Wine Rating Systems and Wine Reviewers
|
| Is it redundant to say that wine ratings are over-rated?
One needs to be careful to not buy wines solely based upon ratings.
Too often one succumbs to the temptation to ante up a few
dollars more for find a highly rated wine only to be
disappointed. Or, we find a wine we like and then one of the wine
pundits gives it a high rating and suddenly the price jumps,
and or worse, it becomes difficult or even impossible to
find. True the ratings are a valid indicator of relative
quality of a wine but it should be noted, they are
qualitative ratings, not quantitative. It should also be
noted that ratings will reflect the personal tastes
preferences of the reviewer. Further complicating the issue
is that the leading wine journal, Wine Spectator, which
publishes ratings of more than 160,000 wines, actually has
several people doing the ratings. Logically, they have
experts that focus on specific regions of the world who rate
those particular wines. Be sure to make note of who wrote
the review.
The neophyte should take note then, that not all ratings
are the same. Generally speaking, they are a highly useful,
valid and legitimate means to reflect a particular wine.
Just don't take them too seriously. I personally find it fun
and interesting to blindly apply my own ratings to a wine
and then compare my rating to the leading and other
reviewers. More often than not I find agreement and
consistency with them. Over time I have learned how my taste
preferences compare fairly consistently relative to those of
various noted reviewers. My tastes and subsequent ratings
track some more than others.
Use these reviews, mine and the comparable reviews of the
professionals as a barometer and calibration point for your
own tastes. In the end, the only rating that matters is
yours! And to all of you who consistently ask how you learn
to apply these ratings, or rate wines on your own, the
answer and process is very simple - practice,
practice, practice!
|
| The 100
Point Scale |
|
The most popular system
is the 100 point scale - made popular by the
prominent and oft published Robert Parker from his
newsletter, the Wine Advocate. He has an incredible
gift of an immensely discerning and discriminating
palate coupled with a skill to discern, catalogue,
characterize and classify the myriad of taste
sensations and the for
articulation. His methodology has become the defacto
standard in the industry now adopted by many of
the leading reviewers (see table below) including
the Wine Spectator (right). |
| WINE SPECTATOR SCORE |
| |
95-100
Classic
90-94 Outstanding
85-89 Very Good
80-84 Good
75-79 Mediocre
50-74 Not recommended |
|
| |
|
| The principle wine
writers and reviewers and the abbreviations used
by the industry for them are: |
I
personally find the 20 point scale system used by
Jancis Robinson to be easier to understand
and to apply to my tasting experiences. I would
recommend that system for anyone wishing to adopt
their own system for comparison ratings of their
wine experiences. I switched to more popular and
widely used 100 point system as it allowed
comparisons with other reviewers.
An excellent compendium of the
various
rating systems is published by the husband
and wife team of Deborah and Steve De Long in their
website known for its
Wine Grape Varietal Table to help them to make
sense of the vast and often confusing world of wine
grape varieties, compiled over four years of
extensive research and tastings in compiling it. |
|
|
|
| 5
Point Rating System |
|
Quality rating:
Based on a five-point scale, with increments
in one-tenth of a point. Wines below 3.0
aren�t worthy of consideration at all, and
3.5 is a decent starting point for wine
worth buying. Beyond that? It�s really a
matter of personal taste and preference. A
shorthand reference: |
|
1.0:
Undrinkable: Major flaws that make
the wine too bad to drink |
|
2.0:
Marginally drinkable: You�d drink
it if stranded on a desert island, but not
otherwise |
|
3.0:
Acceptable: Wine free of any major
flaws, but not otherwise worth mentioning |
|
3.5:
Good: Decent and drinkable wine,
competently made and enjoyable to the
average drinker |
|
4.0:
Very good: Highly pleasurable wine
with excellent qualities, the product of
top-notch winemaking |
|
4.5:
Excellent: Wine that excels in
every aspect, true to its terroir and origin
and of exceptional quality |
|
5.0:
Extraordinary: Classic wine of rare
and unparalleled quality |
|
Naturally the 5.0
scale is easier to understand use and is a great
starting point for any novice as well as anyone who
simply wants to take and make note of their wine
experiences without getting too caught up in
complexity and analysis ad nauseam.
For compulsive analytics or those
simply seeking a more comprehensive method for
analyzing a wine, check out the WineSpider
evaluation method below. |
| |
|
The Winespider Evaluation
System
|
| The Winespider
evaluation system has created an enormous amount of
interest from an international community of wine
lovers who have visited the web site at
www.winespider.com. The Winespider concept
developed from a deep seated distrust of current
wine evaluation systems and the need to create a
simple, yet objective way of representing the
qualities of a wine. |
 |
Winespider
achieves this using a methodology that rates the
four fundamental attributes of wine:
1.
SIGHT consisting of four categories:
(a) colour (b) viscosity (c) brilliance (d)
depth
2. NOSE consisting of four
categories: (a) aroma (b) faults (c) variety
(d) intensity
3.
PALATE consisting of four categories:
(a) complexity (b) concentration (c) fruit (d)
length
4.
FINISH consisting of four categories:
(a) aftertaste (b) balance (c) tannin /
phenolics (d) acid |
|
|
These categories vary slightly
in order to accommodate the peculiarities of each of
the major wine groups - Red, White, Sparkling and
Fortified. In tasting line-ups the Winespider system
evaluates like with like, so that wines are rated
according to their varietal nature or 'genre',
rather than by broad terms such as 'Dry White table
wines' or 'Light-bodied Reds'. For example, a Shiraz
from anywhere in the world will be assessed on the
desirable qualities of the varietal and on how it
has been developed and expressed as a result of
terroir and winemaking - not by an arbitrary 'Group'
classification.
In the actual evaluation process, each of the above
sixteen categories are marked out of a total score
of ten giving a wine a total potential score of 160.
For ease of comprehension, the computer
automatically re-calculates scores to a figure out
of 100 and generates a Winespider graph. The graph
reflects a wines profile at a point in time, so
re-tasting at a later date will produce a different
profile. This system allows the history of a wines
development to be graphically recorded.
The full spectrum of a wines subtleties are best
expressed in this graph. A round profile following
the outer limits of the web is indicative of a great
wine - a 95 to 99/100 - complete and balanced in
every way.
A wine with a similarly shaped graph, but with only
average concentration, intensity and length for
example, while rating 'highly' at 89/100, is
nonetheless seriously lacking in some important
aspects - namely the palate. Thus, following the
Winespider system, the final score of a wine is
always dependent on the sum of its parts - the
qualities of which, however, may vary greatly.
Consequently, minor discrepancies in scores between
similar wines can mean significant differences in
quality.
This is especially the case with wines once they
attain scores of 90 and above in which the
combination of qualities that are achieved is beyond
the ordinary, and reflect a rare culmination of
viticulture skills, vintage conditions & winemaking
flair. An analogy may be formed with Olympic race
times in which competitors are often separated by
mere milliseconds- yet it is this same hairs breadth
difference that distinguishes a world record from a
silver medal.
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
All wines tend to converge (i.e.- become similar) in
old age. The primary fruit flavours disappear and
the tertiary, developed flavours move in. Regional
variations are often lost and what remain are mere
skeletons of their former selves. Old reds are not
all great - age is not by itself a mender of
winemaking mistakes nor a means of correcting a poor
vintage or bad viticultural practises.
Recommendations as to cellaring potential are
invariably on the cautious side. We prefer to drink
wine whilst the fruit flavours are still evident. We
have also taken into consideration the fact that
most people do not keep their wines in ideal
cellars, and that in a warmer environment (warmer
than say 14�C - 15�C), a wine will mature faster
than one kept at an ideal temperature.
The cellaring times are a guide as to when the
wines will be drinking at their peak, however, this
does not mean the wines are not approachable now.
Because most Australian wines are so fruit driven
they are very drinkable early on. Personal drinking
preferences should also be taken into account - if
you prefer to drink your wines whilst they still
have plenty of fruit then drink them early
alternatively, if you prefer wines with more
developed tertiary characters you may choose to
cellar the wines for periods longer than the
recommended drinking times. |
|
|
|
 |
Visit my
Wine Forum and share your views, reviews, tips,
wine finds - ask questions about wine. |
|
|
