http://www.musingsonthevine.com/tips_rate.shtml

certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system

gerald wrote in news:ebv212dbetm6b8bnif8bj2ttbc9vv966h4
@4ax.com:

http://www.musingsonthevine.com/tips_rate.shtml

certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system


That scale is just nonsense to me, mind you. It is absurdidly short on the
nose character.Only 4 points over 20. The sweetness issue is nonsense. For
a wine to be balanced you need the wine to counterbalance the acidity with
either residual sugar or alcohol (which tastes sweet). Why is acidity more
important than sweetness? It all has to be in balance.

Besides, what is the appropiate color for a red burgundy? Do we favor dark
wines in a modern style (think of a Gevrey-Chambertin by Alain Burguet) or
the lightly extracted wines of, say, de Montille?. Both are great wines,
and both could have the same rating providing they are in balance and
provide the same pleasure.

I really prefer DES (Dale's Easy Scale) to a quantitative approach, even if
I understand that points-drinkers need a ninety-something tag in the bottle
they are drinking to feel confident.

S.

"gerald" in :

certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system

"For a rating system." (Among others?)

I gather that you understand the history connected here?

That this was the original "high-resolution" rating system in the US and
pushed for a decade or two, and did _not_ catch on?

That it was the reason many people, journalists, consumers, books, concluded
(by around 1980) that "numerical" scoring had been shown to lack support in
the US?

That a later, even higher-resolution, "numerical" rating system did, despite
all this history, catch on, with a new bunch of wine consumers?

That this is among the many implicit ironies and conflicts in the modern
history of US wine markets?

gerald wrote:
http://www.musingsonthevine.com/tips_rate.shtml

certainly seems long on color, short on taste for a rating system

All numerical systems are totally absurd.

skrev i melding
ups.com...


But 89 points vs 91? That's ridiculous.

For once I agree with you..., at least partly.
Professional tasters are supposed to be objective, but we all know they
judge the same wines differently, of course.
So, publishing scores from, say, 5 or 10 tasters as an average and claiming
the 91 point wine is 'better' than the 89 point one is meaningless.
But, if you know a taster with the same preferences as yourself you may
indeed feel confident that the differences he finds are real - to your
taste.
And yes, the difference between wines of the same area and type what counts.
Standards seem to vary between countries - I've a feeling that Germans
regularly award less points, than Austrians do (Do we get an opinion from
Michael, our resident professional? :-)

Btw, the 100 point scale, really is only 20 points - or when do you see or
buy anything below 80? Pure water gets 50, you know.

Anders

" when do you see or buy anything below 80?"

2001 Havens Bourriquot, WS (Laube) 67, one of my rare case buys.

I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator---they claim
to be doing them blind but I was amazed when they gave a 72 to a Bruno
Giacosa Barolo--when Giacosa opens his eyes in the morning he's already at
80.

One would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could
get a wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or
89. Steiman has a decent palate even though he's a **** in public.
Suckling is a left handed hand shaker, only the true players in the wine
universe get to shake his right hand. Laube is in it for the book sales. The
restaurant awards is a great way to give Shanken's scribes a free meal.

The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is that the
Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to making it seem
like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their readers who's hot
who's not. When they decide to do a feature on a wine region is like a
bunch of piglets running for the troth. I do not know for sure what
freebies the Spectator gets but I'm sure they're shown a grand time.

I think the Wine Advocate is followed in the Northeast and major cities in
the USA but in the rest of the country its the Spectator. I don't how many
sales I didn't get because the Spectator wouldn't take my samples--they want
4-6 of each wine. A broker from Oz told me how he gets his wines reviewed,
give the office workers lots of samples. Another way is buy a signifigent
number of tickets to one of the WS' "events"and schmooze Marvin. Getting a
celeb to be featured in the WS is a plus. I understand some Lone Star
winery & sheep ranch, promised Marvin an interview with VP Cheney's human
target. The man is a major investor in local wineries and has assembled a
collection of Mouton Cadet back to the 1930's.

My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a difference
between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function of the
weekly cash-flow.
"DaleW" wrote in message
ps.com...
" when do you see or buy anything below 80?"

2001 Havens Bourriquot, WS (Laube) 67, one of my rare case buys.

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" in :
I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator ... One
would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could get a
wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or 89.
Steiman ...

That's strong criticism Joe, though I'm in no position to judge because I
see the Spectator very occasionally. What's ironic is with the demise of
Vintage in 1983 --popular independent US wine magazine from the 1970s, I saw
it on east and west coasts, it used various writers and took contributed
articles but never, on principle, advertising -- after it folded, many of
those writers appeared in the _Wine Spectator_ with its very different
policies. (Steiman was familiar as a local wine journalist in San Francisco
newspapers.)

... The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is
that the Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to
making it seem like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their
readers who's hot who's not.

I have heard this from many people of diverse perspectives. And though I
didn't take his publication, I came to respect Parker in particular after
figuring out that certain behaviors reflected not him, but zealous fans.
The more independent critics the better. I've read those others off and on;
Meadows (not mentioned) I've read and actually tasted with, he seems good as
a US Burgundy specialist respected among US Burgundy fans I hear from.

My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a
difference between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function
of the weekly cash-flow.

(Again strong stuff.) To the first part, a specific that surfaced when
Parker was discussed here (or rather its differently-named original
newsgroup) in the1980s, before Parker himself was online at the private
Prodigy subscription service* (discussions remarkably civil and constructive
by current standards, BTW) was instances cited where Parker allegedly
identified the same wine with what he would call significant point-rating
disparities when trying it in different circumstances. That information is
one of those things that the zealous fans, especially later ones, apparently
were unaware of (and, being unaware of it, like to deny).

-- Max

* One of the several large private services that set up independent email
and news services in competition with the actual Internet (that's us), but
eventually merged into it starting in the middle 1990s. Posted details
earlier.

"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" wrote in message
...
I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator---they claim
to be doing them blind but I was amazed when they gave a 72 to a Bruno
Giacosa Barolo--when Giacosa opens his eyes in the morning he's already at
80.

One would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could
get a wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or
89. Steiman has a decent palate even though he's a **** in public.
Suckling is a left handed hand shaker, only the true players in the wine
universe get to shake his right hand. Laube is in it for the book sales.
The
restaurant awards is a great way to give Shanken's scribes a free meal.

The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is that
the
Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to making it
seem
like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling their readers who's
hot
who's not. When they decide to do a feature on a wine region is like a
bunch of piglets running for the troth. I do not know for sure what
freebies the Spectator gets but I'm sure they're shown a grand time.

I think the Wine Advocate is followed in the Northeast and major cities in
the USA but in the rest of the country its the Spectator. I don't how
many
sales I didn't get because the Spectator wouldn't take my samples--they
want
4-6 of each wine. A broker from Oz told me how he gets his wines
reviewed,
give the office workers lots of samples. Another way is buy a signifigent
number of tickets to one of the WS' "events"and schmooze Marvin. Getting a
celeb to be featured in the WS is a plus. I understand some Lone Star
winery & sheep ranch, promised Marvin an interview with VP Cheney's human
target. The man is a major investor in local wineries and has assembled a
collection of Mouton Cadet back to the 1930's.

My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a difference
between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a function of the
weekly cash-flow.

Joe, C'mon - don't hold back! Tell us what you really think about the WS.

Cheers!
Martin

Most of what I wrote was informed hearsay---I did broker a wine the received
89 points and took out a nice sized ad---I was a sub-contractor- the main
broker told me, he spoke to some one at the WS because in several markets
like mine orders were cancelled because retail was $45 and it only got an
"89" score plus a nice sidebar. The WS guy allegedly said that a bigger ad
would get another point tacked on but was said in a joking manner. BTW the
wholesaler I sold it too has to reduce Wholesale pricing by 40% to move it
out. They must have gone thru a case sampling the trade after the "bad"
review.

I do remember Vintage a quirky publication--I heard the publisher is still
producing magazine promoting "T & A".....Everything I've heard about Meadows
is good---You are "spot on" about how consumers & merchants frenzy over
points, not his reviews are objectionable. I sold a Barolo from Annunciata
in La Morra that was rated 89+ by Parker & presold about half a
palate---when the wine arrived I got any angry call from a merchant seems
hos customer found the wine too "soft". The text in Parker's review which
neither the merchant or customer read mentioned the wines elegance and
balance.

At times I did use raw scores to sell, mostly allocated wines from DeGrazia,
some merchants hadn't gotten the WA yet--I'm still first class mail--so I
went over the scores with my group of DeGrazia players, who ordered the
wines before Mr. Bob's first reviews. My POS always highlighted the text &
score even for WA purposes.

I met Steiman twice--once at the first or second Napa Wine Auction-he was
sitting in the sake row & I got up & introduced my self. I mentioned I
taught wine classes and was part of Parkers "control group" big boo-boo-- he
said he was to busy to chat--O saw him at a Hublein auction event and
pointed him our to Parker. I was walking to shake his hand when he turned
his back on me, which was not as rude as James Sucking was when Angelo Gaja
introduced me at VinItaly---he held out his left hand and started a
conversation with someone else. I met Tom Mathews a few times and he's a
real person.

I have to admire Shanken, when he bought the WS it was pretty lame-Besides
Parker the Conn. Guide & San Diego Grapevine were darlings of my fellow wine
geeks--Finnegan newsletter was very well written but was not
comprehensive--- Jerry Meads huzzahs & rants were very entertaining. After
9-11 Shankin stepped up to the plate and gave not only money but supported
the efforts to lift up the beverage & food communities in New York--so I
forgive him his celebrity reviews of Hal Prince & Mel Brooks ( I had thought
Brooks was a Dr Brown & Selzer guy--who knew he loved Bordeaux)

Often times the WS gives an honest score but a "national" brand gets the
most play in best 100 lists & best buys etc---One year they gave Pertimali
Brunello 93 points & Banfi's 92---Livio Sasseti and DeGrazia never
advertised in the WS so I wasn't surprised the Banfi was in the top 100 not
Pertimali--A few Years later the two DeGrazia exported Brunellos,Ciacci &
Pertimali were not mentioned in a Tuscan feature while the Brunellos of
Paterno, Banfi and Hublein aka Palace Brands were---they did mention the two
restaurants, I dined at in the Siena environs.........

"Max Hauser" wrote in message
...
"Joe "Beppe"Rosenberg" in :
I have absolutely no confidence in any review in the Spectator ... One
would be amazed how an increase in the size of an advertisement could get
a
wine a 90 point score when an earlier tasting had the wine at 88 or 89.
Steiman ...

That's strong criticism Joe, though I'm in no position to judge because I
see the Spectator very occasionally. What's ironic is with the demise of
Vintage in 1983 --popular independent US wine magazine from the 1970s, I
saw
it on east and west coasts, it used various writers and took contributed
articles but never, on principle, advertising -- after it folded, many of
those writers appeared in the _Wine Spectator_ with its very different
policies. (Steiman was familiar as a local wine journalist in San
Francisco
newspapers.)

... The difference between Parker, Tanzer, Coates and the Spectator is
that the Spectator is a bottom line business. Everything is geared to
making it seem like they're the Playboy or Esquire of wine, telling
their
readers who's hot who's not.

I have heard this from many people of diverse perspectives. And though I
didn't take his publication, I came to respect Parker in particular after
figuring out that certain behaviors reflected not him, but zealous fans.
The more independent critics the better. I've read those others off and
on;
Meadows (not mentioned) I've read and actually tasted with, he seems good
as
a US Burgundy specialist respected among US Burgundy fans I hear from.

My answer is that in the mind of Robert Parker et al, there's a
difference between 89 and 91 points. In the Wine Spectator its a
function
of the weekly cash-flow.

(Again strong stuff.) To the first part, a specific that surfaced when
Parker was discussed here (or rather its differently-named original
newsgroup) in the1980s, before Parker himself was online at the private
Prodigy subscription service* (discussions remarkably civil and
constructive
by current standards, BTW) was instances cited where Parker allegedly
identified the same wine with what he would call significant point-rating
disparities when trying it in different circumstances. That information
is
one of those things that the zealous fans, especially later ones,
apparently
were unaware of (and, being unaware of it, like to deny).

-- Max

* One of the several large private services that set up independent email
and news services in competition with the actual Internet (that's us), but
eventually merged into it starting in the middle 1990s. Posted details
earlier.

Young Martle wrote:
On 13 Mar 2006 10:25:34 -0800, wrote:


But 89 points vs 91? That's ridiculous.


That's why I like reading Dale.

Myron

But is giving scores of 89 vs 91 ridiculous or is running around trying
to find the 91 point wine when the 89 is being sold around the corner
for a lower price the part that's ridiculous?

Is there an imaginary line at 90 points? Many people that follow Parker
or WS scores believe so, but is this a function of the scale or the
people reading the review. Could it not be said, that the same people
would probably only buy Dale A wines or Decanter ***** wines?

Frankly, I have no issue with any rating system anyone wishes to use.
Parker's 100 point (ok 50 point) scale can easily be converted to Dales
A,B,C,D scale. And even Dale doesn't really use ABCD, he uses + and -
so his 4 grade scale now becomes a 12 grade scale. It's his scale, he
can do whatever he wants with it (as long as he keeps posting notes).
It's what WE do with the scores and notes that matter.


Andy

I am not a fan of WS. I gave up subscription many years ago. Though
someone gave me a gift subscription for a year about 5 years ago, and
one year ago I got a year courtesy of Zachys (I just got my "this is
your final issue- renew!" flyer).

There are many reasons for my disdain- it can be hard to figure who
tasted some things (though that seems to have improved lately), II find
Laube's crusade for squeaky clean wines doesn't match up with my
tastes, Suckling I can't seem to get a grip on - he's all over the
place, etc. And taking advertisements can open questions of bias.

But..but...but...

While Joe Rosenberg might percieve bias, the only study I have ever
seen didn't find any. I thought it was posted here, but I can't find
through Google. The more I think of it, the more I think that it was
posted on WCWN (in the old format, I think I remember the threading).
Perhaps Max remembers? The poster (a wine geek with a background in
statistics) did a fairly sophisticated formal analysis of WS ratings
for domestic wines for a couple years (he did domestic as it was harder
to identify advertising for imports- some had different West Coast/East
Coast importers, etc). He found no relationship between points and
advertising. Except that advertisers had a small edge at being retasted
in case of a bad score. I believe he did not analyze whether
advertising increased ones chances of being featured as a "collectors
corner", "best value", or making the WS 100 (other charges that have
been leveled at WS).

One can't take a stand for blind tasting and then criticize a low score
because someone deserves 80 points for getting out of bed in the
morning. Besides, hasn't Giacosa (my favorite Barolo producer) long
been a LoCascio/Winebow import? I don't recall a WS that didn't have a
Winebow ad!

I just prefer that critcisms be based in fact, not innuendo.

DaleW wrote:


One can't take a stand for blind tasting and then criticize a low score
because someone deserves 80 points for getting out of bed in the
morning. Besides, hasn't Giacosa (my favorite Barolo producer) long
been a LoCascio/Winebow import? I don't recall a WS that didn't have a
Winebow ad!


What are talking about? He's a surpeb wine-maker. Giacosa's urine
probably tastes better than most wine.


I just prefer that critcisms be based in fact, not innuendo.

wrote:

No, the notion that wine can be evluated to that fine a degree is
ridiculous.

That's just not true. Anyone can evaluate wine to that degree. OK,
maybe you can't because you would have to take your blinders off first.



Who cares? I sdon't read wine reviews anymore, ESPECIALLY Parker's.
He's a moron. He thinks wine should be as thick as syrup.

He doesn't agree with your tastes so he's a moron. I think that sums up
your approach to wine very clearly. You must be a blast to share a
bottle with. Hopefully you're a little more tollerant in other areas of
your life.

Frankly no one cares that you don't read reviews. It doesn't even cause
a blip on the screen. In your warped little mind you may think it
makes you superior in some way but running around proclaiming it to the
world only makes you appear small and petty.


I know there are people who are too stupid to trust their own
judgement.

And some people are so stupid that they will only drink wine from one
country because they have this absurd romantic notion that it's the
only country that has wine makers that are true to their craft.

Fair
Good
Very Good
Exceptional
Superb

That's all you need.

That's all you need. Other people need more. Why does it bother you so
much what other people use? Does it harm you in some way? Do you feel
theatened when some one uses a 100 point scale?

Tell me about your mother, was she too strict with you when you were a
child?

What about your father? Did he ever tell you he loved you?

Seek professional help before it's too late.

Andy

JEP62 wrote:
wrote:

No, the notion that wine can be evluated to that fine a degree is
ridiculous.

That's just not true. Anyone can evaluate wine to that degree. OK,
maybe you can't because you would have to take your blinders off first.

Two wines may differ ever so slightly, but that does not make one
BETTER than the other, just DIFFERENT. Two hypothetical'91 point
Barbaescos, for instance, may come from different makers, different
years, and will NOT taste the same. So what's the point of assigning
them 91 points? It means nothing! What more do you get from that than
saying "Excellent"?

Who cares? I sdon't read wine reviews anymore, ESPECIALLY Parker's.
He's a moron. He thinks wine should be as thick as syrup.

He doesn't agree with your tastes so he's a moron.

No, that has nothing to do with it.

I think that sums up
your approach to wine very clearly. You must be a blast to share a
bottle with. Hopefully you're a little more tollerant in other areas of
your life.

I'm a blast to share a bottle with, because I never talk about stupid
points: we drink the wines and eat the food and have a great time!

Frankly no one cares that you don't read reviews.

You....consumer...

It doesn't even cause
a blip on the screen. In your warped little mind you may think it
makes you superior in some way but running around proclaiming it to the
world only makes you appear small and petty.

No, I'm not some neurotic, insecure wimp who needs OTHER people to tell
him what he likes. I know what I like and what I don't like, and nobody
else's opinion matters at all, especially not that of a ****wit like
Parker...

I know there are people who are too stupid to trust their own
judgement.

And some people are so stupid that they will only drink wine from one
country because they have this absurd romantic notion that it's the
only country that has wine makers that are true to their craft.

No, you misunderstand. Italian wines are the only ones that matter....


Fair
Good
Very Good
Exceptional
Superb

That's all you need.

That's all you need. Other people need more. Why does it bother you so
much what other people use? Does it harm you in some way? Do you feel
theatened when some one uses a 100 point scale?

Precisely the oppsite: You feel insecure if your wine does not 'score'
high enough on the Parkeri scale. I drink expensive wines and cheap
wines, and I can tellt he differences easily enough. I am in wine shops
often enough to have seen the witless come in and buy a case of Opus
One...

I saw it with my own eyes. I almost fell onto the floor in a fit of
convulsive laughter...

Then there was the time a blonde came into the shop, to buy a case of
Pinot Grigio for a 'wine-tasting party'. When the clerk started strode
over toward the Italian section, she gasped: "Oh, I didn't know there
was Italian Pinot Grigio..."