Hedonic tasting scale

Sep 02, 2004 12 Replies

I have in the past tried to construct a traditional point-based tasting scale [where you give X points for appearance, Y points for the smell, Z points for taste, etc.] based on those I have seen [e.g., the UC Davis 20 point system] but find those scales generally difficult to work with. Plus, assigning relative weights to each component evaluated is very problematic, as many of you have pointed out.



Instead, it seems to me that a simple subjective hedonic scale ought to be sufficient to do the trick. I think it fair to assume that people drink wine because it gives them pleasure to do so, so it seems reasonable that construct a scale that measures the degree of pleasure one derives from the wine evaluated.



It is hard for me to come up with a reasonable descriptive term for each of the values on the scale.



As you can see, the idea is that on a 10 point scale, a wine that scores a 5 (smack in the middle) provides neither pleasure nor displeasure, for lack of a better term, it is "pleasure-neutral".



Note that the idea is *not* to evaluate wines against other wines, thus I purposefully stayed away from the concept of "average", which implies relative position or value versus other wines. What I would like to measure is the effect of a wine on the taster, not whether the wine is better or worse than others like it.



The problem with this scale is to come up with suitable descriptive terms and possibly explanations for each which make it easy for tasters to accurately gauge their perceptions.



Below is my latest attempt at it. Note for example that the term "excellent" may not be a good one to use, since it does not seem fitting to one's perception. Will appreciate your suggestions.



HEDONIC TASTING SCALE


10 Great
9 Excellent
8 Good
7 Pleasant
6 Somewhat pleasant
5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
4 Somewhat unpleasant
3 Unpleasant
2 Bad
1 Poor
0 Terrible


-- ================================================Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida? Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at

formatting link
================================================


How about :

- superb

- very good

- good

- mediocre

- bad

The above accompanied by a full text explanation.

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France email link

formatting link

Why use numbers at all, Leo? Would not the words themselves suffice? Few poeple wouldn't understand that an excellent wine is more pleasurable than a pleasant one, and so forth. In fact, this is not too far away from the system applied by many tasters (Broadbent, Johnson) of assigning 0-4 stars as a metric of quality (though whether they use a hedonistic scale I can only guess).

Mark Lipton

I suspect that the bottom line is that all wine rating scales (except for the patently commerically motivated) are hedonistic. (Which recalls a three-day excursion to Bangkok with a fellow tactical aviator in which I guided through wine, fine meals, good spirits and other less reputable pursuits of the evening--by the middle of day three he bestowed upon me the accolade of being "the greatest hedonist I've ever known!")

Based on a need for simplicity, how about a three point scale:

1.) Good--buy again, drink again, seek out more. 2.) Good--finish, accept if offered at a bargain, but don't actively seek more. 3.) Bad--never let this swill sully my palate again.

As Baron Manfred von Richthofen said in a slightly different context, "everything else is rubbish."

Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret) "When Thunder Rolled" "Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights" Both from Smithsonian Books

***
formatting link

I've long favored the scale from the US Department of Agriculture, used for meats (and good for Internet jokes too, by the way) --

Prime/Choice/Good/Utility/Pet.

-- Max Hauser

Salut/Hi Leo Bueno,

le/on Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:15:04 GMT, tu disais/you said:-

Mine starts at your 6.

yum. yum yum yum yum yum yum yum yum yum mega yummy

No worse than any other attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.

Leo,

Maybe a takeoff of your system, albeit with 2 more categories:

12 - I'll take a case! 11 - I'll count this one as part of the case 10 - OK, a half case, this one and maybe three to play with 9 - Half case, this one, and only two to taste along the way 8 - Half case, this one, and one for tomorrow night 7 - Half case, and this one - that's all 6 - Hm-m-m, good enough for a half case, including this one 5 - Can't justify a half case, but these will do 4 - This one, and three more, in case I missed something 3 - Just this one, and two for the in-laws 2 - Alright, I've had this one, maybe one for my neighbor, who never returns any of my tools 1 - This one is all I ever care to be around!!!!! :-}

Hunt

That's right Ian, distinguishing levels 0 to 6 above is a waste of time. Who cares whether it is terrible or unpleasant?

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France email link

formatting link

That's pretty good Mike, but I'd add a super-tier for the few wines that are a religious experience to taste (of which I've had only a handful).

I'd also add a level below bad. This is for wines that are so foul smelling that I wouldn't _dare_ to taste them. Unfortunately, they do exist - although not much in the commercial realm. I've judged homemade wines in competition a few times, and when you run across one of these you wonder why someone would spend the money for the entry fee. >8^P~~~|

Tom S

One of the problems with ANY scale is you need to clarify what you're measuring, what are the criteria, and what the scale is supposed to represent (or just put so many disclaimers afterwards it's meaningless, as I do in my notes!). The Parker board tends to have a thread about once a week questioning what RP means by "in its peer group", and whether a 95 pt Oz red is indeed better than a '94 pt Montrachet.

As I've noted before, my simple American-school style grading is totally subjective, all I'll claim is that on any given set of notes from one night is that I liked the B+ better than the B-.

There are of course lots of ratings systems, involving points stars, letters, or prongs (don't ask). One of my favorites (because he admits totally subjectivity) is the one used by Jay Miller, a NY wine-geek who occasionally appears in my notes. Don't think he would mind my posting his scale, which goes from A+ to D-:

A - This wine is great!

+Oh my god! Nothing can be this good! But it is! Magnificent, complete, glorious

-This is all I can ask for in a wine

B - This wine is good!

+This wine is really good! This wine is quite good!

-This wine is pretty good

C - This is wine!

+This wine is ok This wine is drinkable

-This wine is flawed

D - Is this wine?!

+Wow, did they mean it to taste like this? They couldn't possibly have meant it to taste like this

-Ick, yuck, phooey!

Another classic scale:

formatting link
Dale

Dale Williams Drop "damnspam" to reply

I suggest a scoring system for garage wines : from 0 to 4 wrenches...

Mike

Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France email link

formatting link

Tom that situation is not entirely limited to the "home made" sector.

Some years ago, friends and I attended a local wine festival. Due to difficulties, we arrived late on the first day. Everyone, save one vendor, had packed up and left, and here we were holding our three-day tickets, and in NEED of wine. We approached the single vintner's table and asked for his horizontal tasting. He poured all five of his wines for us, and began to talk about his wines and property. Though in need, we couldn't find one wine that was drinkable. This was my first time tasting and spitting! We left to find a good restaurant with real wine.

Next day at a more formal event, we noticed that the tent with this gentleman's wine was empty - just a sign, and inquired on the circumstances with the owner of the host property. He stated that this winery had been in business for about five years, and that its proprietor/winemaker had been a member of the host organization for about that time. As his property was many miles distant, he was always given space for his tastings in the hosting area, just as now. However, all members had pleaded with him over the years to do many things different with his juice, but he "had a vision." Unfortunately, no one could stomach his "vision." Because most of the attendees at this event, had experienced these wines the day before, no one would even come near his tent. By 10:00 AM, he was gone in a huff, taking his vision with him.

He went on to explain how all of the members had tired of pointing out the same glaring flaws, vintage after vintage, only to be re-buffed and reviled.

I can only hope that one day he would listen to those trying to help him produce good wines (of which there were many from this little area, though most were of the novelty, or pancake syrup variety). As his was a true commercial venture, I also hope that he was some sort of a legacy, and was sitting on a sizeable fortune, as I cannot imagine anyone buying his wine, if they ever tasted it.

It was so vile (IOHOs), that there wasn't one positive thing we could say about it.

Hunt

Blast from the past ( From our FAQ)------------- The schlemiel scoring system for winetasting Contributor Joe "Beppe" Rosenberg Question I am new to winetasting. Can you help me with a way to score wines objectively?

Answer (well, sort of ;-D)

5 points for each wine spilled during a tasting, extra 10 points if spilled on something white ie tablecloth, shirt, Tom Wolfe suit or if you're at a Klan tasting a bed sheet. Also bonus points if wine spilled was from trying to pronounce unctuous, fruit bomb or one of Marvin Shankin's favorite cigars.

5 points for aberrant behavior at tasting; this includes vomiting, wine coming out your nose or other orifice, belching, some form of flatulence, rolfing, discussions of EST, Zen, Christian Science, zoroaterism, keynesian economics, Dan Qualye's hat size.

10 points for showing up

5 points for using any of the following at the tasting: Grecian formula, Midol, bidol, viagra, delaudid, kj jelly. bisquick, vegamite, fat free-sugar free mineral water.

5 points for reading this far.

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required