Parker - Spectator rating discrepancies

Here are some of the potential wines from our Studs or Duds tasting that had higher Spec scores:

RP WS WINE VINT

88 95 Justin Isoceles 1997 89 97 Merryvale Profile 1997 87 97 Whitehall Lane CS Reserve 1997 76 90 Ch. Brane Cantenac 1982 83 93 Ch. Figeac 1989 79 92 Ch. Lascombe 1995 89 99 Ch. Margaux 1989 89 100 Ch. Mouton 1988 88 99 Ch. Mouton 1989 88 95 Ch. Mouton 1990 79 97 Ch. Pichon Lalande 1990 89 97 Antinori Pian delle Vigne 1997 76 96 Banfi Brunello di Montalcino 1997 89 96 Fontanabianca Barbaresco Sori Burdin 1997 92 100 Voerzio Barolo Brunate 1997 74 88 Kiona Cabernet Reserve 1995

Thanks, Dale.

If possible, I would also like to take a look at your list of w>Here are some of the potential wines from our Studs or Duds tasting

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

================================================

Interesting list, Dale. It just proves, once again, that even the "professional" tasters will not always agree.

Dan-O

DaleW wrote:

RP WS WINE VINT

88 69 BV George de Latour 2001 87 72 BV Tapestry 2001 95 69 Ch. Montelena 2001 93 77 Forman Cabernet 2001 93 79 Joseph Phelps Oalville Backus Vin. 2001 85 78 Matanzas Creek Cab Sonoma 2001 93+ 79 Phelps Backus Cabernet 2001 96 85 Verite La Muse 1999 95+ 75 Saxum Bone Rock Syrah 2002 92 82 Garretson Mourvedre The Graosta 2001 89 76 Garretson Roussanne The Limoid Cior 2001 91 79 Garretson Syrah The Craic 2002 90 77 Beckmen Syrah Purisima Mt. 2002 93 75 Beckmen Syrah Purisima Mt. Clone #1 2002 89 75 Byron IO 2000 93 81 Red Car Syrah The Table 2002 90 76 Ridge Lytton Springs Syrah 2001 88 77 Au Bon Climat Talley Rincon P.N. 2002 93 83 Ridge Lytton Springs Zin 2002 95 88 Pavie 1998 99 79 Chapoutier Ermitage L'Ermite 2000 100 65 Chapoutier Ermitage L'Ermite Blanc 2000 92 79 Delas Hermitage Marq. De la Tourette 1998 89 72 Paul Autard CdP 1998 95 89 Roger Sabon CNDP Cuvee Prestige 1998 93 82 Tardieu Laurent Cornas Cuvee Coteaux 1996 95 71 Einaudi Barolo 1989 Italy 93 79 Soldera Case Basse Riserva 1997 Italy 96 87 Fox Creek JSM 1998 98 89 Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz 1998 96-98 88 Kay's amery Shiraz Block #6 2001 96-95 79 Kay's Shiraz Hillside 2001 91 83 Bethel Heights Flat Block Reserve P.N. 2002 92 81 Bethel Heights Freedom Hill P.N. 2002 91 79 Bethel Heights Seven Springs P.N. 2002 93 83 Cristom Eileen Vin. P.N. 2002 89 77 Panther Creek Freedom Hill Vin. P.N. 2002 95 89 Januick Champoux Cabernet S. 2001

I'd say even beyond mood, moment, bottle/cork variations, the problem with numbers and the implied "objectivity" is the reality that everyone's tastes differ to an extent.

That being said, I enjoyed the Studs or Duds tasting for all its limitations.

"DaleW" wrote in news:1121798927.358986.278650 @g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

plus or minus ten points can be expected, but were they really drinking the same wine? the 65 bottle had to be flawed enough to merit a no scoreor at least the name and ap0pelation should merit a second bottle, A 35 point spread is ridiculous

This bottle to bottle variation. I heard a commentator on wines claim that every wine which had been stoppered with a cork is slightly different because of the natural variation of the corks which add something of their own to the taste. I suppose this is more detectable in wines that have stood longer in the bottle?

Continuing with this thought, I suppose each wooden cask that has stored wine would also have it's individual input into the taste? After the cask has aged, does the cask have less or greater effect on the taste?

(fairly new to wines)

It is perhaps no coincidence that the person who rated those wines for WS (Per-Henrik Mansson) no longer works for them. Many people felt that his reviews were the least defensible of all.

Mark Lipton

I completely agree. I particularly distrust the scoring systems which give so many points to appearance, so many to taste, so many to aroma, finish, etc.

Not discounting the overall problem with trying to assign a numeric score to wine, which is pretty ridiculous anyway, according to the WS website and magazine, they employ several folks to score most wines and then aggregate these together for a final score.... which on one hand further clouds the value of the score but on the other hand at least does give some weight to different opinions unlike Parker or Tanzer whose scores are generally just their own and hence more prone to being biased.

I think it is more valuable to have a single person rate it. If someone scores it 100 and someone scores it 80 then a 90 doesn't really tell the story, which is that someone loved it and someone didn't care for it.

Dimitri

I think so too, but for a somewhat different reason. If you read the ratings of someone for a while, you get to know something about how closely his tastes match yours. If you can find someone whose tastes are similar to yours, his ratings can be very valuable. You can't do that with ratings that are averages.

I was thinking this same thing. I think this reason is very similar to my argument. If you know you have the same tastes as the 80 guy then you might not like it. If you have the same tastes as the 100 guy then you will probably love it. By rating it an average of 90 you don't really tell the story that one of the critics felt it was the best wine in the world. Is a wine that rates a 90 with scores of 80/100 really the same as a wine that rates a 90 with scores of 88/92? Not if you're the guy who gave it 100 points. This is where your reason ties into mine. People have different palates and preferences. It's better that this is reflected in their scores. If you can find someone whose opinion you trust so much the better.

FWIW, I find both Parker and Tanzer to be pretty reliable for the most part. If Parker gives something a high score it doesn't usually (to my palate) suck. The WS and WE scores are fairly meaningless to me.

Dimitri