A Passionate Foodie

Scores, Scores, Scores.

Wine points are all around us. Many retailers tout scores in efforts to get people to buy wines. And such marketing is effective as there are a significant amount of people who do buy their wines based on wine scores. But can such scores be trusted? Do the wine “experts” basically agree on scores for the same wines?

This topic is starting to get trite. It has been discussed time and time again here and on plenty of other wine blogs. Yet I had to raise it again because of a recent incident that brought it before my eyes once again. While researching the wines of Paolo De Marchi, I saw some conflicting scores for his Cepparello wine.

First, the April 2008 issue of Decanter had an article declaring the Cepparello to be one of Italy’s 50 Greatest Ever Wines. It did not score any of the vintages but stated it was consistently excellent. The aticle was based on questions asked of 19 Italian wine experts from four different countries.

Second, the Wine Advocate gave 94 points to the 2003 Cepparello and 95 points to the 2004 Cepparello. This would seem to be in sync with the Decanter article.

Third, Steven Tanzer gave 93 points to the 2003 Cepparello and 89+ points to the 2004 Cepparello. So he felt the 2003 vintage was better and his score for the 2004 differed by 6 points.

Lastly, the Wine Spectator gave 88 points to the 2003 Cepparello and 86 points to the 2004 Cepparello. So their score difered from the Wine Advocate by 6 points for the 2003 AND 9 points for the 2004. 9 points??? That is a very significant difference. Why is it so different?

Let us look at the tasting notes for the 2004 to see if we can get a clue.

Wine Advocate: “The estate’s 2004 Cepparello (100% Sangiovese aged in French oak, 1/3 new) was made from minuscule yields of just 600 grams per plant and is even better than the 2003. It exhibits a livelier color, fresher aromatics and a nuanced personality, all the products of a more balanced growing season. It boasts layers of vibrant fruit intermingled with subtle mineral and licorice notes, showing outstanding length on the palate and fine, noble tannins. A wine of extraordinary elegance, it has been stunning on the two occasions I have tasted it so far. That said, readers who want to experience this wine’s full array of tertiary notes will have to give this wine time to mature in the bottle. It is highly recommended. Anticipated maturity 2009-2022.”

Wine Spectator: “Aromas of black cherry and flowers follow through to a medium body, with fine tannins and a delicate finish. Sangiovese. Best after 2008.”

I cannot see based on those tasting notes why the Wine Spectator did not give a higher score to this wine. They did not indicate any problems with the wine.

So which score should would you follow? And why? What I think it indicates is that wine scores are really so personal a matter, that wine preferences vary greatly from person to person, that scores don’t have a lot of value. If even the wine experts can vary so significantly in their scores for a wine, then where is the value in those scores?

Let your own taste be the ultimate judge of whether a wine is good or not.

Seems there is a recent flood of articles and blog posts concerning Wine Rating systems. There is an interesting article in the San Francisco Chronicle titled “Are Ratings Pointless.” One interesting point the article raised is that wines are generally only rated once, though wine does change over time. So, why isn’t wine rated over time, to see how well it ages? No clear answer but it certainly raises a good point.

There is also a movement in the wine blog community to try to standardize a wine rating system just for bloggers. They want to differentiate themselves from the wine professionals, such as the Wine Advocate and the Wine Spectator. Two bloggers, WineCast and Catavino, have addressed this issue. They are pushing for a 5 point/star system. I don’t agree that a 5 point system is really that much better.

What exactly do we want our Ratings to accomplish? And are those purposes better off served in Tasting Notes rather than a rating? I think the basic purpose is to guide people to wines they will like. It is not to create a set of trophy wines that people will seek out, to the detriment of good wines that just don’t happen to be the very best. The 100 point system is often cited as flawed because there are people who only seek wines rated 90 and above. They ignore good wines just because they are not rated high enough. Yet, a 5 point system is subject to the same problem, that people might only seek 4 or 5 point wines, ignoring all others.

The Real World Winer devised a very simple Rating system, which I still use, with only 3 categories.

1) Drink & Buy: A wine I recommend as worthy of buying.
2) Drink Not Buy: A wine that is drinkable but not something I would buy myself.
3) No Drink No Buy. A wine I would not recommend at all.

Everything else you need to know about the wine is in the Tasting Notes. My goal is to direct people toward certain wines, regardless of price. So, an excellent $10 wine or an excellent $200 wine could both be in the first category. The tasting notes will mention the price, and also whether I consider it a good value. Thus, people can enjoy good and superb wines, without just seeking the trophy wines.

I thus hope that more people will drink wines that would only receive good, but not excellent points, in other systems. Why miss out on so many good wines?

In my numerous wine reviews, I have been using a rating system that the Real World Winers developed for our original blog. It is a rather simple system with three basic rating categories. These are: Drink & Buy, Drink Not Buy, and No Drink No Buy.

Drink & Buy: These are wines that I enjoy drinking and consider worth their cost. These are the wines I would recommend to others. Within this rating, there is also a special subcategory, the Value wines. These are wines that I consider to be worth more than their cost, and thus are a very good value. Such value wines generally cost $25 or less.

Drink Not Buy: These are ordinary wines that I could drink but generally would not buy myself. I don’t consider them worth their price. I would drink them at a function, or if someone else was buying. But I would save my own money for wines in the first category.

No Drink No Buy: These are wines I would not even drink if they were free. I would not recommend these wines to anyone!

As you can see, it is very simple. And that probably won’t change as I don’t see that I need anything more complex.