100 pt vs. 20 pt scale

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

Not sure I would use the Texas Wine Journal as a benchmark for anything.

My blind tasting group uses a structured 20 point system, and anything below 12 is “lower than commercial quality.” The group has been around since 1974, so likely longer than the Texas Wine Journal. FWIW, at one time a member proposed switching to the 100 point system. The resounding response was that it was a bad idea.

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

If 12/20=70/100 in points scoring, 20 point score = 4/15 (100 point score - 25).

No.

Deleted.

FWIW la Revue du Vin de France (RVF) has recently switched from the 20 to the 100 point scale. Here is their abridged conversion table -

20 point scale 100 point scale

12 = 84
12.5 = 85
.... .....
15 = 90
.... .....
17.5 = 95
.... ....
19.5 = 99

By way of further explanation -

99 à 100 : vin exceptionnel
96 à 98 : grand vin
92 à 95 : très bon vin
88 à 91 : bon vin
84 à 87 : vin correct

Obviously, this scoring system doesn't bind other people to use the same numbers in a like manner.

Please let this be the last time I post about scores .

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

No. It does not.

Our 20 point system has a very specific structure and cannot just be multiplied to factor it to out of 100.

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

Dave, your group's system seems very unusual. Can you tell me what score out of 100 would be considered not quite "lower than commercial quality"?

The problem Richard is that Parker himself calls 60-69 points "below average." It's only in the 50-59 range that he calls it unacceptable. 70 is just essentially an uninteresting drink.

So perhaps 59.

Our 20 point system has a very specific structure and cannot just be multiplied to factor it to out of 100.

This sounds like the UC Davis system, or a variant of it. In the UC Davis system, the wine is scored on various attributes, and those scores are summed to give the final score. For example, up to 4 points for color, up to 2 points for clarity, up to 4 points for aroma. The maximum score is 20 points.

Parker stated several times in The Wine Advocate that he does something similar to arrive at his scores, but as far as I know he never revealed the characteristics he measured or how many points were allocated to each. Back when he first started, Parker would visit local wine shops, buy whatever he could get his hands on and could afford, and review everything, good and bad. His reviews of poor wines made entertaining reading. The lowest score I ever saw was 52. I had the misfortune of tasting that wine and I've always wondered what he gave those two points for. I suppose it's because the stuff wasn't actually poisonous.

I'm uncomfortable with wine scoring systems with more than five levels. IMO systems finer grained than that are guilty of reporting more precision than they're entitled to, something that runs counter to my training in experimental science.

-Paul W.

Deleted.

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

Paul,

It’s a variation on the Davis method, though none of the original group members can remember how they arrived at the specific scoring system. The guy who originated the version we use died in 2005, having claimed he was using it since the 1950s.

Deleted.

[David M. Bueker]

That’s not what we use.

4 point score is best!!

I do not use point scores, but will address the question of Parker low scores.

It has never made any sense to me to have a scale that starts at 50 instead of 0 - it is like you are awarding a wine 50 points simply for showing up and not eating a hole in the bottle.

But as to the question of the lowest score awarded by RP, I happen to have owned a bottle of 1965 Mouton, acquired in a bulk cellar purchase and donated by me to a charity auction. Here is RPs review:

Rating: 50
One of the rarest vintages, 1965, is a year that rivals the worst of the century in Bordeaux. Recently a private collection in Baltimore came up for sale and it was a shock to see the surprising quantities of 1965 Bordeaux that had been cellared. I wonder if the owner died naturally, or whether the wines killed him! At first glance, this 1965 Mouton looks promising because of its medium garnet color with only slight amber at the edge. However, one whiff of the nose reveals the problems of the 1965 vintage. The odor of rotten garbage, stale mushrooms, and stewed fruit is appalling. Because of its |educational value,| I was willing to put this wine in my mouth. I just had to see what might be there given the frightful smell. I found the wine to be exceptionally high in acidity, with an artificial, cloying, disjointed character. Although the wine had some fruit, glycerin, and body, it was undrinkable.
Author: Robert Parker

The lack of sanity in the pointy heads and first growth worshipers is confirmed by that fact that, despite Parker's review, bottles of this rare wine are on offer for over $1,000. The only rational reason for that I can think of is that there are people out there trying to complete a vertical label collection. Either that or they are simply daft.

Thanks for posting the 1965 Mouton review. That must have appeared in one of Parker's books on Bordeaux and not in The Wine Advocate. One wonders why Mouton would release such an abomination. I can only assume they must have had some contractual obligation to fulfill.

It has never made any sense to me to have a scale that starts at 50 instead of 0 - it is like you are awarding a wine 50 points simply for showing up and not eating a hole in the bottle.

Parker starts at 50 to bring his scoring system in line with the percentage grading system most Americans are familiar with from their schooldays:

90%+ = A (exceptional)
80-89% = B (above average)
70 - 79% = C (average)
60-69% = D (poor)
59% or lower = F (failure)

-Paul W.

[David M. Bueker]

Couple of things on the 1965

1. People are seriously into collecting the wines because of the labels, even if they don't like the vintage, or don't even like Mouton!
2. Maybe it was mediocre but drinkable in 1967 when it was released.

Couple of things on the 1965

2. Maybe it was mediocre but drinkable in 1967 when it was released.

I would expect that had been the case and it probably deteriorated from there (perhaps fairly quickly).

Looking at prices now, I should have kept my bottle on a shelf and waited for someone to come along who was convinced that the label was worth money. I think that production was low and the wine was probably mostly drunk up fairly quickly.

Paul, thanks for the explanation on the 100 point scale. I don't know that there was an explanation in his newsletter to that effect (and can't find mine after the move).

IIRC Parker used to give this explanation for his system regularly in the early days of The Wine Advocate. He stopped doing this, probably because he felt the space it took up could be put to better use.

-Paul W.

[David M. Bueker]

IIRC Parker used to give this explanation for his system regularly in the early days of The Wine Advocate. He stopped doing this, probably because he felt the space it took up could be put to better use.

-Paul W.

Up to when I quit the paper version of TWA in 2007 it was still on the front page.