|
nwinther -> RE: The Wisdom of Descriptions vs Scores (7/24/2008 1:47:42 AM)
|
I personally find the score quite useful. I rarely read non-scored reviews on CT, especially if there's lots of reviews on the wine. I simply can't go through 125 notes, and the score helps me pick out four or five reviews that I do read.
It's sort of like, getting my attention. Like a heading in an article in the paper. If they were all just large and small amounts of text seperated by a few frames, I'd stop buying the newspaper. I need to know, that I want to read an article(/review) before I actually read it.
Also, I find at times, that a stand-alone review doesn't drives through it's point. Reading some Parker reviews goes to my point:
"One can find little fault with this medium-bodied, mainstream, charming, open-knit, soft Pauillac. It is dark ruby in color, with notes of cassis, currants, tobacco leaf, cedar, and licorice. Round, medium-bodied, and low in acidity, it is best drunk over the next decade."
and
"The dark ruby/garnet-colored 2004 reveals an herbal nose displaying hints of dirty saddle leather intermixed with roasted herbs, spice, black cherries, currants, and a green pepper-like character. It is a lightweight effort with medium body, superficial depth, crisp acidity, and sharp tannins in the finish. While it will keep for 10-15 years, and may become slightly more complex, it remains a major disappointment."
One wine he finds to be nice, the other one dissapoints him. Based on those reviews, which wine would you prefer?
To me, the first review sounds appealing. While it may be "main-stream" it's never the less a wine with a lot of apparant qualities. The other is superficial and decidedly unappealing. In fact, based on the review I'd steer clear of the latter.
However, when you add points (and the name of the wine) the plot thickens. Both were awarded 87 points. Now, suddenly, the first wine sounds less appealing, as, while being pleaseant, the "main-stream" now suddenly means "simple" or "uncomplex" (is that a word?). And the other wine wins a little, because while it may have been a disappointment to mr. Parker, it's not wholly a poor wine.
Adding the name (which one of course would know) makes the point very clear to the knowledgable wine-geek. The first one is a 2000 Croizet-Bages, a wine with a notoriously bad reputation, the second one being a 2004 Gruaud-Larose, known for it's availability, straightforwardness (and class) and the fact that Parker rarely cares for it. (Personally I completely disagree with mr. Parker. I find the GL a beautiful wine and not disappointing at all, though I'd "only" score it 91).
I often see this kind of "reviewing", where a reviewer (usually a writer) praises a certain area, like Provence, for it's delicious wines, (and surely they DO make nice wines, but too few of them are of any real class IMO) while the same reviewer gives a poor review to an individual wine (usually an underachiever), disregarding that this particular wine is far better than ANYTHING that comes from Provence.
It all comes down to pedigree. What are your expectations when you review? If you sit with a wine that you know (by reputation) is poor, but it appeals to you (at that moment with those salty snacks) you would tend to give it a good review, because it was nice, and much more so, than you expected. On the other hand, you sit with a wine of great repute, and it's actually rather disappointing. You will likely give it a poor review, using notes like "green", "too tannic" etc. But if you compare the wines, the "noble" wine WAS better than the "less noble" wine. But your review will not reflect that. THAT'S where I find scores the most useful. You can say "disappointing, green and too tannic" 90p, while "great effort. Lot's of ripe fruit and soft tannins" only yields 85p. because one, while not living up to your expectations, was still a superiour wine to the one that surprised you positively.
|
|
|
|
