Perhaps I am lazy but could anyone enlighten on how well numerical wine
ratings compare with each other? Local wine stores tend to use whichever
is highest among Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate (and
perhaps others that I forget). I'd like to conduct a personal analysis
but I can't afford it!
--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

On Oct 18, 12:56*pm, James Silverton >
wrote:
> Perhaps I am lazy but could anyone enlighten on how well numerical wine
> ratings compare with each other? Local wine stores tend to use whichever
> is highest among Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate (and
> perhaps others that I forget). I'd like to conduct a personal analysis
> but I can't afford it!

Many years ago, I compared the ratings given by several critics and
found considerable scatter of their opinions about the wine and
numerical rating, when given. The UK critics tended to rank many "new
world" wines lower than European classics, mainly because they were
"fruit bombs", lacked complexity, had too much alcohol, or did not age
well. For US critics, the ratings by Parker and the Underground Wine
newsletter could be quite different. Actually age worthy wines need
two ratings, one for how well they drink when tasted and how well they
are likely to drink when fully mature. Also, for wine with some age,
it is very important that the critic has tasted the wine more than
once and that it is known that wine storage was proper. Even a Chateau
Latour or a DRC burgundy from a good year can have a poor showing for
a single bottle because of storage issues, cork issues etc. If you are
buying to drink, find a critic that has a taste close to your's. Those
buying wine to age and sell need to buy wine liked by the most popular
critics who evaluate wine for how it will be with age.

On Oct 18, 11:56*am, James Silverton >
wrote:
> Perhaps I am lazy but could anyone enlighten on how well numerical wine
> ratings compare with each other? Local wine stores tend to use whichever
> is highest among Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate (and
> perhaps others that I forget). I'd like to conduct a personal analysis
> but I can't afford it!
> --
>
> James Silverton, Potomac
>
> I'm *not*

Ratings were Parkerized giving them a 100 point scale. I find little
comparison from one rater to the next unless you go in 10 point
increments. Rating is subjective and I don't really blame the stores
for putting the highest rating on the little piece of paper in front
of the wine. That's marketing. Has little relation to the quality of
the wine or whether you will like it or not. You need to taste a lot
of wine to figure out what you like and not rely on the ratings.

On 10/18/2011 1:56 PM, James Silverton wrote:
> Perhaps I am lazy but could anyone enlighten on how well numerical wine
> ratings compare with each other? Local wine stores tend to use whichever
> is highest among Wine Spectator, Wine Enthusiast and Wine Advocate (and
> perhaps others that I forget). I'd like to conduct a personal analysis
> but I can't afford it!

And don't forget....

Wine Spectator with all its dubious restaurant wine list awards...is
very valuable for the wine seller....but certainly not for the wine
drinker..

I think you'll find this relevant:

http://wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP91.pdf

--
www.winenous.co.uk

On 10/19/2011 4:52 PM, Steve Slatcher wrote:
> I think you'll find this relevant:
>
> http://wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP91.pdf
>
That is very interesting but I would have been happier if the wines had
scores with about an average 89-90. $100 a bottle is distinctly on the
"rare occasion" side for me.

--


James Silverton, Potomac

I'm *not*

Steve Slatcher > writes:

> I think you'll find this relevant:
>
> http://wine-economics.org/workingpapers/AAWE_WP91.pdf

Fun - thanks!