Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges

CellarTracker Main Site

Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Cellar Talk] >> General Discussion >> Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 10/1/2007 6:05:17 PM

tannic.bastard

Posts: 5
Joined: 4/1/2006
Status: offline

Perhaps this has been covered. Apologies if that's the case.

This is the CT score range
Extraordinary (96-100 points)
Outstanding (90-95)
Very Good to Excellent (85-89)
Good (80-84)
Average (75-79)
Below average (70-74)
Avoid (50-70)

which references the RP range:
Extraordinary (96-100 points)
Outstanding (90-95)
barely above average to very good (80-89)
Average (70-79)
Below average (60-69)
Unacceptable (50-59)

Everything below 90 does not line up.... why? I have a feeling people are posting notes based on RP's ranges and others based on the CT specified range.

Eric, would it be possible to edge closer to the RP ranges that you refer to or is that a copyright issue?

Post #: 1

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 10/2/2007 5:27:02 AM

Colonel Lawrence

Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Arabia
Status: offline

The top two scales align exactly.
The third scale (CT) covers both scales 3 and 4 in RP.
If you can live with the descriptions "barely above average to very good" being close to "good" to "excellent",
then we get to 79 pts (average) pretty much in alignment.
(I recognise that pedantically Eric's missing "Excellent").
After that I consider them all undrinkable, so I can live with CT or RP scales.
By the way who is drinking the majority of wine - the average and below - its not me and I don't see many TN's down there.
Perhaps we really need a 80-100 point scale ;)
and just agree the rest aren't worth rating, arguing about, or even drinking.
L.

_____________________________

First they came for ....................

(in reply to tannic.bastard)

Post #: 2

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/6/2008 10:12:49 PM

Blue Shorts

Posts: 297
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Santa Cruz, California
Status: offline

A 20 point scale would not only be appropriate, it would get rid of most of the major discrepancies. A one or 2 point difference in the 100 point scale should mean nothing, but unfortunately, it can mean $$$$$ to the vintner. 20 points would be more than enough and it would actually have some meaning, as opposed to the current pseudo 100 (or is it really 50... or... 20?).

(in reply to Colonel Lawrence)

Post #: 3

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/7/2008 9:55:53 AM

jamscreator

Posts: 313
Joined: 9/10/2007
From: Indiana USA
Status: offline

I think most people who scores wines on CT use the CT scale. We keep beating this dead horse. For consistency sake, I think the CT scale is fair for CT users.

_____________________________

Jeff Lawson

"Drink what you like, and like what you drink."
-Robert Mondavi

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 4

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/7/2008 8:11:21 PM

Blue Shorts

Posts: 297
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Santa Cruz, California
Status: offline

I didn't realize that the horse was terminal

I'll soon understand what threads have been beaten to death. Consider my post as the rantings of a newbie.

(in reply to jamscreator)

Post #: 5

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/8/2008 2:41:20 AM

Colonel Lawrence

Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Arabia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blue Shorts

I didn't realize that the horse was terminal I'll soon understand what threads have been beaten to death. Consider my post as the rantings of a newbie.

Don't worry there probably isn't a topic worth covering that hasn't been tackled a few times.
There's always new insights anyway and in fact the more contributors the better - for the health of CT and our knowledge of wine, dead horses and ocassionally camels.
L.

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 6

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/8/2008 3:23:14 AM

NiklasW

Posts: 435
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

Let's see if this link works (I just copy-pasted) http://www.cellartracker.com/forum/Scoring_wines_%25%25%25%25_a_suggestion/m_14940/tm.htm . I have personally found the first postings suggestion very useful!

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 7

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/8/2008 8:11:21 AM

NiklasW

Posts: 435
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

Something that came to mind as I taste a nice Italian Nobile from Montepulciano this Friday night. I have never had the privelege to taste a wine that has been rated 95 and up, so my palate/scale has not been calibrated with top wines. This mainly means that I don't dare to score above 90 for wines that are not famous, even though some wines I have tasted are IMO really good. Is it only famous wines that get high scores, or am I just a prisoner in my own mind?? I do have a couple of wines rated 91 by CTers sitting in the cellar. Just waiting for a suitable moment to open them...

(in reply to NiklasW)

Post #: 8

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/8/2008 8:50:00 AM

knarf

Posts: 19
Joined: 12/21/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiklasW

Something that came to mind as I taste a nice Italian Nobile from Montepulciano this Friday night. I have never had the privelege to taste a wine that has been rated 95 and up, so my palate/scale has not been calibrated with top wines. This mainly means that I don't dare to score above 90 for wines that are not famous, even though some wines I have tasted are IMO really good. Is it only famous wines that get high scores, or am I just a prisoner in my own mind?? I do have a couple of wines rated 91 by CTers sitting in the cellar. Just waiting for a suitable moment to open them...

...beating the dead horse....precisely why I think placing numerical scores on wines should be left to those who do it for a living. More helpful here is good description of color, smell and taste.

(in reply to NiklasW)

Post #: 9

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/8/2008 9:07:31 AM

Blue Shorts

Posts: 297
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Santa Cruz, California
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiklasW

Something that came to mind as I taste a nice Italian Nobile from Montepulciano this Friday night. I have never had the privelege to taste a wine that has been rated 95 and up, so my palate/scale has not been calibrated with top wines. This mainly means that I don't dare to score above 90 for wines that are not famous, even though some wines I have tasted are IMO really good. Is it only famous wines that get high scores, or am I just a prisoner in my own mind?? I do have a couple of wines rated 91 by CTers sitting in the cellar. Just waiting for a suitable moment to open them...

Great point! I completely agree. I have the same issues. I dare not rate anything higher than what I perceive to be the best I have tasted, relative to commercial ratings.

I think that one issue is that even though the point system "claims" to help distinguish between differing quality levels of wine; I find that the scores appear to be mostly relative.

Very often they're relative to wines in the same price range. I know that when I compare a $50 cabernet sauvignon with a Robert Parker score of 90 to a $15 cab with an RP score of 90, there's no comparison. They are worlds apart. This indicates to me that the rules are not well defined. Without clear definition, the scores can hurt more than help.

This is eye opening for me. Here on CT, I will try to score wines simply relative to others of the same type (cab to cab, zin to zin, etc) regardless of price.

(in reply to NiklasW)

Post #: 10

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/8/2008 11:43:28 AM

kain

Posts: 19
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Woodinville, WA
Status: offline

Your $15 and $50 tasting experience may be explained here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1443681520080114

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 11

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/10/2008 2:20:34 AM

Colonel Lawrence

Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Arabia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kain

Your $15 and $50 tasting experience may be explained here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1443681520080114

Yes good point.
Another reason why comparitive tasting is always best,
e.g. Horizontal tasting of Bordeaux 1995 1st Growths
Vertical tasting of Chateau Mouton-Rothschild 1995-2000
Hopefully even if tasting (semi) blind the brain will know they're all good wines and then rank them appropriately.
L.

(in reply to kain)

Post #: 12

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/10/2008 2:23:01 AM

Colonel Lawrence

Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Arabia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kain

Your $15 and $50 tasting experience may be explained here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSN1443681520080114

And this is why at professionally held "blind" tastings they often stack the deck by having the 1st Growths in their own flight!
Surprise, surprise they generally score higher than the rest.
L.

(in reply to kain)

Post #: 13

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/10/2008 10:46:11 AM

Blue Shorts

Posts: 297
Joined: 2/5/2008
From: Santa Cruz, California
Status: offline

I think that it's time that I performed some blind tastings. It'll be embarrassing if Two Buck Chuck gets a high rating, but I will save a fortune.

(in reply to Colonel Lawrence)

Post #: 14

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/11/2008 2:39:09 AM

Colonel Lawrence

Posts: 1953
Joined: 4/24/2006
From: Arabia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blue Shorts

I think that it's time that I performed some blind tastings. It'll be embarrassing if Two Buck Chuck gets a high rating, but I will save a fortune.

Prepare to save some money - some Farr blind tastings :
2001 Bordeaux http://www.farrvintners.com/offer.php?offerid=81
2003 Bordeaux http://www.farrvintners.com/offer.php?offerid=59 & http://www.farrvintners.com/offer.php?offerid=74
2004 Bordeaux http://www.farrvintners.com/offer.php?offerid=109
2005 St Emilion http://www.farrvintners.com/offer.php?offerid=101

and remember all too often the 1st's are in a separate flight (it does save the experts from embarrassing themselves) so the real results are even more promising for the overperforming lesser Chateaux.

_____________________________

First they came for ....................

(in reply to Blue Shorts)

Post #: 15

Above 95 - 2/11/2008 1:20:50 PM

ParkHill

Posts: 124
Joined: 6/27/2007
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline

For NiklasW.

Aging ability is one of the factors driving the higher rated wines.

I'm not sure how that folds into a lower rated wine. I mean, what is an 85 pt wine with a drinking window at 15 - 25 years? And why keep it that long if it doesn't have the oomph to last?

To be fair, there are sort of two kinds of wines, those designed for aging and those designed to be drunk early. I guess we could identify two other categories, those designed for aging, but fell short on balance, tannins, fruit or whatever; and those designed for drinking early which ended up with too much tannin or bitterness, so we put them on the back shelf hoping for them to improve.

But, that latter group is often comprised of harsh tannins that might not become velvet before the fruit has dissipated. Still, it's intriguing to hope for a miracle.

(in reply to Colonel Lawrence)

Post #: 16

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/11/2008 1:36:50 PM

WetRock

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: knarf
...beating the dead horse....precisely why I think placing numerical scores on wines should be left to those who do it for a living. More helpful here is good description of color, smell and taste.

I've beat this topic to death in other threads but I agree with Knarf here. The defacto 13 point range people use isn't helping anyone. There are tons of reasons why user scoring is worthless to me but I'm sure you all can think up your own.

_____________________________

Cris Whetstone

(in reply to knarf)

Post #: 17

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/11/2008 3:21:33 PM

grafstrb

Posts: 408
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: Los Angeles, via Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WetRock
I've beat this topic to death in other threads but I agree with Knarf here. The defacto 13 point range people use isn't helping anyone. There are tons of reasons why user scoring is worthless to me but I'm sure you all can think up your own.

I find the point system helpful. I find the point system to be especially helpful when people break-down their score (e.g.: 50, 4, 11, 15, 7). Within only the last few months, my scores have ranged from as low as 73 to as high as 95 (22 points difference). Granted, 50% of those scores did fall within the same 5 point range (87 - 91). However, I find this tight grouping to be more a product of my ability to pick out wines that I end up liking than it is a product of any unwillingness of mine to go outside the "defacto 13 point range people use" or of my "unsophisticated palate" (I very often find, after drinking and reviewing a wine, that my scores trend very closely towards Tanzer's ratings ... often, I'm even stingier!).

I am all for a point system...I am more than all for people using the point system thoughtfully and responsibly. Words give numbers context...numbers give words context...consistency is king.

(in reply to WetRock)

Post #: 18

RE: Above 95 - 2/12/2008 4:39:13 AM

NiklasW

Posts: 435
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParkHill

For NiklasW.

Aging ability is one of the factors driving the higher rated wines.

Hmm, thanks! More food (or wine) for thought. I hadn't thought about it like that. Actually, I started scoring wines for the first time when I joined CT (last year in October). Before that I didn't score them in any way. Now I do use my scores to sort the wines I have tasted to see what I liked best. It works.

(in reply to ParkHill)

Post #: 19

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/12/2008 4:57:13 AM

quaglia

Posts: 41
Joined: 1/11/2007
From: Rimini - Italia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: grafstrb

I find the point system helpful. I find the point system to be especially helpful when people break-down their score (e.g.: 50, 4, 11, 15, 7). Within only the last few months, my scores have ranged from as low as 73 to as high as 95 (22 points difference). Granted, 50% of those scores did fall within the same 5 point range (87 - 91). However, I find this tight grouping to be more a product of my ability to pick out wines that I end up liking than it is a product of any unwillingness of mine to go outside the "defacto 13 point range people use" or of my "unsophisticated palate" (I very often find, after drinking and reviewing a wine, that my scores trend very closely towards Tanzer's ratings ... often, I'm even stingier!).

I am all for a point system...I am more than all for people using the point system thoughtfully and responsibly. Words give numbers context...numbers give words context...consistency is king.

I have to quote to everything you wrote and I agree completely with you!!!

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 20

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/12/2008 11:21:54 AM

WetRock

Posts: 46
Joined: 2/9/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: grafstrb
I am all for a point system...I am more than all for people using the point system thoughtfully and responsibly. Words give numbers context...numbers give words context...consistency is king.

I somewhat agree with you but the key is what I put in bold. IF that was the case for the majority of people then I would have much less problem with individual scorers. But you have to admit that very very few people score with thought care and consistency. That is my biggest issue with it. I think most people jsut sort of say 'I like this but it wasn't great so I give it a 90!'. I doubt you will be able to ever get people to put serious thought in their scores as a whole so I think overall scoring on CT is useless because of that. I read notes and ignore scoring.

_____________________________

Cris Whetstone

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 21

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/12/2008 1:02:31 PM

grafstrb

Posts: 408
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: Los Angeles, via Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WetRock

quote:

ORIGINAL: grafstrb
I am all for a point system...I am more than all for people using the point system thoughtfully and responsibly. Words give numbers context...numbers give words context...consistency is king.

I somewhat agree with you but the key is what I put in bold. IF that was the case for the majority of people then I would have much less problem with individual scorers. But you have to admit that very very few people score with thought care and consistency. That is my biggest issue with it. I think most people jsut sort of say 'I like this but it wasn't great so I give it a 90!'. I doubt you will be able to ever get people to put serious thought in their scores as a whole so I think overall scoring on CT is useless because of that. I read notes and ignore scoring.

Cris,

Personally, I don't go quite so far as to ignore the scoring on CT...however, I will ignore scores without notes (e.g.: if a wine has been "reviewed" only once, and that review consists of only a score, that wine is "unreviewed" in my book). I do look at the scores because sometimes a person's TN will be a bit unclear; a score (espcially a broken-down score) can help clear-up any ambiguities in the writing...of course, with that being said, there are countless times a score has left me confused whereas the TN did not.

I think CT is a great resource (better than any of the "pros") for wine reviews. I read the reviews (and look at the scores

) and I tend to trust/believe the patterns that emerge in the TN's for a particular wine -- I lend extra credence to such patterns if they are for a wine that hasn't been professionally reviewed (because I often feel that people are just regurgitating what they've heard/read that RP, or JL, or ST, etc... thought about the wine).

There are many great reviewers on CT...I've managed to identify a few who have similar tastes as I and who write consistent and thoughtful reviews. (Jeb and Kevin S., for example)-- I pay special attention to these CT'ers' TN's.

- Brian

P.S.: Cris, I very much enjoy reading your TN's on eBob...keep it up!...Being that I'm in LaLa land, I bet we'll actually get to meet at an offline sometime in the near future.

(in reply to WetRock)

Post #: 22

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/13/2008 3:02:09 AM

NiklasW

Posts: 435
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

Brian,
You've explained the breakdown of scores sometime earlier, but I couldn't find the posting in the archives. Would you mind explaining it again? I'd like to try it out the next time I pop open a bottle!
/Niklas

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 23

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/13/2008 11:02:08 AM

grafstrb

Posts: 408
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: Los Angeles, via Minnesota
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: NiklasW

Brian,
You've explained the breakdown of scores sometime earlier, but I couldn't find the posting in the archives. Would you mind explaining it again? I'd like to try it out the next time I pop open a bottle!
/Niklas

Niklas,
you found any gueuze yet?

The 100 pt. scoring system that I referenced above is broken-down as follows:
50 points base score -- basically any fermented fruit juice will get at least 50 points.
5 points for appearance/color -- I score nearly all wines a 5 or 4
15 points for aroma/bouquet
20 points for taste/mouthfeel/finish
10 points for overall quality/ability to improve with age

Therefore, a wine scored as such: 50, 4, 12, 15, 7 = 88 points
means that the reviewer gave it "4/5" for appearance/color, "12/15" for aroma/bouquet, "15/20" for taste/mouthfeel/finish, and "7/10" for overall quality/ability to improve with age.

This is basically how I approach scoring within this system:
For example, when scoring a wine's aroma I ask myself, "how could this be better?" For each way I believe a wine could be better, in any given category, I subtract one point. This really makes you think in terms of degradation...after a bit of practice, you'll be amazed at how you actually do perceive a difference between a wine with a "14" bouquet/aroma and one with a "12" bouquet/aroma -- I actually consider this to be a big difference: the 12 is "very nice" but the 14 is "nearly perfect - I can only imagine one way it could get any better. When you do this with each category you will arrive at a score that should accurately reflect your well-thought-out opinion of the wine. The "overall quality/ability to improve with age" category is the most nebulous category, for me -- but you'll get the hang of it quickly.

-Brian

(in reply to NiklasW)

Post #: 24

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/14/2008 7:48:41 AM

NiklasW

Posts: 435
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

Thanks! I'll give it a shot tomorrow with my "Friday" bottle.

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 25

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/14/2008 6:11:30 PM

Bill

Posts: 103
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: EU
Status: offline

Hi Niklas,

Please give your comparison of scoring you Friday bottle the way grafstrb uses with the scoring in words I proposed some time ago. (and you referred to)

It would be a nice opportunity for me to see if others come up with the same final score as I do.

Thanks,
Bill.

P.S.
As a "comment" on the previous posts I would like to say the following:
I score my wines for my own perspective and I reckon most CT users do it for that reason.
If you think CT scores are useless; simply ignore them.
I agree so much that words say much more than scores.
On the other hand, for the people who think scores are a guideline in some way, it would be nice when CT users use the same scoring method.
And I think that, if you take the CT scores not too seriously, but take notice of them with the wines you taste/drink yourself, you might find a TN writer who comes close to your palate and scores. And when that is the case, you might find his or her TN’s and scores just as useful as the ones professionals make.
I am sure…..in 2588 scoring wines (or not!) is still a big discussion.

< Message edited by Bill -- 2/14/2008 6:16:08 PM >

(in reply to NiklasW)

Post #: 26

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/14/2008 6:32:06 PM

grafstrb

Posts: 408
Joined: 11/6/2007
From: Los Angeles, via Minnesota
Status: offline

tannic.bastard, knarf, blue shorts, and any other newbies:

You should check out the old thread Bill just referenced...if my memory serves me correct it was titled "Scoring Wines: A suggestion" ... there's some very insightful conversation in that thread...it goes far beyond the superficial debate this topic normally engenders.

-Brian

(in reply to tannic.bastard)

Post #: 27

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/15/2008 11:27:15 AM

NiklasW

Posts: 435
Joined: 10/13/2007
From: Finland
Status: offline

Well, Friday bottle http://www.cellartracker.com/wine.asp?iWine=160930 opened and scored using the breakdown method:

Opened and allowed to breath for an hour (not decanted). Appearance: Nice colour showing age, orangish on the edge becoming a deeper red towards the middle (5/5). Nose: sweet, red fruit like strawberry and cherry, not very complex but pleasant (10/15). Taste: Very round and fruity, lots of blackberry and a hint of smoke, nice! Tannins integrated, this wine is ready to drink now. Finish a bit hot and not very long, but with a hint of blueberry left behind (15/20). Overall: very enjoyable wine, good with dinner (8/10). Points 50+5+10+15+8=88

88 points on Bill's scale:

Excellent. Yes, this is it, the total of the wine is giving so much pleasure because of all the flavors

And actually, 88 or 89 points is what I'd have given it without the breakdown! Cool, I will continue trying this out. It does make one think about the different aspects (appearance, nose, taste, etc) in more detail, which is certainly good for somebody like me who is just getting into this stuff!

(in reply to Bill)

Post #: 28

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/18/2008 4:20:41 PM

Bill

Posts: 103
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: EU
Status: offline

Niklas thank you for the smile I have on my face now.

My “words based” scoring might look ridiculous for many people, but maybe it is not completely crazy….
I remember that one of the prof’s once said that 1 point hardly makes a difference: “When two wines in the same tasting are supposed to get the same score, but one is just a little better, you give it one more point.”

Thanks again!
Bill.

P.S. Off topic and a private/personal question: I might plan a trip to the north of Scandinavia this summer. Can you tell me what the latest date is this year; you can see the midnight sun completely in the far north? (Of course I understand this also depends on the weather.) I tried to find it on the Internet, but did not manage.

(in reply to NiklasW)

Post #: 29

RE: Scoring discrepancies: RP Ranges vs CT Ranges - 2/25/2008 12:56:47 AM

quaglia

Posts: 41
Joined: 1/11/2007
From: Rimini - Italia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: grafstrb

The 100 pt. scoring system that I referenced above is broken-down as follows:
50 points base score -- basically any fermented fruit juice will get at least 50 points.
5 points for appearance/color -- I score nearly all wines a 5 or 4
15 points for aroma/bouquet
20 points for taste/mouthfeel/finish
10 points for overall quality/ability to improve with age

Therefore, a wine scored as such: 50, 4, 12, 15, 7 = 88 points
means that the reviewer gave it "4/5" for appearance/color, "12/15" for aroma/bouquet, "15/20" for taste/mouthfeel/finish, and "7/10" for overall quality/ability to improve with age.

This is basically how I approach scoring within this system:
For example, when scoring a wine's aroma I ask myself, "how could this be better?" For each way I believe a wine could be better, in any given category, I subtract one point. This really makes you think in terms of degradation...after a bit of practice, you'll be amazed at how you actually do perceive a difference between a wine with a "14" bouquet/aroma and one with a "12" bouquet/aroma -- I actually consider this to be a big difference: the 12 is "very nice" but the 14 is "nearly perfect - I can only imagine one way it could get any better. When you do this with each category you will arrive at a score that should accurately reflect your well-thought-out opinion of the wine. The "overall quality/ability to improve with age" category is the most nebulous category, for me -- but you'll get the hang of it quickly.

-Brian

Brian,
this is very interesting, I will try your method and let you know the result.

In Italy we have 3/4 major wine guides. I personally buy the sommelier association's guide - Duemilavini- (www.sommelier.it) and Luca Maroni's guide (www.sensonline.com). Discrepancies between the two are normal and can be also very important. I find Duemilavini too much sponsorized, while my notes are very close to the second, also if this guide is giving too much importance ti the "fruity wine".
This all to say that also at a higher level they couldn't find a way to have standard valutations.
cheers!!

(in reply to grafstrb)

Post #: 30