Scoring Port

[Tom Archer]

Further to my post under the Parker thread, I'd like to launch a discussion on how best to get a meaningful comparison between different vintages and shippers of VP.

The Parker points system is, I am told, based on a rather idiosyncratic US school grading system, where no-one is allowed to achieve less than 50/100.

In practice, it would appear that a bottle of vinegar will reliably score 70+

It was a great improvement on the entirely subjective market that existed before he arrived on the scene, but it fails to address the issue of maturation and is more than a little vague.

How best to approach the subject afresh?

My two penneth favours the merceneray approach - was the bottle worth the money (or its current value)?

Thus a simple rating of Excellent value to Very poor value can be achieved.

This could then be translated into hard numbers using a simple formula -

Allowing for the higher prices in the USA:

Multiply US wine store price (in $) by 3.5

or Multiply UK wine merchant price (in £) by 8

or pitch a maximum London auction bid price (in £) for individual case with provenance, (or one case from a parcel lot) - excluding buyer premium and carriage.

Thus if you felt a bottle was worth $40 at a US wine store, that would translate to a score of 140 - a lowly VP

On the other hand, if you felt a bottle of Nacional was fair value at £500 from a British wine merchant, that would score 4000 - a top bottle.

In each case your London auction bid limit would be £140 and £4000 for a case of 12 bottles respectively.

Any better ideas??

[Jason Brandt Lewis]

Let's back up a second . . . .

(and if this was covered in the other thread, forgive my repetition)

The Parker points system is, I am told, based on a rather idiosyncratic US school grading system, where no-one is allowed to achieve less than 50/100.

Whoever said you can't score below 50 in school?!?!?!?

In practice, it would appear that a bottle of vinegar will reliably score 70+

It was a great improvement on the entirely subjective market that existed before he arrived on the scene, but it fails to address the issue of maturation and is more than a little vague.

No offense, but it's the same system now as it was before he "arrived." UC Davis developed a 20-point scale in an attempt to scientifically attribute an objective scoring system to wine. Clearly this was ludicrous, as wine is BOTH an objective AND subjective evaluation. With that original 20-point system, there was no room for subjectivity, and as a result everyone used a "modified UC Davis 20-point system" for scoring.

You had to work hard to score below a 10 on the original Davis scale (though I did manage to give a wine a "9" once). Well, OK, you have to work really hard to score below 50 on Parker's scale. Can you say, "Let's multiply everything by five"?

The "100 points" has resonance with Americans because tests in much of the US are swcored using a percentage score, and you can't do better than 100%!

How best to approach the subject afresh?

My two penneth favours the merceneray approach - was the bottle worth the money (or its current value)?

Thus a simple rating of Excellent value to Very poor value can be achieved.

FWIW, the late Jerry Mead used to do this, after a fashion, in his writings here in the States. He scored wines on a 100-point scale TWICE -- so a wine, for example, might get an 85/95 or a 98/72. In the first case, it was a very good wine, period, but at a GREAT price! The latter represents an outstanding wine with a ridiculously high price tag (and thus, no value).

I personally prefer the "Broadbent" five point system -- regardless of how you measure it, stars, smiley faces, cats or TLAs (which, when forced to score, is my preferred method), and then comment upon the value/price . . . if I know it.

Cheers,
Jason

[Andy Velebil]

I personally prefer the "Broadbent" five point system -- regardless of how you measure it, stars, smiley faces, cats or TLAs (which, when forced to score, is my preferred method), and then comment upon the value/price . . . if I know it.

Cheers,
Jason

I agree with Jason. When at tastings I use a check mark system, on a scale of 1 to 5, 5 check marks being highest. I find it tends to take into account both the quality AND value better than a 100 point scale when tasting multiple wines. Not to mention being simpler, as it allows me to determine much easier what, if any, wines I want to buy after the tasting.

That being said, for a professional reviewer publishing their tasting scores, a 100 point system is probably easier for the masses to understand.

[Roy Hersh]

The late Jerry "Curmudgeon" Mead was a fabulous educator when it came to wine. I continue on as a judge at his annual wine competition and learned a boat load about wine from him. I used to really enjoy his reviews on wine and his double scoring method which took value into account, as JBL explained. IMO, he was the GREATEST "consumer's wine advocate" of them all.

Jerry did not shy away from wines that were not good and let us know if he did not enjoy a wine and why. His tasting notes were simple, based on sensorial perception and not a panoply of scents and flavors listed from his pantry or refrigerator. I miss him and his brilliant writing style. He told it straight as an arrow and was not afraid to be blunt and occasionally wear his feelings on his sleeve with specific issues. He was one of the earliest advocates in the USA about what he used to call the "neo-prohibitionists" in the USA direct/interstate shipping debacle and was a loud voice before FREE THE GRAPES was even conceived.

Back to Port. There are MANY people who rate Port, in Portugal, the UK, Denmark and the USA (I am sure there are others but I am not aware of them). Each has their very own personal opinion. None is right or wrong, although we may individually agree or disagree. Over time, we get to know their tastes and can then use their subjective views however we choose. One person's love for fruit bombs is the next person's overly extracted and concentrated wine that they disdain. We all have different preferences for dry vs. fruity, power vs. elegance etc. So get to know many reviewers and choose the one with Port that most closely resembles your own. As many critics continue to mention, you must judge the wines on your own to really get a sense of what you like and want to buy. Otherwise, follow the pundit who you feel has a palate in synch with your own.

Point scores or other rating systems or providing quality to price ratio judgements, remains a subjective practice and there will never be a definitive methodology or totally objective way to judge wine, food, music or any other type of art. Who wants that anyway?

I look for three characteristics in a what I consider a top reviewer:

a. consistency
b. full disclosure of their tasting/decanting methodology
c. no hidden personal agendas or commercial interests in specific wines or producers they review

[NickA]

power

And even the definitions they go by!

[Stuart Chatfield]

I'll give a third vote for the Broadbent system. Maybe I'm biased as I just agree with most of his conclusions, but I think it is an excellent system. Easy to remember and cope with and can be used more systematically tomake a value judgement at auction (maybe it is no coincidence that MB has this systems and is an auctioneer?). I even keep a spreadsheet of MB's scores on my noticeboard in case of emergency (i.e. a buying opportunity arises before I can get to his book or my own notes). It also has the option of giving the odd six if you find something truly great. As '05 is the latest vintage of the century, what is Parker going to give Latour and Pavie this time? 101?

I think many people get distracted by RP's scores. His taste is different than mine, but the scores and everyone's reactions mask the fact that his descriptions are often reasonably good and clear. I see too many people who say on other boards, "RP has given it 100, I'm getting a case of that". Why don't people talk about his descriptions and notes? When he describes Latour and Pavie I often know I'd want the former but not the latter. Too many people just look at the numbers and buy both. Still, I suppose the Taylor '92 thing has distracted attention from better ports and kept their prices relatively lower.

I agree with Roy on the "panoply of scents" point, though . I couldn't have put it better myself.

[alec]

Not to be the contrarian, but I think they should rate wine based on a set number of categories each worth XX number of points. Like the Zagat books. So when you rate a Port, you'd rate each of the following:

Nose
Clarity/Color
Finish
Ageability
Value

(I didn't put a ton of thought into those, I'm sure there's more or better categories). So there's 5 categories, and let's say they each get 20 points so we can all be happy with the 100 point system.

What I like about this method is that the best general wines at the best value get the best score. Now, this may be a real bummer for Petrus, whose $1500/bottle wines may go from 100 points to 89. But that's fair, right? I mean, no matter how spectacular Petrus may be is it really 100 points when you can buy 10 bottles of 98 point Diamond Creek Cabernet for the cost of a single bottle?

------------------------

On a separate note, I'm intrigued by someone's post in the Parker thread about whether ports are rated in the here-and-now or if they're rated for what they might be when aged.... Roy, when you rate ports how do you factor age into your score? If the 2003 Fonseca is, say, a "95" is that going to change when you have it 40 years from now? Or is it a 95 as a young port but then a 99 as a mature port (or 89 as a mature port because it didn't meet expectations.)?

--A

[qcumber]

How does adding a 'value' score help? They can only get that wrong, right? I mean, if I have $50 million I am not going to worry about spending $1500 on a bottle of wine when I want the best. And if I have $50,000 there is no way I'm buying it. But the wine is the same in both cases! Any assumption the reviewer makes about my proclivity to spend will almost certainly be wrong. Just tell me the quality and price -- I can figure out how I value it.

[Tom Archer]

I'd echo Roy's point that everyone has their own view, and that no wine has a definitive standing. No self respecting commentator should look to see what others have said before setting their own mark.

My real issue is that the 100 point system is degenerating and has never worked for VP. I also think it has been largely responsible for the over-pricing of young port.

- An expert taster can sample wine from the cask in Bordeaux and give a pretty good opinion on where that wine is and where it's going to.

- VP is much more of a guessing game. An expert can usually pick the winners from a vintage with fair reliability, but the vintages as a whole are notorious for changing course.

I think a scoring system should reflect the immediate drinkability of a wine. It follows that low scores should be entirely normal for recent vintages.

[alec]

How does adding a 'value' score help? They can only get that wrong, right? I mean, if I have $50 million I am not going to worry about spending $1500 on a bottle of wine when I want the best. And if I have $50,000 there is no way I'm buying it. But the wine is the same in both cases! Any assumption the reviewer makes about my proclivity to spend will almost certainly be wrong. Just tell me the quality and price -- I can figure out how I value it.

Dunno, perhaps it is based on a price range:
$1 - $10 = 20 pts
$10.01 - $20 = 19 pts
$20.01 - $30 = 18 pts

etc. Just throwing this out there, but that would encourage wine producers to try to keep their price point lower to gain the better score. I still think there's a huge discrepency between a rating of 100 on a $100 bottle of wine vs. a $1500 bottle of wine. Price has to be a factor somewhere.....

--A

[Guest]

Fascinating thread on scoring...

Perhaps we should add another factor in the scoring and add an additional 10 points or something if you already have one or more bottles aging in your cellar....?



BTW - thanks for the lively participation on the boards. As Roy & I hoped, this has turned into both a wonderful community for discussion, info sharing and occasionally debate on Port and all things related, and all of you are to thank for that!

Cheers, and add another 5 points to your wine's score just 'cause you are such fun people to dialogue with!

[Stuart Chatfield]

Perhaps we should add another factor in the scoring and add an additional 10 points or something if you already have one or more bottles aging in your cellar....?

And I though ramping was the preserve of share and investment boards!