Reading a little bit about Robert Parker, Jr. and seeing the movie MondoVino in the past, I am wondering about the point ratings that are found when describing a wine. For instance, one might see no ratings, or say 2001, 81pts; 2002, 87 pts; 2003, 90 pts.
Is there an international wine group that decides these points, or is it in most cases, one person such as RP, Jr. Or is he in a group of people that do decide?
I'm thinking that sometimes I will see a sign that will say 87 pts. Wine Spectator, or other judging body, and then it's very clear (I think;-))
Does anyone know of a website where I might find what these points mean. (DH says, don''t buy unless it's 90, but we know that cannot be used in all cases.) Or if you care to post anything simple, I will appreciate that, too.
Wine ratings are over-rated! Parker might rate a wine at say 90 and wine spectator might rate the exact same wine at 84.
The vast majority of wines (at least USA wines) are not rated by anyone. A wine rated 90 or above does not mean you will like it better than one that is not. Furthermore, often when a wine scores over 90 on wine spectator is price goes through the roof.
Forget the points and read the description of the wine. There is no standard way of rating wines. RP rates on a scale of up to 100, but I have never see any rating by him in the below 50 range. Quite a few, such as Clive Coates, rate on a scale with the highest rating of 20. Others rate on a 5 point or 5 stars scale, including Decanter magazine and Michael Broadbent. Also there are other rating systems. Moreover, you will find that different critics can rate a wine as very different in quality. Different people like different things. The sense of taste differs greatly for different people. Ratings based on single bottle tastings, especially for older wines, are not very useful because of frequent bottle variation. The critic should have tasted the wine a few times to get an idea of the average quality. Finally are you rating on how the wine is for drinking now, or how the wine will be when it peaks in perhaps many years for a wine such as Chateau Latour? There always is some guess work for rating the wine as it will be in the future. Only a critic who has followed all good vintages of Chateau Latour for perhaps 30 years has the experience to predict how this wine will mature. If wine making methods change at the estate, all bets are off. Especially beware of the newest California cult Cabernets that may be about as good as a green persimmon when young, cost well over US $100, and have not been around long enough for any bottles to have matured. Rating these for how they will be when mature, if ever, is educated guess work at best. I would buy a fine, expensive wine from someone such as Ridge who has a long track record with wines that mature well after many years of proper storage. See how various critics describe wines that you taste and like. After a time you may find a critic that best matches your taste. This will be useful then to try new wines, as most of us can not taste the thousands of new wine releases each year.
Signs like this make me wonder who decides the points on any particular wine. Are all wines that are rated to 100 Robert Parker's ratings? If not, how can you tell if it is another person(s) or a group rating (if there is such a thing as a group rating)? Dee
Wine Spectator also uses a 100 point scale. Most of the time when ratings are listed they will say something like 89rp or 89ws. Those are the two more common ratings in the USA.
Again, ratings are over rated. About the only use I have is that a wine rated in the high 80's to 90's I will generally find better than one rated in the 70's. I have never found a wine rated in the 70's I enjoy. That said I have found wines in the 90's I dont care for at all, and many in the 80's I consider my favorite. You have to look at tasting notes vs. ratings and compare them to your own likes and dislikes. That way when you see a rp or ws rating you will know how it relates to your tastes.
Sometimes the ratings might just be from the store buyer, or staff. Without an attribution very hard to tell.
Ratings can be useful if you are very familiar with the tastes of the critic. This can only come with a lot of trial and error, and of course reading. But if you come to learn, say, that your preferences in Bordeaux track closely with, say, Stephen Tanzer, then a rating by him may correlate to the pleasure you'll get from the bottle.
So for discovering new wines a trusted critic can be useful. Though of course saying "only buy if over 90 points" is, sorry, nonsense. Who can taste one point of difference, between 89 and 90? Is a 94 really better than a 93 or did the taster have a sesame seed stuck in his teeth? Just marketing.
That's why I prefer the 20 point, 5 star, or Dale's grading system.
And of course the scoring system favours a certain type of wine, as pointed out. Rating a wine for long term storage is a crap shoot at best.
I don't ignore ratings altogether, but I don't pay much attention to them either.
But in this case it was word for word. The only difference between what DeeDee showed in the photograph and the WS rating was the attribution JS at the end.
At the risk of being contrary to some of my fellow posters here, I will say that, for the most part, ratings systems are rational - but relevant only to the tastes and preferences of the rater. Most of the 100 point systems are based on a point-value rating for different components of a wine; appearance, nose, taste, balance, with a 'general' or 'defects' thrown in. Each aspect is weighted (nose almost always being the most highly rated) and then each element is scored - usually on a one to 5 scale. The score is multiplied by the weighting, the result being the score out a possible 100. This is a pretty rational way to judge wines. But individual tasters respond differently, or prefer different characteristics. So, how Parker rates a wine may be quite different than, say, a Tanzer. For my own $.02, I mis-trust Wine Spectator completely. Too often it appears that a relationship between the winemaker and the magazine influences ratings. Again for my own tastes, I find Parker's ratings to help me identify wines I will likely appreciate; I use his ratings to help me identify lesser known value wines, especially Bordeaux's, that I might otherwise not discover. And while a high rating may drive up prices, so do other factors - such as brand - here in the US that are not always as rational for any given wine. Again, just my $.02. Your mileage may vary!
Reminds me of a poster that was at Side Burns in Tampa in the bathroom.
Guy sitting in a restaruant sips some wine from a glass and caption says " This is the worst swill I have ever had", Bartender says," it got 98 points...."
It is at the discretion of the reviewer, or their publication. I find them of very little use, and look at the TNs for the review. Some folk are fixated on the points.
In this NG, DaleW does it best, IMHO, with his TNs and rating. The TNs are very good and detailed. He then ends with a grade, i.e. A, B, C, etc. and a few +'s & -'s to refine it. Much more useful, especially with the great TNs, than saying that a wine gets Xpts.
Usually, a shelf-talker, or mag. ad, will state where the rating came from, i.e. WS (Wine Spectator), RP (Robert Parker, Jr.), WE (Wine Enthusiast), and on, and on. Also, many of these will be touting, say the '06, while the rating was for the '04. May be good, or even better wine, but maybe not.
Points are a pitfall, IMO, and too many folk get trapped by them. Marketing- types know this and work it, for all that it is worth. It's like saying that automobile X outsells automobile Y. Is it better? Who knows. Many will buy, just because it outsellls the other. Bad reason for making so large a choice, if you ask me. Besides, I'd rather have something that few others have, so long as it is "better" for ME.
"Dee Dee" in news: snipped-for-privacy@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com :
The history may add perspective.
For many years, US wine critics (in print media or newsletters) wrote verbal descriptions of the wines, and often added coarse rankings like excellent to poor (some still do so -- Gaiter and Brecher in each Friday's Wall Street Journal).
In 1978 Robert Parker started his newsletter, in and for the Baltimore-Washington area. At that time there were half a dozen established US wine newsletters. (Parker gradually developed wider readership, especially from the middle 1980s.) He specifically introduced the "100-point" scale which was explicitly a range 50-100. Other periodicals eventually copied it (even Parker's dominant predecessor Robert Finigan) because it proved popular with newcomers to wine. It has stayed popular with them; "look for wines over 90 points" is inherently easier than learning the wines or researching them in other ways. (Parker himself urges people not simply to read the numbers.)
Drawbacks of by-number buying are that it reflects one critic's taste (which may not be yours), it may discourage developing one's palate, and it has been demonstrated, beyond dispute in the industry, to elevate the prices of high-numbered wines. So a rational consumer strategy (as my business and economics professor friends like to say) is to seek out good wines not rated, or that you like but the critic doesn't.
The subject of numerical ratings, their strengths and drawbacks, was discussed in detail on this newsgroup (technically its predecessors) for years, BEFORE Parker went online in 1988 on the Prodigy paid subscription service (one of the private networks that attempted temporarily to compete with the Internet).
I'm not sure I've seen a full answer to your original questions yet.
Short answers:
MOST wines are not rated at all.
Most rated wines are rated to a 100 point scale. I'm not sure whether Parker invented it, but most ratings do follow the same pattern. There is also a 20-point scale that's used sometimes.
All ratings should be 'signed' with the name of the rater or at least the name of the magazine. If it's not, (and there's no explanation from a clerk) the only conclusion you should come to is that the retailer has rated it themselves.
There are, as has been stated, a number of recognized wine rating sources including Robert Parker, Steven Tanzer, Wine Spectator Magazine, Wine Enthusiast Magazine, Decanter Magazine, Wine and Spirits Magazine, and a few others Even the Western US wine chain Bevarages and More (BevMo) has a wine guy named Wilfred Wong who is credited for their wine ratings. The real value in ratings comes when you have learned to calibrate what the raters tend to like with what you like .
In your photo a retailer has directly quoted a review from Wine Spectator Magazine and the point rating but has left off the "JS" or any other reference to the source. I believe "JS" is James Suckling who reviews European wines for Wine Spectator. This, in my opinion, is either a mistake or an overt attempt by the retailer to transfer the authroity of the review from the true source to the shop itself. That 'shelf-talker' (as they're called in the trade) makes it appear that the store has rated the wine when they're quoting what one would think might be a more 'marketable' source than themselves. Most retailers, however, feel that the customer will ultimately place significant value in a recognized review source and add their own comments one-on-one or in addition to a 'quoted' and properly sourced review.
After a few experiences I tend to distrust 'un-signed' ratings. I once encountered a rating card on a Napa Cab of some name recognition that said "93 points" but had no rater name. The card had just been put there (in a small shop) by the wine broker who had sold them the wine. The proprietor had asked who it was from but didn't get an answer so he checked online for all the standard sources but couldn't find a rating that high. On a hunch he checked BevMo and there it was..... 'a 93 from Wilfred Wong'. All due respect to Wilfred but he's just not Robert Parker.
I love Jay's ratings (there are expanded versions with the + and - grades explained). It should be noted that this Jay Miller (Jay C Miller, NYC winegeek, friend, and acidity lover) is NOT the Jay Miller (Dr. Jay Miller, former Baltimore wine merchant, friend of Parker's) who just took over Spain and I think Australia for the Wine Advocate. They have very different preferences.
DrinksForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.