Would the wine world be better off without scores?

So what happens after they wake up?

I guess it depends on the person. Some people might want to dedicate zero brain space to wine and just drink the stuff for pleasure. But I have a fair amount of friends who are interested in wine and enjoy appreciating it, but can't be bothered to get all geeky like us. Yet none of them focus on points (I guess there's a reason we're friends) and to varying degrees they've gotten a handle on the basics that I mentioned above.

[David M. Bueker]

Same here Rahsaan, but I could not resist.

I just (5 minutes ago - I am in Poland) introduced a friend of mine to Rene Geoffroy Champagne Volupte, and believe me there is no discussion of points.

You don't need that much tasting. Lineup the Charles Shaw selection to see that the Cabernet sauvignon has more tannin than the merlot or syrah and the sauvignon blanc is more acidic. Once people get the concepts they are not hard. Although it does require paying a tiny bit of attention..

Does the CS have more tannin than the Merlot or Syrah, or the Sauvignon Blanc more acidity than the Chard? While that is true as a generality of grape varieties in general, it's not necessarily true of a particular lineup- especially a bulk juice product drawing from disparate sources. I'd also suggest that the neophyte might not learn that much from a single sitting, as they might have trouble breaking down what they like/don't like (acidity and ripeness are separate but related issues, for instance, and someone might not be able to discern whether what they dislike is the high acid or catpee aromas of overcropped SB).

.

I'm the same way with cars. Don't care much about them. Just want to drive them. But I've learned the basic basics about fuel economy and driving habits! .

Hmm, so for a purchase in the tens of thousands of dollars you've learned about fuel economy (higher= better, that took 5 seconds).
A better analogy would be if you test drove 2 dz cars, noting whether you like a firm or soft suspension, deep or standard buckets, etc.

.

Also, I thought one of the recent trends among creative wine sellers was to list wines by body type (or some such other flowery term) in an effort to make it more accessible to people who don't want to remember regional differences. Surely that is more accessible than a wine list ordered by points.

Indeed, years ago I used to suggest to friends who lived in the city that the Best Cellars was an easy choice to learn about wines (at time they were under $10, arranged in categories like "light and fruity", "full and rich", etc).

Again, I'm not arguing for points. I'm just saying it's stupid to think that banning points would lead to these people "tasting for themselves." It's not how people bought wines before points systems became the rage either (that was mostly merchant recs, or possibly "classifications"). But in actuality it's not the casual user who is the most points driven anyway. That tends to be the supercompetitive (alpha male) buyer, and it's the points many of them care about to start with.

Hmm, so for a purchase in the tens of thousands of dollars you've learned about fuel economy (higher= better, that took 5 seconds).
A better analogy would be if you test drove 2 dz cars, noting whether you like a firm or soft suspension, deep or standard buckets, etc.

Fair point. Although the amount of research that I did before purchasing my first car a couple of years ago was very painful and took way too much of my brain energy.

But that's another story!

Back to wine...

I don't believe there should be a centralized score system. I do enjoy reading wine reviews from blogs though and totally understand that everything is opinionated. We all have different palates and preferences, hence it is fairly hard to rate what's the best.

I find the whole idea of scores odd. There are only a few things in this world that pretend to a universal, objective numerical scale. I'm thinking here of various track and field events, SAT scores, and investments. You see score aggregators for things like movies, and "best of" lists for fields from art to music to train rides. But the use of scores in the wine world stands apart.

The score appears to me to be almost all-powerful. Wines with high scores sell, regardless of style or price, while wines with low scores languish. Regardless of style or price is what makes it odd to me. The score is so all-powerful that the range has now been compressed into caricature. An 84 point score is a blemish to be buried, not a sign of a "good" wine. I do enter reviews from professional tasters in my CellarTracker database, but I no longer enter scores. As many have found, the acidity I find necessary for pairing with food is apparently negatively correlated with score! However, this may be changing, as I see David Schnildknecht gave 89 points to the 2009 Pepiere Muscadet, which I know personally not to be short on acid.

But even if I could find scores aligned to my palate, what would be point be? It would be an empty number, based on my tastes.

Walt

[David M. Bueker]

As many have found, the acidity I find necessary for pairing with food is apparently negatively correlated with score! However, this may be changing, as I see David Schnildknecht gave 89 points to the 2009 Pepiere Muscadet, which I know personally not to be short on acid.

Walt,

David Schildknecht is an acid freak (he prefers his German Riesling even more acidic than I do), so I highly doubt that he rated the 2009 Pepiere (basic bottling) less than you would expect based on acidity. His note for the wine is also very positive. I'm really not sure what you might be expecting from scores, but David is one of the most reasonable score givers (albeit reluctantly) out there. 89 for a $10-12 wine is doing pretty darned well.

David, I think you need to reread what Walt said, he was saying things (for acidheads) are getting better if WA gives a Pepiere 89.

I have no problem with points as long as they are used "properly." Which to me means that points signify that Critic X liked the 93 pt wine more than the 89 pt wine, with all the limitations that implies. It's when one begins to be believe there is some actual objective quality to the points that problems occur. Points are useful to see that a critic (if its someone you feel has some consistency/relevance to your tastes) likes the Clos St Jacques more than the Combottes, tasted together. They are far less useful (to me) comparing an American PN tasted in July to that same CSJ tasted in June.

Walt, I'm not so sure that in general I agree with "Wines with high scores sell, regardless of style or price, while wines with low scores languish. Regardless of style or price is what makes it odd to me. " I think that is true in some narrow markets- especially California Cabernets (WS and WA) and Bordeaux (WA). I don't think it's as true in other regions.

[David M. Bueker]

Ah - pre-coffee...

I don't use scores at all to sell wine, or to buy wine*. If requested, I send samples to eg the Wine Spectator, because I feel that I'm representing the producer and it would be churlish not to.

*if anything, high scores tend to be awarded to wines I don't like, and I don't buy and sell wines I don't like.

David, I think you need to reread what Walt said, he was saying things (for acidheads) are getting better if WA gives a Pepiere 89.

I have no problem with points as long as they are used "properly." Which to me means that points signify that Critic X liked the 93 pt wine more than the 89 pt wine, with all the limitations that implies. It's when one begins to be believe there is some actual objective quality to the points that problems occur. Points are useful to see that a critic (if its someone you feel has some consistency/relevance to your tastes) likes the Clos St Jacques more than the Combottes, tasted together. They are far less useful (to me) comparing an American PN tasted in July to that same CSJ tasted in June.

Walt, I'm not so sure that in general I agree with "Wines with high scores sell, regardless of style or price, while wines with low scores languish. Regardless of style or price is what makes it odd to me. " I think that is true in some narrow markets- especially California Cabernets (WS and WA) and Bordeaux (WA). I don't think it's as true in other regions.

I know what you're saying that the score is not all-powerful. Maybe it's just my mistaken impression, but from my observations of how wines are sold and watching customers in wine shops, that's my conclusion. Have a look, for instance, at the list of bestsellers over $30 at K&L Wines: http://www.klwines.com/bestsellers.asp . Eight of the ten reference a score (a grower Champagne and Orin Swift's "The Prisoner" are the exceptions). Of the ones that do have a score listed, it's literally the first thing in the description. You would think people buying $30 wine would have a good handle on their own tastes, but from where I sit it's pretty score-driven. Ditto for walking around a wine shop, where almost all the shelf talkers feature a score prominently at the top. And a lot of them seem to be from questionable sources, including on occasion individual scores from Cellartracker.
What blows me away even more than the scores is the reliance of small wineries on "medals" from wine competitions, even in the tasting room. I'm already in the door, please at least do me the favor of coming to my own conclusions based on the glass in front of me! I have found little correlation between generic medals and quality. Supposedly there are some competitions that are more reliable, but I have yet to sort out the dross yet on that front.

But Walt, looking closely at K&L bestsellers page:
1) in addition to the 2 you mention, the 97 Langoa-B only references a "92 from Clyde" (a K&L employee?), the Bee Block only mentions a score from 2 vintages prior, and the Caymus doesn't list a score at all. So only 5 of top 10 actually reference a critic's score for that wine (even though most of the list consists of wines from the 2 categories I list as most score dependent.
2) let's look at the under $30 list, which in volume I'm sure dwarfs the over $30. Only 2 of 10 reference a score (one W&S, one WA)

Not arguing that scores aren't important to sales, but of 20 wines listed as best sellers, only 7 list a critics score on that wine.

I think in areas like the Loire, Burgundy, Alsace, Germany, Austria, Piedmont, etc scores are less important,

And I think some Aussie wines have shown that high scores from WA don't guarantee sales.

Now, gold and silver medals, THAT is even more meaningless.

[David M. Bueker]

You would think people buying $30 wine would have a good handle on their own tastes, but from where I sit it's pretty score-driven. Ditto for walking around a wine shop, where almost all the shelf talkers feature a score prominently at the top.

I'm going to use myself as an example here. I definitely have a handle on my own tastes, BUT I don't get to try a huge sampling of every vintage from every region I am intersted each year. I do know from my own tastes and reading David Schildknecht's notes that he and I are well aligned, and that if I buy something on his good word (or score) I will likely do well.

Even at my favorite shop the folks running it can't know every wine inside and out. They have close to 7,000 selections. So let's say that I eye something that might be worth trying, but neither I nor the store guys have tasted it. I see a good score (and most of the shelf talkers also have notes by the way) from David Schildknecht or Steven Tanzer, and I may very well be inclined to give it a try. That's not being a sheep - it's using all the available data to make a decision on a potentially unknown purchase. Of course I could just buy the same wine I tried last time, but where's the adventure in that?

I have been burned a few times, but I've been burned on store recommendations and my own guesses.

I wonder if those that are so upset with scores have less confidence in their own palates, and question their own decision making when faced with an 87 from a known critic...not unlike seeing a poor customer review on-line for a recent purchase.

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."

[Robin Garr]

*if anything, high scores tend to be awarded to wines I don't like, and I don't buy and sell wines I don't like.

I wish your wines were available here, Oliver. I apply the same principle as a wine consumer. I don't flatly reject a highly rated wine, but a shelf talker with a high Parker or Speck score is a red flag suggesting that the wine style won't appeal to me. High alcohol, heavy extract, "Technicolor." As a minimum I'll check the alcohol level and, ideally, other sources before I buy.

I guess that means that I'm okay with scores as long as I can interpret them my way.

I suppose so, Robin. I often liked 'Two Glass' wines in the former Gambero Rosso/Slow Foood Guide, but hated the 'Tre Bicchieri' ones.

I hasten to add that I can see how consumers get pulled in, wine is very confusing.