Better than perfect

[Bradley Bogdan]

And when I took the SAT, you could get the maximum score without even getting all the questions correctly, so I wouldn't call it a perfect score. A girl in my high school did answer every question correctly on the PSAT. I could never max out the verbal part.

You can still score 800 for sections without answering all questions correctly. Been there, haha

[Jim R.]

Back to WINE scoring--I think all scoring methods are valid as long as you use them as recommendations and not gospel. I also think the only way to use the recommendation is by reviewing the written description. Anything Mr. Parker describes as "voluptuous" has no acid balance and fails with food (IMHO). Anyone who walks into a wine store and goes solely by the numbers tacked next to the wine (checking their mind at the door) deserves what they get.

[Roy Hersh]

So now that this topic has devolved away from its intended poke at a specific critic's hyperbole in rating the 2011 Nacional and has turned into commentary including SAT exams ...

Whether 10, 20 or 100 point rating systems are employed, there is no question that for comparison sake, our culture has relied on the quantification of products and services for a very long time. You can conjure up your own examples or not, but at its essence, numerical ratings do help people to quickly understand a person's opinion, (critic or amateur) "at-a-glance." It is a thing of convenience and time saving and sadly some individuals do not take the time to gain further context by reading the supporting material, as in the body of a TN.

That being said, in context, numerical wine ratings should be secondary to the impressions given in a written tasting note. More information and thought can be derived from a well written tasting note than any score, imho. Even with pro critics that I personally hold in high regard ... I pay far more attention to what they write about a wine than the score they annoint it with.

It should be noted that a critic's stylistic difference in creating their tasting notes is important for the reader to understand. Some critics are all about plying their TN's with a bazillion fluffy descriptors. Others give a clear indication of their personal likes or dislikes of a particular wine which adds substance. Speaking about my own insight (or lack thereof) of my own tasting notes; I tend to be more of a "structuralist" in that I pay very close attention and try to relay the wine's underlying backbone of tannins and fluidity with its level of acididty. Of course I also try to convey things I smell or taste as well, but for me, the structure and texture of a wine, which provide the overall balance are the vital parts of what I try to include. Drinking windows and scores are so subjective that they are almost besides the fact and less important in the scheme of life. I don't expect others to necessarily agree with my opinion on this, just as I don't write tasting notes with the intent of having others agree, or not.

This is the exact reason that in penning VP forecasts for the past two decades, I have always implored readers to try to taste the Ports on their own, read the impressions of as many critics as possible and most importantly, to realize that my TN's are SOLELY the opinion of one man.

[Jim R.]

Right On! (man)

[Eric Menchen]

While everyone says you should read the full note and not just go on a score, it seems:
a) Often we are only presented with a score, like in a retail listing
b) Sometimes the full note just doesn't tell you how good a wine is. It might use all sorts of descriptors and flowery text, but miss that summary information, leaving you with just a score.