100 Point Wines and My Worry I Might Have Gone Round the Bend
Do you ever start to wonder if there might be something seriously wrong with your mental or emotional capacity due to the fact that so many people understand or agree with something that is instead entirely lost on you?
This is how I feel about the idea of rating or ranking something that is nearly entirely a subjective experience: Wine. Yet, recently I’ve read so many different explanations as to why the idea of rating wine on the 100 points scale is meaningless because a wine is something that is experienced so subjectively and can’t be assigned a specific and seemingly objective spot on an aesthetic continuum. Still, I can’t buy this argument.
This positions doesn’t appeal to me factually, emotionally, intellectually or philosophically. And yet among that sophisticated and well-educated core of wine drinkers and thinkers, I am absolutely in the minority on this.
Maybe the problem is that I’m self-centered. When I consider this question of the utility and legitimacy of a 100 point rating scale for wine, I’m thinking of how it appeals to me and how it informs me, rather than how it appeals to the masses or what it does to inform the masses about a particular wine. Call me simple, but I have a very good idea of what a critic means when he assigns a given wine 92 points, and the written review that generally accompanies that rating almost always confirms my understanding of the meaning of the number.
Part of this has to do with my view that the “score inflation” that many see as a contrived occurence, is to me really just a matter of there being a lot more better wines today, not a desire among critics to out-do the other or get their name in lights.
Among nearly every critic I know today, an 87 point wine is a very nice wine, very drinkable wine, even interesting. Meanwhile a 92 point wine is an exceptional wine that is far above average in quality. And a 97 point wine is simply special; a breed above the others. I don’t know any critics that would take issue with this assessment.
Additionally, I’ve never had any illusions that a critic assigning a number to a wine has anything in mind other than to communicate that the score represents their own, person, subjective evaluation of a wine, and does not in turn mean that “this wine is objectively better than that wine” on some sort of scientific scale of quality. I also have the bad habit of thinking that anyone believing the critic is proclaiming some sort of objective or scientific or numeric certainty about a wine’s quality just doesn’t understand how a critic approaches their task. For a critic to actually believe this is what they are doing they would have to live in some sort of imaginary or alternative world that is without precedent in this reality. (That said, the idea of a fictional world in which there exists scientifically defined standards of quality makes for an interesting premise for a Sci Fi story.)
I was most recently reminded of my outlier status on this issue of ratings and the 100 point scale and listening and watching the astute Jamie Goode give his rambling explanation as to why the 100 point rating system is “absurd”, “daft” and “silly”, yet why he’ll continue to use it in his reviews. Jamie, like so others, argues that the rating of a wine with a particular number represents some sort of definitive marking that becomes a “property” of the wine when in fact it is no such thing. But I think he’s unnecessarily bringing up the notion of objectivity. I simply don’t ever see any claim being made that a score represents an objective measure, but is almost always claimed to be merely shorthand for how the wine touch the critic, relative to other wines the critic has tasted.
In other words, Jamie is reading too much meaning into the attachment of a number to an experience. It can in fact be done but it doesn’t suggest anything scientific, objective or pre-determined. It’s just short hand.
Jamie, and he’s hardly the first, also touches on another criticism of the 100 point rating system that is, again, lost on me as an argument. And that is the claim that the 100 point rating scale implies far more precision on the part of the taster or critic than is humanly possible. “What’s the difference really,” they ask, “of 1 point. And can you reproduce that kind of precision if you taste the same wine again….Well of course you can’t,” they say.
I don’t get this argument. It flies right over me because I see the assigning of a point score as representative of an impression the wine left, not a precise point on an X-Y axis that is suggested by the criticism of the 100 point scale. In other words, I know that the critic knows that a wine they give 96 points to could easily be given 94 or 95 or 97 points and the wine would still fall into the same category for the critic. That it was a 95 point wine rather than a 94 point wine for the critic is just a matter of the way the wine smacked the critic in the head at that moment. The precision is understood to be and is in fact, not as precise as the number suggests.
This raises the question of whether or not there is a scale that better allows for this kind of imprecise precision. I think there probably is such a scale (perhaps a 20 or 50 point scale, but I don’t think these alternative scales are so much more effective in communicating the momentary impact of a wine on a critic’s mind that it’s necessary we call for the abandonment of the 100 point system.
The ambiguity of faux precision in wine ratings isn’t the worst thing in the world any more than a ranking of the top 10 Second Basemen in the history of the game is a bad thing.
On the other hand, there indeed could be something seriously wrong with my mental and emotional state that prevents me from appreciating the nuisance and uselessness that is the 100 point rating scale for wine. That’s possible. However, I think I simply understand it a little differently that puts emphasis on the honesty of the critic and usefulness of numbers to represent a scale of relativity.
Tom,
I agree with your assessment of the 100-point rating system. It is not an objective assessment of a wine and certainly doesn’t capture the uniqueness or originality of a wine. All it does is locate the comparison class, the league in which a wine plays. An 87 point wine, as you point out, is drinkable and enjoyable. It can be powerful, elegant and complex but only compared to other wines in the 85-89 point range. A 93 point wine is playing in a different league. To say it is powerful, elegant, and complex means something different–it is being compared to a different group of wines. It is an ordinal rather than a cardinal ranking,
We could find some other way of describing the comparison class but I doubt it would be as instantly recognizable and accessible to a consumer as the 100 point system that we are used to from school.
The problem is some people think that quantification=objectivity, as if wine criticism were akin to measuring temperature on a thermometer. But obviously it is nothing like that. If people focus only on the number and not on the distinctive quality of a wine, they are missing much of the experience. But that is not the fault of a critic who doesn’t think the number is anything more than a rough indicator or rank. The description and the ranking work together. One doesn’t replace the other.
Tom, I agree with you and will go you one further. When a category is well-defined, such as most European appellations are, numeric scoring makes perfect sense. It is only when it is applied to a very diverse group that its utility starts to break down. It would certainly be daft and silly to apply it to a mix of Chinon and St. Emillion simply because they are Cab Francs. In the U.S., the diversity of Chardonnay (say Napa vs Santa Cruz Mountains) or Viognier (Monticello vs Snake River vs Sonoma Valley) or Merlot (Long Island vs. Yakima vs. Lake County) is so rangy that a linear score is meaningless, capturing only the critic’s whim of the moment, and not any true opinion.
“In the U.S., the diversity of Chardonnay (say Napa vs Santa Cruz Mountains) or Viognier (Monticello vs Snake River vs Sonoma Valley) or Merlot (Long Island vs. Yakima vs. Lake County) is so rangy that a linear score is meaningless, capturing only the critic’s whim of the moment, and not any true opinion.”
Clark, thanks. I’m not sure I agree with you here. I think that while much range exists in CA chardonnay, I think the similarity that derives from the nature of the variety makes the various Chards more similar than dissimilar. Plus, you could argue that the 100 point scale is largely hedonic, making the similarity of style one finds across chardonnays just a bonus for what the scale (or any other rating system) is meant to do.
Minds can not be changed if you believe that the 100 point system is valid. I am in the camp that is a flawed system and that consumers have already to move away from it. I own a wine shop and I have never used scores. I have spent the better part of my adult life working in restaurants or in the wholesale or retail end of the wine business. As a retailer I have to retain the trust of my customers. I can not afford to give away my authority. I have made this argument before right here on your blog. In have witnessed people begin to give up the points in favor of my guidance or their own palate. There has been a lot of talk about how milennials do not care about scores. I have witnessed it. The 100 point system will not go away, but it relevance will diminish to a point eventually where it won’t matter any longer. There will always be those who are stuck and will not let it go. They will passionately defend its validity and how it is the best way to evaluate wine. These are the same people who own a betamax. I am just saying.
Greg, I’m not sure there is a system that can be called perfect or without flaws. My point is that the main criticisms oa the 100 point rating system are lost on me or make very little sense or are misapplied. A retail shop that doesn’t use scores strikes me as just great. Though I’m not share how a retailer recommendation is much different that a critic,s recommendation.
Tom,
Both the defense of and the criticism of the 100 point system are an exercise in futility. Those on either side will not understand or see validity in the others argument. The fact is the power of mainstream critics is waning at this moment. The 100 point system as with all forms of criticism has flaws, and those flaws are usually human. Wine is subjective and no one person is right. I have yet to meet a true authority on wine. And yes I have met MS’s and MW’s. Their knowledge base is impressive, but wine is far to dynamic of a topic to assert absolute authority. The other human flaw is ego. So many self appointed authorities are egomaniacs, and I am 99 points on that one. The main difference between a critics recommendations and that of a retailer is that if we are wrong, we hear about it or worse we lose a costumer. Retailers have to be more precise than critics because it effects our pockets. Cheers
Tom:
I refuse to get into another argument about the 100-point system, but will point out (pun,\ alert) that you not only misunderstand the arguments against it, you completely misunderstood Clark’s point. He gave examples of varietal wines from various appellations outside and inside California, yet you responded thinking only of California. You need to get out more 😉
As for this comment of yours: “…I’m not share (sic) how a retailer recommendation is much different that a critic,s 9sic) recommendation.”
Let me help you: the retailer is thinking about what the customer might appreciate; the critic is self-absorbed.
I’ll clear this one up for you
Thank you, Mr. Wark, for your passionate defense of the 100-point system. Well, not exactly passionate, but correct in most every detail.
Greg Burke is right that some people will never understand, including him, and he is smart, runs a great store, etc. Of course, if I were smart and ran a great store, I would not use critics scores either. I would do, as he does, and so many others do, and make the relationship between me and the customer. That is what a wine merchant does when one can.
But, that is not always true, as big places like K & L, a brilliantly run set of stores, or even BevMo, which purports to offer its own views.
There will always be room for independent opinions, and whether those opinions are ultimately stated in points of 100 or points of 20, or “Bad, Fair, Good, Better, Best”, it is in the nature of evaluation that some level of differentiation will ultimately be used.
I too disagree with my good friend and tasting buddy, Clark Smith, in that the point of finite ratings is not to equate Chinon with Right Bank Bordeaux or to equate a ripe CA Chard, and, by the way, there are plenty of bright, tight Chardonnays in CA, with Chablis or Chards from Chile. The purpose of finite rankings, by any system, is to establish how much the critic liked a wine.
Most critics, and most tasters, by the way, are perfectly capable of establishing how much they like a certain wine. They do not necessarily have to use a numerical shorthand, but very few critics with influence in the market have ever maintained their standings without some form of hierarchical system of evaluation.
Charlies said: “The purpose of finite rankings, by any system, is to establish how much the critic liked a wine.”
That’s it in a nutshell. Has little to do with the actual wine, and all to do with the critic’s reception of it. The numbers assigned are personal–they bear neither resemblance to objectivity nor to how the wine’s are received by others. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the number is not the critic’s concern.
Smart retailers take another tact: they get to know the customer’s preferences and then recommend based on that information. Really smart retailers learn quickly that it is not about them.
Mr. P–
I am afraid that you have read far too much into my comments. Any reviewers words, no matter how expressed, have everything to do with the wine. If they are not objective, then there is not a word of evaluation about wine that can possibly be anything but froth.
That is patent nonsense. You may or may not agree with my reviews, but you will find them to be an accurate portrayal of what I and the folks who taste with me found in the wine. No one’s reviews, except possibly a few charlatans, could possibly taste wine critically and not talking about the wine.
There are some reasonably repeatable standards in this business–like intensity, varietal focus in its various guises (see Clark Smith on this), acid balance, tannin level and balance for type and for the given wine. We may disagree on how much tannin is acceptable in Petite Sirah, but a good wine review will certainly describe the impact of the tannins and allow the reader to say yay or nay.
There are a few retailers in this country who hand-select a limited number of wines and then hand-sell those wines, but they are the distinct minority. I am all for those kinds of outlets, but they are also very limited in scope and tend to want to sell things that no one has heard of because that is their shtick. OK, but the world does not live by those kinds of stores alone.
I do appreciate that you and I have somewhat similar reactions to generic wine reviews that rely on points. But even there, if I know the reviewer, Alder Yarrow is a good case in point although he does not so often review lots fo wines by number alone. Yet, I would trust Alder for general guidance.
I trust no one but my own palate as to what I like–and that has to be the same for everyone, including those folks who read my rag. If they find that we are recommending wines that they do not like, they will go elsewhere. So far, in forty years, they have not.
As a former retail wine buyer, I learned the importance of being a reliable, credible and consistent opinion for customers when no other information was available on wines just entering the market. I did that by writing tasting notes and giving the wine a score (starting in the mid ’90s). Even though I now publish a wine review magazine, I still encourage my subscribers use the experience of other resources, including a trusted retailer, or sommelier to help them discover new wines.
Regarding Gregg’s comment: “The main difference between a critics recommendations and that of a retailer is that if we are wrong, we hear about it or worse we lose a costumer. Retailers have to be more precise than critics because it effects our pockets”
Since I have done both, I see little if any difference. Critics hear from subscribers, or lose them, as the case may be if their evaluations vary from that of the reader to the point where the reader no longer finds value in the opinion. Further, for someone arguing against a numerical scale (which has a 2-3 point repeatability margin for most critics), I am curious what retailers use that is more “precise”.