Ain't Those CT Ratings A Riot!?

For me, CT is a fantastic tool due to it's inventory management features, and the endless combinations of ways you can look at your own cellar.

As to CT scores, without context they are not useful. I don't really care about individual ratings, or for the aggregate. But I might pay attention if one of my designated favorite posters gave a 95 (although actually most of my faves don't use the points feature)

Notes are more valuable (especially as noted for clues to how something is showing recently). First off, I of course give priority to those I feel I have a grip on - folks like Matt, Salil, David. Then there are others that I don't know as well, but have read enough notes to know whether to give any credence to. Sometimes if notes are few, I might check out an unknown poster's other notes- if someone has 763 Cali notes and 6 notes on Burgundy, I might not give as much credence to their views on a Chambolle as if their notes were heavy on Burg,

I love CT, but one must treat it as a tool and know it's limitations (kind of like Wikipedia)

For me, CT is a fantastic tool due to it's inventory management features, and the endless combinations of ways you can look at your own cellar.

As to CT scores, without context they are not useful. I don't really care about individual ratings, or for the aggregate. But I might pay attention if one of my designated favorite posters gave a 95 (although actually most of my faves don't use the points feature)

Notes are more valuable (especially as noted for clues to how something is showing recently). First off, I of course give priority to those I feel I have a grip on - folks like Matt, Salil, David. Then there are others that I don't know as well, but have read enough notes to know whether to give any credence to. Sometimes if notes are few, I might check out an unknown poster's other notes- if someone has 763 Cali notes and 6 notes on Burgundy, I might not give as much credence to their views on a Chambolle as if their notes were heavy on Burg,

I love CT, but one must treat it as a tool and know it's limitations (kind of like Wikipedia)

Agree in all particulars, Dale. Add to this that there are certain people whose palates I trust who don't often post tasting notes to wine boards, but do record notes on CT. These days, if I'm contemplating opening a wine that my database indicates should be nearing readiness, I'll often check the wine boards and CT to see what experiences others whom I trust have had with it. This is especially important for those wines I purchased back in my WA days, as RP's "drinking windows" I've found are usually more conservative (toward early drinking of traditionally made wines) than my own preferences would indicate. Forewarned is forearmed, I say.

Mark Lipton

Mark,

I sent you a PM. Did you happen to check it?

This wine goes to 11.

One better.

Is this dependable online wine merchant now referencing Cellar-Tracker ratings? In today's lengthy Benchmark email ("New Eclectic Collection") there are at least three CT scores: "Ridge Carignan Oat Valley Vineyard ATP 1994 - 1 @ $28 CT 93," "Clos du Cailou Cotes du Rhone Villages Vielles Vignes Cuvee Unique 2001 @ $20 CT 94," and "Dom Perignon 1966 1 @ $565 CT 96.7."

I checked Cellar-Tracker to see if in fact the Benchmark CT numbers coincide with Cellar-Tracker TNs and found that one did and one was close.. The one Ridge Carignan Cellar-Tracker TN rating I found is 93, the same as the Benchmark CT rating; the four Clos du Caillou Cellar-Tracker ratings (90, 99, 94 and 97) average 95, close to Benchmark's 96.7; but I found no Cellar-Tracker entries for the Dom.

If Benchmark's intent is to reference CT ratings I'm sure they are doing it in good faith but I question the long range desirability of doing so given the unlimited opportunity for less reputable merchants to game the system. Seems to me in the long run this would put Cellar-Tracker's well-deserved good reputation at stake.

Well it's not like the 100 point scale has some absolute transparent value. It can only ever have a personal or publicly agreed upon meaning or standard. So really there is no reason why one could not make an 89=mediocre.

On the other hand, there *is* a more or less conventional (if very loose) agreement in the "wine community" that we have for the 100 point scale... and I take your point.

One thing that has always surprised me is the anti-point backlash, as if points themselves were the problem. Points are just another way of indicating value in accordance with one's particular system of evaluation, just like tasting notes. Of course once one realizes how points work in this more limited way rather than as some more objective index of quality on some absolute scale--which is how Parker and others still think about points, sadly--"point chasing" just seems all the more ridiculous.

Sorry for thread drift/resurrection, but I found this funny and wanted to share:

1995 Château Meyney (France, Bordeaux, Médoc, St. Estèphe) 3/21/2010 oncocyte 87
Lot of backbone but no vertebral muscle. Tannins and cedar are there but fruit didn't survive. I will take it to parties and people will love it, because I brought it.