just wine points.com

When I was stocking some Vendange Chardonnay 1.5L at my store I noticed a sticker on the front of the bottle that said 93 points. I kind of laughed but then wondered who would give this wine 93 points. I was directed to a website called justwinepoints.com. When I pulled it up I found that they rate all their wines on a scale from 90-99 points. How convienient for consumers. This is marketing at its height.

[David M. Bueker]

I've seen this site posted before. Not only is the scale 90-99, but there's instructions for samples and you can pay a small fee for "enhanced placement"

This appears to be a perfect amalgam, the pinnacle of everything that is wrong.

If we destroy it perhaps we can rid the world of evil.

This appears to be a perfect amalgam, the pinnacle of everything that is wrong.

If we destroy it perhaps we can rid the world of evil.

You're right, Captain Pomerol! Let's get together Loiregirl, SuperTuscanMan, and the entire Vinojustice League!

[David M. Bueker]

No room for BarriqueMan in this group for sure.

Anything I say at this point on this subject will taken as libelous, slanderous, defaming or out-and-out vulgar. I will therefore keep my mouth firmly shut.

Best
Rogov

Half of me at the prostitution.

The other half of me at the ultimate endpoint for the modern unhealthy obsession with points.

regards

Ian

This is perfect. PT Barnum would love it.

John

This is perfect. PT Barnum would love it.

John

Is he that kid that does all the really groovy graffiti on the upper East Side?

This is perfect. PT Barnum would love it.

John

Is he that kid that does all the really groovy graffiti on the upper East Side?

Well, maybe, but this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum is the guy I had in mind.

John

This is perfect. PT Barnum would love it.

John

Is he that kid that does all the really groovy graffiti on the upper East Side?

Well, maybe, but this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._T._Barnum is the guy I had in mind.

John

Damn, he is OLD!

I don't know what you guys are going on about. I think this is simply the logical and reasonable response to the 100 point system---as a matter of fact, it appears to me to be a case of intelligent design at work!

Maybe when it started there was a full 100 point system of gradating or measuring something (keeping in mind that I'm still not sure exactly what is being measured or exactly how it IS measured, or how conclusions are made, since every person who does this kind of scale has a different idea), but no one has thought that for quite a long time.

As I recall, it was automatically assumed that it was really only a 50 point scale, since no one would bother to respond to a wine that was regarded as less than that. so intelligent design kicks in, eventually these pointers got lazy or something, and decided they wouldn't really waste time on anything less than, say, 80 points or higher. So there we are, back to the 20 point scale (but confusingly, not at all like the UC D 20 point scale).

People who look at points being elitist, the next step was to consider anything less than 90 points as being not worthy of consideration. So we're down to a 10 point scale!

This simply acknowledges--to those people for whom points are paramount---that the best people only want the best wines----so we're getting to 93-100, and thus only a 7 point scale! See how elegant this is, and naturally developing? And there's already a segment---let's call them the super-pointers---who will only consider 95 points or higher. So there's still some evolution coming.

This latest system simply recognizes the need for Joe the Wine Customer to have wines that are high in points. Make it a ten point scale---and simply start at 90!!!! That's just...brilliant, isn't it?

Actually, the site reads like The Onion. It is really quite hilarious.

Can you identify which quote is from which site?

wine descriptors and any other verbiage lashed onto rating points is wasted time and effort by both reviewer and reader

When dining with friends at a restaurant, order the second-least expensive wine on the list. If on a date, order the fourth-least expensive.

Sure, some of our scores may seem high to those who “think” they know what a 100-point scale is. But maybe they should think again.

The quality of a wine is inversely proportional to the viciousness of the animal depicted on the label.

[David M. Bueker]

The quality of a wine is inversely proportional to the viciousness of the animal depicted on the label.

Which is why it is always wise to avoid the Little Pengiun Shiraz "Mating Season" Cuvee.

Hoke
A guy (Craig - I can't recall his surname, Sue will know) in New Zealand runs a website (Kiwi Wine Fan Club) where the points are awarded on a 109 point scale, so he's even further up the evolutionary ladder in points awarding. It's very much a piss-take and I think there was also a temporary move to rating to 3 decimal places.

It is to this site's credit that forumites never refer to (e.g.) "93 point wine" or "95+ point wine" or "I just drank a 100 pointer!". Some people do add their own scores, which is fair enough, but people don't seem to care for the points as much as they care for the wine itself. A remarkably healthy attitude.

regards

Ian

Actually, the site reads like The Onion. It is really quite hilarious.

wine descriptors and any other verbiage lashed onto rating points is wasted time and effort by both reviewer and reader

Sadly like the story of the Emperors New Clothes, there is more truth in this statement than most of us would care to admit. How often have I read descriptions of a wine that read like of a catalogue of descriptive terms, nose of violets, roses, flavours of plums, pencil shavings, mushrooms, forest floor, blackcurrents, raspberries etc often irrrespective of the grape variety without convening any sense of the joy or experience associated with a wine. In these situations I often wish the reviewer would just give a score to save us all the labour of working through his/her prose. One of the reasons I really love this site is that there are a few people who really know their stuff about german riesling. I am more than happy for them to say "this stuff is the bomb, buy it", without endless desciptors.

ZACA MESA
Syrah Santa Ynez Valley 2004

Wine Enthusiast: 92 points
Wine Spectator: 82 points


ÁRDÍRI
Pinot Noir Napa Valley Carneros 2006

Wine Spectator: 79 points
95 points, Pinot Noir Shootout:
93 points, redwinebuzz.com
91 points, PinotReport


I'm not making any judgments on the wine because I've had neither. But one would wonder why a wine judged a "C+" (79) by one person would be judged an "A" (91-95 points) by others. I guess it depends on the teacher ...

Hoke
A guy (Craig - I can't recall his surname, Sue will know) in New Zealand runs a website (Kiwi Wine Fan Club) where the points are awarded on a 109 point scale, so he's even further up the evolutionary ladder in points awarding. It's very much a piss-take and I think there was also a temporary move to rating to 3 decimal places.

It is to this site's credit that forumites never refer to (e.g.) "93 point wine" or "95+ point wine" or "I just drank a 100 pointer!". Some people do add their own scores, which is fair enough, but people don't seem to care for the points as much as they care for the wine itself. A remarkably healthy attitude.

regards

Ian

Craig Thomson

http://www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz/content/view/106/57/

wine descriptors and any other verbiage lashed onto rating points is wasted time and effort by both reviewer and reader


Sadly like the story of the Emperors New Clothes, there is more truth in this statement than most of us would care to admit. How often have I read descriptions of a wine that read like of a catalogue of descriptive terms, nose of violets, roses, flavours of plums, pencil shavings, mushrooms, forest floor, blackcurrents, raspberries etc often irrrespective of the grape variety without convening any sense of the joy or experience associated with a wine. In these situations I often wish the reviewer would just give a score to save us all the labour of working through his/her prose. One of the reasons I really love this site is that there are a few people who really know their stuff about german riesling. I am more than happy for them to say "this stuff is the bomb, buy it", without endless desciptors.

I have to disagree with you on this one. I find notes at least as useful as a score. While I too tire of endless descriptives that seem to be getting more and more precious all the time (what does forest floor taste like? Isn't that just dirt?)--and yes David Schildknecht I'm looking at you--the notes can give you crucial information about what the wine is like and whether it will be to your taste. You can discover whether a wine is in a modern or traditional/rustic style. Whether it is ready to drink young or should be aged. Etc etc. Personally I avoid wines described as "sappy" for example or "fruit driven" in certain circumstances. If a Bordeaux is "fruit driven" I might like it. If a California pinot noir is "fruit driven" I probably won't. Just looking at a number tells me nothing.

If forced to choose I would rather have notes than scores.

If forced to choose I would rather have notes than scores.

I am with you Matt but then even there we might be in trouble as palate and wine experience might differ? I am getting sick of "people" telling me such and such a wine got 90 points. Show me the flipping tasting note and let me make up my own opinion! Better still, open the bottle and lets see (grin).

Craig Thomson
http://www.kiwiwinefanclub.co.nz/content/view/106/57/

Thanks Mark

[Robin Garr]

I believe this is the direct descendant of the defunct Wine X, a short-lived site that attempted unsuccessfully to do what Gary Vaynerchuk does very well: Reach out to a younger generation and excite them about wine by speaking their language.

Gary is sincere. These folks ... not so much.

(what does forest floor taste like? Isn't that just dirt?)--and yes David Schildknecht I'm looking at you-

And there's the rub: forest floor tells me an awful lot about the wine. To you it means little; to me it means a lot, and that lot is conveyed concisely in an evocative and sensorial way. It carries all sorts of connotations beyond its denotation, Matt.

Of course, if you've never had a lovely moment of walking through a forest and scuffing up the soil---especially in a deciduous forest where there is a rich layer of leaves covering moist earth---and getting that distinct aroma of rich, fertile, moist, bioactive soil, then it doesn't mean squat to you.

I like descriptors that convey a clear sense of what the critic is sensing from the wine. That, to me, is much more useful than a clinical list of disparate ingredients he/she may or not pick up. If there's no personal involvement perceptible in a wine critic's comments, then why in the world would I wish to invest in a wine that is incapable of engaging anything beyond his strict clinical faculties?