Ain't Those CT Ratings A Riot!?

A recent CT reviewer rated a Williams Selyem 2006 Bucher Pinot an "89" and accompanied that rating with the following pithy observation:

"another ok but not good or above average Pinot from WS" (47 views)

...and so, I am left to wonder, if an "OK" wine is an "89", is a "good" wine a "95" ? ...and, is it possible for an "above average" wine, which I assume is better than merely a "good" wine, capable of exceeding "100", lets say perhaps "105"? Lord, what must an "exceptional" wine be capable of ? Boggles the mind.

Hey Tom,

CT is perhaps, even more so than Parker's notes, the perfect example of needing to really read the notes rather than look at the scores. I think there are a lot points snobs there, the sort who consider anything under 93 points to be barely worth drinking. These are folks who are ultimately going to be unsatisfied, because they have no truly exceptional experiences (relative to their standards) to look forward to.

This wine goes to 11.

[David M. Bueker]

The infamous 100 pt (actually a 50 pt) system was "invented" at time when there were many top wines that were truly horrific in quality.

While we can argue wine styles until the cows come home, the fact remains that the overall level of wine quality is much higher than it was 35 years ago. These days a very good wine is kind of "average."

Of course that does not exonerate the scoring process, nor the widely divergetn ways people use it.

When I'm considering buying a wine and wonder how other people regarded it, I often look at the CT notes but pay attention to the username of the one posting. Some post frequently and are knowledgeable and I can get an idea of their palate preferences and whether I would likely be in agreement. This is particularly helpful with Burgundies since they can be an expensive investment and I don't want to be wasting my cash. In my own mental rating (I only occasionally add a number to my notes) I rarely give ratings in the 90s as I am looking for something extraordinary for that score, but I would say most of the wines I buy merit 85-89 points (very good.) I probably should mentally be raising some of those into the 90s. I usually buy wines I have liked at a tasting or ones that had previous vintages that appealed to me, so usually by the time I get it home I'm expecting it to score 84 and up. Occasionally I do buy an unfamiliar wine to try it out and may be disappointed in the results or the current vintage may not live up to past vintages.

Grade inflation.

[David M. Bueker]

Clearly that Pinot Noir needs more cowbell.

I write my CT notes for myself, not as a wine critic grading wines. For me, in my grading scale, it is purely ordinal, much like JC describes. I guess I could use stars or happy faces or something instead of numbers. But I don't. An 89 is a wine I would buy again, but it is kind of at the bottom of my buying priority. Mid-90s wines are ones I think are quite good. When I score 95 or above, that is a kick ass wine. But it is a scale for me, and, again, like JC, if you want to use my numbers for anything when you read my CT notes, use them cuz you have read mine enough times to know what I like and what I score.

So, I wouldn't make fun of that person's CT scores without putting it in context. It's easy to take cheap shots, but what's the point?

CT is just about the only place I post tasting notes, albeit w/o points, these days. Since the latest rage is to attach greater importance to the descriptors as opposed to points, my notes hereafter on NH will have encrypted narrative. Don't care if you find value or humor in them.
'Winger

CT is just about the only place I post tasting notes, albeit w/o points, these days. Since the latest rage is to attach greater importance to the descriptors as opposed to points, my notes hereafter on NH will have encrypted narrative. Don't care if you find value or humor in them.
'Winger

Oh. I thought your notes were already encrypted.

Oh. I thought your notes were already encrypted.

That is true, Hoke. However, a few around here apparently deciphered the code enough so they could criticize my notes, so I felt the need to double encrypt.
'Winger

Oh. I thought your notes were already encrypted.

That is true, Hoke. However, a few around here apparently deciphered the code enough so they could criticize my notes, so I felt the need to double encrypt.
'Winger

Ooh. How...cryptic... of you.

CT??? NH???? what the heck is this all about?

CT is Cellar Tracker. Nos sure what NH is.

[quote="James Dietz"]I write my CT notes for myself, not as a wine critic grading wines. For me, in my grading scale, it is purely ordinal, much like JC describes. I guess I could use stars or happy faces or something instead of numbers. But I don't. An 89 is a wine I would buy again, but it is kind of at the bottom of my buying priority. Mid-90s wines are ones I think are quite good. When I score 95 or above, that is a kick ass wine. But it is a scale for me, and, again, like JC, if you want to use my numbers for anything when you read my CT notes, use them cuz you have read mine enough times to know what I like and what I score.



Hey that's fine, just seems that if you're gonna post notes on a public forum and attach a # grade to the wine, that # should bear some relation to what it has meant, and does mean, in popular publications like WS, WA, and WE for instance. Isn't that what the vast majority of folks reading it would assume?

Your response, however, does contain the seeds of the solution. If ones # rating indicates something personal, accompany the score with an explanation of what your #'s mean. Along with your explanation above, I would know exactly what you mean by an "89".

NH is my encryption for CellarTracker. See, both CT and NH are New England states. Aren't you glad you asked?

Hey that's fine, just seems that if you're gonna post notes on a public forum and attach a # grade to the wine, that # should bear some relation to what it has meant, and does mean, in popular publications like WS, WA, and WE for instance. Isn't that what the vast majority of folks reading it would assume?

Your response, however, does contain the seeds of the solution. If ones # rating indicates something personal, accompany the score with an explanation of what your #'s mean. Along with your explanation above, I would know exactly what you mean by an "89".

I wouldn't call CT a `public forum.' They are `my tasting notes.' Maybe I should just shut off the option for others to read them so some folks aren't confused.

[David M. Bueker]

Hey that's fine, just seems that if you're gonna post notes on a public forum and attach a # grade to the wine, that # should bear some relation to what it has meant, and does mean, in popular publications like WS, WA, and WE for instance.

People are placing too much significance on CellarTracker reviews these days. It's a big cross-section of people at varying levels of enthusiasm & knowledge, so caveat emptor to all data on that site unless you have some insight to the palate preferences of the person writing the note.

Hey that's fine, just seems that if you're gonna post notes on a public forum and attach a # grade to the wine, that # should bear some relation to what it has meant, and does mean, in popular publications like WS, WA, and WE for instance.

People are placing too much significance on CellarTracker reviews these days. It's a big cross-section of people at varying levels of enthusiasm & knowledge, so caveat emptor to all data on that site unless you have some insight to the palate preferences of the person writing the note.

Yep, I agree with that David.

To state the obvious: almost all the notes on CT are by non-professionals, so I tend to concentrate on notes by those posters that I know. I'd say the most utility is the drinking window. That a wine is starting to drink well or is starting to fall apart is something that I pay attention to. Other notes I take with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, I think the new dial-a-note feature will just add to the noise.

It is fun for those of us that spend too much time on wine boards to "fill in" the background: the one that cannot resist the urge to act outlier, the one that posts the same note over and over again (only the names change), the over-night experts. Not that my notes are anything special.

wow, tempest in a stitbucket.

This wine goes to 11.

Heh heh heh.

Dan, I agree. One of the best ways I know to find out how wines are drinking now, in real time, is to log on to Cellar-Tracker. I often do that before plunging into my cellar to find the evening's wine. In that respect I've not always been successful -- there's no way to know what sort of temperatures the wines were stored at so the noted wines are sometimes at different stages -- but I've found recent Cellar-Tracker TNs are generally a lot better indication of how wines are drinking now than are predicted drinking windows from old issues of the Wine Advocate or Wine Spectator or even the respective wineries.

My only quarrel with C-T is that it makes me feel guilty as I know I ought to do the work necessary to take full advantage of it rather than simply spy on TNs.

[David M. Bueker]

wow, tempest in a spitbucket.

Not a tempest at all - just a fun disucssion