Deleted

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

Reasonable brackets. Ends up being like a star system, but with 6 at the top instead of 5. No stars=No drink

To David M. Bueker: You make a very good point. I could just call wines below 85 "no stars" and award stars in the remaining 5 categories. Thanks, Richard L

[Jenise]

If stars were good enough for Michael Broadbent, it should be good enough for everybody.

"plus c*a change, plus c*a c'est la meme chose." [the * is my substitute for a cedilla.] A rough translation: "The more things change. the more they stay the same". I seem to be going back to my original 1 to 4 points , with 0 for below 88, 1 for 88-90, 2 for 90.5 -92, 3 for 92.5-95, and 4 for 95.5 and up. I am so used to using the 100 point system that i will probably do this for a while. If I buy no more red Bdx. the scoring will already have been done. I have decided to make no allowance for vintage rating , as the long term average of a rounded 90 since c.1961 is the same for the Wine Advocate Ratings for Pauillac etc. as the rounded 90 average for the Grundeken article I mentioned in previous posts. Things have really simplified for me, thanks mainly to advice from Jenise and David M. Bueker. Many thanks to them and others with similar advice (0-4 points is similar to Broadbent's 5 stars), [P.S. our collection of LB red Bdx has relatively few 2s and a large number of both 3s and 4s, I am happy to say. My new aim is to get the average score up to 3.51. By drinking the 2s and perhaps a few 3s, I think that is attainable.] Richard L

FWIW I too effectively use a 6 category grading system. It started life as a 10pt scale with halves allowed. Then I eventually realised I was only using the top 6 levels. So now, although I personally still relate better to "marks out of 10" when I do the scoring, I communicate my ratings as 1-6 stars.

My only justification is that it works for me, though psychologists do talk about 7 + or - 2 being a magic number - one that is related to limits on attention and short-term memory.

I think that's a reasonable system.

Someone once joked that the Parker system was a three-point system. If a wine scores under 85, no wine shop will carry it, and if it scores 90+ you can't find it anywhere.

-Paul W.

[Jenise]

I think that's a reasonable system.

Someone once joked that the Parker system was a three-point system. If a wine scores under 85, no wine shop will carry it, and if it scores 90+ you can't find it anywhere.

-Paul W.

That, unfortunately, is too true!

It has occurred to me
that probably I do not have to evaluate our "collection" of red Bdx: after all: we have no 1s (bottom 3rds to bottom 2nds in an average year), only a small number of 2s (low to high 2nds in an average year), lots of 3s (low to high firsts in an average year), and lots of 4ths (potentially firsts in a fine year,, or really great wines in an average year). What's not to like? It does sound too good to be true, so perhaps there is a flaw in my reasoning. That might not matter a lot as the wines in general seem very enjoyable to drink.

I think I could just rate wines into the following categories: I below 85 unacceptable (less so for 80-84.5)
85-87.5 acceptable
88-90 quite enjoyable
90.5-92 enjoyable
92.5-95 very good and 95.5 and up great. Richard L

That broadly corresponds to my categories but my labels are different, as follows -

- Fairly good
- Good
- Very good
- Excellent
- Great

You'll find these labels in my TNs on this site. I drop the numerical scores which I have posted on CT because I think that they have no value for this audience.

Tim, i think your set of classes is quite like my new/old one. I think that either i am rather severe in my 0-4 ranking or "Grundeken " classes are too "lenient", or very possibly both. I doubt if it really matters much re our "collection", but my rating of zero theoretically iincludes all 4th and 5th growths (by performance) in an average year. My rating of 1 (never bought) contains all the third growths (by performance) in an average year. My rating of 2 (seldom bought) contains all the second growths (by performance) in an average year. On the other hand, and probably more importantly, all of the wines I bought except for one cost less than $85 before taxes and shipping costs and were well within my sensible pricing guidelines. The one exception (a 2016 rated 96 by me) cost under $100 per bottle {I bought one case} before taxes [there were no shipping charges] and was comfortably within my guidelines. Really I see no cause for worry. Richard L

Richard, I aim to buy wines that I find "good" or better. Obviously I sometimes fail. It would mostly only be a faulty bottle where a bourgeois or GC Bordeaux fails to get at least a "good" rating from me, even in an "off" vintage. Many bottles of a cru bourgeois like Château Poujeaux I find "very good". I think you must be much more severe than I am in your judgements.

As for my rare looks at the value of my collection, CT already gives a sighting shot and there is a French web auctioneer who can give a better estimate, if needed.

The thing that appeals to me about Stuart Yaniger's Three Stooges rating system is that, not only is it statistically honest regarding precision, but it reports something of the character of the wine as well as how good it is. So if you see "Double Curly Moe" you know you have a potentially great wine with a tannic or acidic edge to it. Plus it's a lot of fun.

Vintage ratings for an entire wine region are even more problematic than ratings for individual wines. Especially in places like Burgundy or the Mosel-Saar-Ruwer, where the producer is all-important.

-Paul W.

Tim, I think you are right about the severity of my judgments. The good thing about that is not finding anyone who does not like our wines, and from the enthusiastic way people drink them I do not think they are just being polite. There is no purchase that I regret and I consider nearly all the wines very good or great, with none of them being over-priced and quite a lot that for their quality I consider bargains. The wines were not inexpensive, generally, but all were easily affordable for us. At our ages it is now time for drinking (happily) rather than buying. Though we could afford the odd first growth (often little if any better than our best wines) I simply refuse to waste such enormous amounts. Richard L

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

Not sure that makes sense given that wine shops typically mark up 30%.

Divide by 1.3 ? It's academic to me personally as I plan to sell nothing. Richard L

[David M. Bueker]

If you sell nothing why does the value matter?

Dave, I was thinking of my heirs and I am a bit curious as to current value compared to what I paid, with an allowance for inflation. Richard L

[David M. Bueker]

Dave, I was thinking of my heirs and I am a bit curious as to current value compared to what I paid, with an allowance for inflation. Richard L

Ah.

My cats don’t like wine.

[Jenise]

Dave, I was thinking of my heirs and I am a bit curious as to current value compared to what I paid, with an allowance for inflation. Richard L

If you keep your inventory on Cellar Tracker you can access auction prices there. Or just look up the going rates on a place like Winebid. I did, and as a result shipped off some Caymuses I had laying around. Dreadful stuff, but I got $280/bottle for them.