hierarchy gets more and more diverse points will become more and more meaningless. I mean people are questioning tasting notes now, which are actual strings of words that sometimes make sense, but more than not are just people jockeying for who can name the most fruits in a tasting note. So with this new attack on tasting notes, how can anyone actually think they are relevant? Yes, arguing against points is fruitless, but considering it is the universally accepted system for giving wines merit, somebody has to do it, and because it is fruitless, that is no reason to stop. Who else is going to do it?Lyle Fasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10691042953720294290noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-46310998428335264112009-03-05T15:18:00.000-05:002009-03-05T15:18:00.000-05:00Absolutely. But although her scores may seem all o...Absolutely. But although her scores may seem all over the place, she still has terrific consistency if you're looking at average scores. But every wine buff knows that an 87-pointer could easily be a 92-pointer the next day.<BR/><BR/>That's why I like the "revue du vin de France" system. Aside from a 20-point scale for individual wines, they give zero to three stars for the producer. When a producer is rated, that is usually a lot more reliable than how a certain wine from a certain vintage was showing on the date tasted. And if a three-star producer has words like "succesful" in the tasting note, that's really all you need to know.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-67074367774070323102009-03-04T17:20:00.000-05:002009-03-04T17:20:00.000-05:00hi Frank - thanks for your comments. i didn't real...hi Frank - thanks for your comments. i didn't realize that Bghd's scores are never out of the original bracket. and what you describe of Janci's scores: "her scores are often all over the place for a given wine, depending on tasting date, other wines tasted the same date, air pressure and who knows what else" sounds like you could be describing the experience of tasting wine in general. it shows differently depending on a load of factors. again, requires familiarity with jancis though...Brooklynguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16321573602782343974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-57441738000459669822009-03-04T14:10:00.000-05:002009-03-04T14:10:00.000-05:00Burghound and Parker give bracket scores for barre...Burghound and Parker give bracket scores for barrel samples. But the finished wine NEVER scores outside the brackets. They must have some sort of superhuman senses if they're able to judge a wine's future performance that precisely without checking their "cheat sheet" of previous scores. And they almost never taste blind. Especially in the case of the Burghound, scores seem to be very closely tied to appeletions as a result.<BR/><BR/>Jancis Robinson is much more credible to me for her insisteence of tasting blind whenever possible, and her policy of never checking past notes when assessing. BUT her scores are often all over the place for a given wine, depending on tasting date, other wines tasted the same date, air pressure and who knows what else.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-13909367768690885722009-03-03T13:47:00.000-05:002009-03-03T13:47:00.000-05:00Florida Jim - I'd like to be a beaujolais critic t...Florida Jim - I'd like to be a beaujolais critic too. maybe we could start a business? "Plenty of room at the table for us all." Agreed.<BR/><BR/>Ned - "The amount of background research required to "calibrate" any given critics point scale is impractical and unreasonable and what one determines may not even necessarily be accurate or consistent." Well said. <BR/><BR/>Edward - thanks, pal. Doesn't saying anything at all about a wine stick your neck out?<BR/><BR/>Thanks you all for these insightful comments.Brooklynguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16321573602782343974noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-62350791214959043152009-03-03T07:53:00.000-05:002009-03-03T07:53:00.000-05:00Neil,A very clever and diplomatic piece. I started...Neil,<BR/><BR/>A very clever and diplomatic piece. I started very much in favour of points, but I think I am wavering. The one thing that still convinces me is that by putting a rating to a wine - be it a word or a number, you are also putting your neck out, allowing someone to agree or disagree with your assessment.Edwardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16020445581810054798noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-86996469318651178982009-03-02T17:42:00.000-05:002009-03-02T17:42:00.000-05:00I can't refute Florida Jim's assertion that to rai...I can't refute Florida Jim's assertion that to rail against points is futile; but in my life futility hasn't stopped me before, so...<BR/> On the whole the negatives of points outweigh the positives. The concept is logical but misuse and abuse have ruined what was intended as simply an instant marker of ranking. <BR/> The amount of background research required to "calibrate" any given critics point scale is impractical and unreasonable and what one determines may not even necessarily be accurate or consistent. A while back Meadows stated that he was reluctant to adopt the 100 point scale but ultimately felt he had to in oder for his work to be accepted and taken seriously. <BR/>IMO the point system intended to benefit consumers turned out to benefit sellers more over time. The subjective nature of scoring on a precise numerical scale was always a questionable proposition. I suppose it can said that 89 point scores often result in bargains for consumers.nedhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02070097976314044162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3799854524070158890.post-35070746734365668312009-03-02T14:53:00.000-05:002009-03-02T14:53:00.000-05:00Maybe not a living, but I would love to be a Beauj...Maybe not a living, but I would love to be a Beaujolais critic.<BR/><BR/>Claude Kolm noted that points for him is simply a way to rank order. So I suppose if you happen to have read Claude's work enough and can discern what it is that he does and doesn't like, you can get some feel for wines that Claude tastes that you haven't vis-a-vis each other.<BR/><BR/>I have no use for points at all but understand how others can and do use them. Or abuse them, as the case may be.<BR/>But they are a fact of life in the wine world and to rail against them endlessly is futile.<BR/>Take what you like from a critic's work, leave what yu don't. I'd be throwing the point scores out but maybe the next guy won't. Plenty of room at the table for us all.<BR/>Best, JimFlorida Jimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08425683028082383050noreply@blogger.com