Why claim to have a 100-point scale when you really only have a 15-point scale.”
By Julianna Hayes
Grape Expectations
For many kids in school, a grade of 75/100 or higher is a reason to crow on Facebook.
By academic standards, they’re no overachievers but they’re considered “above average” – solid performers who will get the job done without a lot of fuss and fanfare.
For wine, though, a score of 75 is pretty much a kick in the head.
Is it time to recalibrate the 100-point scale?
The 100 point rating system has long been an industry standard and is used by renowned critics worldwide. Still, it’s a system that is deeply flawed. Over the years, its use has eroded in such a way that the only numbers that seem to matter are the ones in the top 20 percentile – which leaves a lot of meaningless waste.
The illustrious Robert Parker – he of the powerful pen – is one of the most recognizable faces in this form of critiquing. He provides a breakdown of what the scores means to him on his website and, understandably, praise is heaped on wines that score in the 90s and laced with adjectives such as extraordinary, profound and exceptional. Wines in the 80 to 89 range, “display various degrees of finesse.”
Wine Spectator, meanwhile, scores 80-plus bottles in a similar fashion, but in a much more direct way, using the numbers to identify wines that are “good” to “outstanding” to “classic.”
Below the 80 range is where things start to get dicey. According to Parker, wines that hit the 70-79 mark are “average, but soundly made…straightforward and innocuous.”
Wine Spectator, however, says 75-79 equals “mediocre” and the wine may have minor flaws. Anything below 75 is simply undrinkable.
Either way, I have no recent memory of a wine with a score of less than 80 in an industry publication. In fact, it seems to me the average rating these days is 86-89 and with 90-plus being very achievable. That accounts for two possibilities: either the overall product has gotten profoundly better over the years or critics are being unduly generous.
This very question was the subject of much debate among posters in Wine Spectator’s website forum recently. Some enthusiasts wondered if it were high time for a recalibration of the 100-point scale.
“As currently employed by most wine critics, the scale has become pointless,” wrote Jack Bulkin. “In the 80s I enjoyed with anticipation drinking a 90-point wine. Today that is run of the mill.”
And getting a perfect score was virtually unheard of in the industry at one time. For example, Wine Spectator gave only three wines a score of 100 between 1978 and 1987, while Parker’s Wine Advocate awarded 17 such ratings. Over the next 10 years, the number of perfect score wines climbed to 44 by the Advocate and 18 by the Spectator. Between 1998 and 2007, the Advocate scored 126 wines as perfect, while the Spectator identified 33 as worthy of top marks.
“I know you can argue about vintage conditions for the different decades, but it shows a trend,” wrote Qhdeputy. “I can’t attest to the fact that wines are truly improving. I’m sure they have, but to this degree? I’m not sure.”
One writer argued that the scale should be “grossed down” to relieve the compression at the top, making more room for excellent-to-extraordinary wines to differentiate themselves. But he admits there’s a fundamental problem to the concept.
“If the scale is supposed to offer a consistent and objective rating of wines from year to year, then any recalibration could render the scale meaningless. How would a consumer compare an 85-point wine from 1995 to an 85-point wine from 2005? Perhaps it is important that the scale remain constant. If wines are better today than they were 30 years ago, then so be it.”
But one poster suggested that wines haven’t necessarily improved and that critics are likely just being more generous or simply not writing about the poor to mediocre wines.
“Why claim to have a 100-point scale when you really only have a 15-point scale. I think consumers deserve to know which wines (critics) think are average and below. In school (which the 100-pt system stems from), we don’t tell all of the students that got a B or better their grade and then tell all the others, thanks for coming to class but I’m not sharing with you your grade. I understand that wineries might not like the public to find out that critics think their wine only deserves 76 points, but that is the risk when you play the game! Currently, wineries know that they will only receive positive press by submitting samples. If it is below 85 pts, no one will find out. If all scores were shared, then the ‘average’ might be more average. Something needs to be done and this might be a start.”
It sounds simple enough, but there is no easy fix. The whole ratings game is problematic and it’s not just the 100-point scale. I’ve made my own attempts at recalibrating scores in the past and it wasn’t worth the backlash and scorn I endured the first and only time I published a score of less than 80 on a couple of wines in my column. Despite my explanation, the producers were not buying it.
Of course, I’m not the one to implement effective change, as my pen just isn’t powerful enough. It would take someone like Parker or a publication like Wine Spectator to make the first move. And they’re not budging.
Wine Notes
Painted Rock 2008 Cabernet Sauvignon
Plum, cassis, bell pepper, herbs, coffee bean, cocoa and toasty aromas. Features a core of dark fruit flavours with pepper, sage, menthol accents. Big mouthfeel and fairly chewy tannins.
Cellaring Potential: Cellar 2-7 years.
Score: A-
Price: $40
Notable: Aged in new French oak 18 months which accounts for its bold tannins .
Availability: Winery, select retailers
Arrowleaf 2009 First Crush
Suitable name for a wine that will please new palates with its approachable characteristics of apricot, orange zest and honeysuckle. Slightly sweet entry balanced by solid acidity. Light, fun and quaffalbe
Cellaring Potential: Drink now.
Score: B
Price: $14
Notable: Blend of Auxerrois, Gewurztraminer and Pinot Gris.
Availability: BC LDB, select retailers, VQA shops.
March 2, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Most wine writers do not have the space to write up every single wine they taste. Newspapers and magazines offer limited space–a single page, or perhaps a page with some spillover. Readers tend to complain when they are told what NOT to buy rather than what’s good, and publishers don’t want to waste space on non-recommendations. Hence, the writer looks for a balance of positive recommendations in various price ranges to please as wide a range of readers as possible.
As for the issue of scores, my sense is that some writers are more generous than others, occasionally to my personal astonishment. however, degustibus non e disputandum– individual taste cannot be disputed. However, careful observation of any wine writer’s musings over time will reveal which ones have sense and credibility and which do not.