Wine Enthusiast Magazine
Subscribe
It being Friday morning and me just back from a grueling trip to NY for our annual Wine Enthusiast editorial conference (grueling because I suffered through one flight cancellation and 2 multi-hour staycations on the tarmac), I sat down at the puter going through about 170 emails and wondering how to find something in my befogged state of mind to blog about when, mirabile dictu, in came 1 Wine Dude’s rant against the 100-point system.
Thank you, Lord, who doth provide sustenance when we need it! Even though it was deja vu all over again (there have been more of these 100 point diatribes than Rambo movies), I was grateful to defend the system Everybody Loves to Bash (or, at least, every blogger who’s short on material loves to bash).
Now, 1 Wine Dude is a fine guy with a fine blog but let me address his 3 main critiques of the system we use at Wine Enthusiast. Basically, 1WD says the system “is actually a 50-point scale” and therefore to call it a 100 point scale is bogus. Response: Well, yes, that’s true. In fact, I’ve blogged that our system at the magazine is actually a 21-point system. The analogy is like having a thermometer in your house that ranges from below zero to 130 degrees. Most of the time the range will fall far from the extremes. But there’s nothing wrong in theory with having the higher and lower boundaries.
His second complaint is the 100-point system “gives a false sense of security” because “no one can really score a wine 100% objectively.” Response: I’ve been publically saying this forever, both on this blog and elsewhere. So what? Let’s get it straight, when I give a wine a high score it’s because I like it and when I give a wine a low score it’s because I don’t! What’s so confusing about that? If you think my taste sucks, then don’t read me. It’s a free country.
1WD’s third complaint is that the 100-point system “implies a scale of excellence.” Yes, it does! That’s the whole point of wine (or film, or automobile, or tennis, or any other form of ranking). It means “A” is better than “B.” Is it my opinion? Of course, just as the opinions of Olympic figure-skating judges (which are supposed to be objective) are their opinions.
1WD concludes by bashing — not us critics — but the consumers who like and trust us. “Too many people fall into the trap of following the numbers for their buying decisions,” he avers. Then, astonishingly, he announces that he and some other bloggers who are fed up with the 100-point system are launching their own, alternative wine rating system, “The 89 Project.” It purportedly will take wines that the rest of us critics give 89 points (which is famous in the industry for being the kiss of death because it’s not 90) and have the members of the 89 project review them.
This is a little like rifling through the stuff celebrities throw out in their recycling bins to find something valuable or saleable. Or maybe I’m just cranky and hung over this morning because the airport experience has really funked me out and I’m in a bad mood. Anyhow — the wannabe wine critics out there are better advised to find something more constructive to do than bash the 100-point system. It’s not a career builder.
Filed under: Wine Writing, Commentary
26 Responses to “My advice to wannabe wine critics”
Please Wait
August 1st, 2008 at 4:50:12 PM
Steve,
First off, welcome back. Sounds like you had a helluva finish to your trip, but I can imagine you had a lot of fun during your stay!!!
Second, I want to thank you for your honesty. I’ve been ‘railing against’ the concept of ‘objective wine review’ as an oxymoron for quite some time - it truly can never be ‘objective’ because it is YOUR opinion, and all of your wine tasting (and food eating) experiences that have led you to this point and developed your palate are unique to you and no one else. That does not mean I do not respect your opinions and/or try new wines based on your ratings and write-ups, just that I understand it is ‘buyer beware’ . . .
I also understand IWD’s frustration with consumers who simply purchase based on these ratings, rather than developing their own opinions about wines first. I can agree that there probably are hundreds if not thousands of great wines that critics, including yourself, have given 88 or 89 points to. Some consumers HAVE been programmed to think that anything under 90 is ‘just not that good’ . . . This is not YOUR fault, but it is a reality.
If the 89 project does shed light on excellent wines that are simply overlooked because they did not break 90, then I think this is a good thing - I think consumers will generally ‘win’ because they will have more true ‘quality’ wines to choose from. That said, consumers should only take what these other reviewers have to say ‘lightly’ as they will be no more ‘objective’ than anyone else . . .
Cheers!
August 1st, 2008 at 5:04:13 PM
My airport horror story was nothing compared to those poor unfortunates who are enslaved on the tarmac for 9 hours at a time! Anyhow, back to the 100 point system, like Popeye used to say, “It is what it is, and that’s all it is.” We wine writers have always urged people not to overlook wines that score under 90 points. Heck, I don’t! Depending on the food and the situation, I’ll drink almost anything as long as it’s sound. Seems to me, the more you know about wine the less snobby you are about it. So I wish The 89 Project good luck — I was just pointing out the humor in a group of people who bash the 100 point system, and then they publish a system based on the 100 point system!
August 1st, 2008 at 5:45:35 PM
No doubt you are earnest and an experienced taster, but you need to be mindful that people who reject the 100-point scale are opposed to abuse of the scale, not your opinions. Whether you are willing to admit it or not, the ratings have become just so much pollution in the wine world. Where once they shone rays of light, the numbers now just distract. Indeed, those who use ratings to market/sell wines now have many, many sources to choose from; ironically, there are so many 90+ scores that 89s are no longer a kiss of death…
And as much confidence as you and your fellow editors have in your own palates, it still does not erase the simple fact that if you are given the same wine six months apart (or even six weeks or six days), in a different flight, I would bet a bottle of 2005 Mouton that your actual rating of the wine will be different. That alone demonstrates that no score can ever be truly accurate. Numbers imply precision; unfortunately, such precision just isn’t attainable by human palates. Why can’t we all accept that and focus on our relative opinions, sans numbers? Would our discussions over wine and wine quality cease if we stopped using numbers? No, rather, our debates would become more realistic and even more useful.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:07:31 PM
Dear F Levitt, I guess in this day and age of MTV, sound bites, etc. people do want or need instantaneous information they can quickly take in. Back in 1860, Lincoln and Douglas used to debate for many hours at a time — and the people listened rapturously — I doubt if the upcoming Obama-McCain debates will extend much beyond the usual hour or so, and the next day just a few points will be remembered and discussed. We can deplore our culture’s short attention span (and I do) and regret its reliance on symbols (which I do), but there it is — we can’t change it. So those of us who partake of it can only do the best we can, and inform our readers to please read the accompanying text, not just the number — and remind them that a pretty 85 point Riesling can be the perfect wine — and on and on. We can’t be responsible for what you call the “abuse.”
August 3rd, 2008 at 12:18:14 PM
Sounds like you’ve thrown in the towel too quickly. WHat is wrong with telling the truth: namely that wine is subjective and personal and DESERVING of editorial treatment that celebrates nuances and style and context. When is that 85 point Riesling a perfect wine? That is what people deserve to hear. THe tasting notes that accompany your reviews are a start, but still quite disconnected from real-world wine. Why don’t more of your magazine’s tasting notes suggest a context for wine , be it food or occasion? That would not only be more use ful for the reader but also separate your publication from the others that use scores.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:27:54 PM
Dear F Levitt, I wish I had a few hundred words for each review but the powers that be limit me to about 30, so that limits the context. Readers seem to want to know what the wine tastes like first and foremost. Sometimes I try to sneak in a food pairing but that eats into the word count. Or I might say something about a beach or a picnic or a white-tablecloth dinner, which is also context. Each review is like a Haiku. You try to pack as many images as you can into a set structure.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:42:43 PM
“Dear F Levitt, I guess in this day and age of MTV, sound bites, etc. people do want or need instantaneous information they can quickly take in.”
Even if the information is incorrect?
Quantifying the unquantifiable is ridiculous. If a high score really means “I like it” then why not just say that and be done with it?
The 100-point system was either invented by people who don’t really “get” wine, or for people who don’t really “get” wine.
Either way, there’s an idiot in the works somewhere.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:07:07 PM
Dear Pantagruel, Well I guess you can please some of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can’t please all of the people all of the time. Sorry you’re down on the 100-point system. Lots of people seem to like it!
August 4th, 2008 at 10:00:47 PM
“Lots of people seem to like it!”
In this day and age that’s not the most inspirational recco now, is it?
I think the 100-pt system has its place as long as it is portrayed properly: as an inherently flawed system (perhaps better than many others?), and one that should be used short-term by newbies on their way to a deeper understanding of wine.
Most critics tend not to want to do this, though.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:23:04 PM
Pantagruel, I’m happy to engage you. If you will concede the need or desire on the part of the wine-buying public for expert criticism, what would you replace our system with? I am on record as saying people like having a visual cue in addition to verbiage. If you are against this, it seems kind of snobby to me.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:59:25 PM
“If you are against this, it seems kind of snobby to me.”
I have a hard time understanding how a desire to educate fledgling wine lovers could be construed as snobby.
Use the 100-pt system.
But attach to each and every rating in large, neon-colored, blinking type all of the caveats that should go with it.
-That trying to quantify a qualitative judgement is at heart futile.
-That nobody tastes with the level of accuracy implicit in a 100-pt rating system.
-That there is probably no substantive difference in quality noted between a wine that scores an 89 and one that scores a 93, especially if they weren’t tasted in the same sitting.
-That sensory testing is a rigorous discipline with some hard and fast rules, and NO wine critics use these rules.
-That subjectivity and disagreement exists in wine quality assessment even at the highest levels of the profession.
-That tasting tens of wines blind in a clinical fashion is in many ways an aberrant way to sample wine, and may very likely favor certain styles of wine over others.
-That a novice wine fan would probably be better served by finding two or three quality-oriented wine retailers to learn from than taking advice from a newsletter page or a computer screen.
etc,etc,etc
August 5th, 2008 at 8:19:30 AM
Hi Steve,
Man, there is some excellent banter going on in these comments! I really enjoy your writing so I was particularly pleased to see that my post sparked some debate on your blog.
I agree with quite a bit of what you say, I think the 100 point system does get abused too often in the wine blogging world. Having said that, I think you might have misconstrued my post for one of those rants, which might be selling it a bit short (massive subjectivity of that self-appraisal duly noted, of course!).
To justify that, I should probably clear a couple of things up about that post of mine:
1) Steve, your palate would totally *smoke* my palate when it comes to reviewing wines (which is one reason why I typically don’t review wines at 1WineDude.com). If our palates shared a prison cell, my palate would be your palate’s b*tch, would bring it tea and biscuits every morning, and call it sir!
I wasn’t railing against the 100 point system in my post. You want to see a rant, pull up any post I’ve written about the PLCB ( http://1winedude.blogspot.com/search/label/PLCB ) for comparison; now *those* are rants.
My point was that the 100 point system can be confusing to consumers, because it (as you say in your post above) is really a gradient quality scale based on one person’s palate.
But that’s not how most of the wine media treats it, and it’s certainly not how the industry of wine sales treats it. So it doesn’t really do what it says “on the tin.”
2) I wasn’t bashing critics or consumers. I am bashing *anyone* who would blindly follow any rating or scoring system without doing any homework whatsoever. The truth is that there are too many people out there who do that, and part of being a wine blogger these days is to help point that out and hopefully add a little entertaining education for those consumers to show them what they might be missing. That doesn’t imply that they are stupid, just uninformed.
3) I should also try to clear up a bit about the 89 Project ( http://89project.blogspot.com/ ) - I did not found this but I do plan to contribute to it. If you take a look at the 89 Project home page, you’ll find that its charter is to try to bring exposure to the wines that fail to meet a 90 or above score in the 100 point scale - these wines are perennially doomed to lower sales figures, because consumers consider the 1 point difference between a 90 and an 89 score to be substantial (but probably not so for a 93 vs. a 94).
“The 89 Project invites wine writers, reviewers, critics and bloggers to cross-post anything they write about any wine getting an 89 rating. Let us give these red-headed step children of the wine world a second chance to shine brightly with success, or splat down into ignominious failure.”
So, this is *not* an alternative rating system - it’s simply a review of these wines in our own voices. I don’t plan to give any of these wines a review based on a scale - I simply describe what I taste and explain if I think it’s good value for money (or not).
Hoping this clears up some of the confusion about my post. I certainly think that the 100 point system has its merits (after all, no one has offered a more popular replacement yet) and I’m not calling for its demise, just pointing out the gaps. I also am NOT a fan of inexperienced wine critics offering up their reviews as viable alternatives to more experienced tasters - I fully believe that expert criticism has its place.
I’m should also mention that I’m not hurting for blog material, and it was a conscious choice on my part to write a piece about the possible perils of following the 100 point rating system. I literally have more than enough ideas for material that I could post every day for a year without repeating myself (yes, even if I remove my rants against the PLCB - ok, maybe 9 months then ;-).
I’m only pointing that out because I wouldn’t want any potential bloggers to read this thread and think that they shouldn’t blog from a fear of running out of material. That should be the *last* thing that they worry about when blogging.
Cheers!
August 5th, 2008 at 8:41:40 AM
No, you can’t please all of the people all of the time, but as Pantagruel points out, the system is inherently flawed, and I suspect a majority of consumers would agree (if they were ever given a choice). What they (we) want is wines that fit our idea of quality (and without launching into a different debate, it is obvious that people’s definition of quality can vary greatly). Faced with a sea of wine, people want to find the ones they will like, pure and simple. Yes, following specific critics can help us get there, but I can’t agree with the visual cue point.The cues you defend — numbers — are terrible cues because they imply precision as well as absolute quality. Nailing numbers on wines provides a completely false sense of authority. In my experience the day a wine drinker matures is the day he/she realizes how silly ratings are — and that they exist mostly to sell wine, not help consumers buy it. There is a difference, you know.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:00:23 AM
Pantagruel, not to make light of your proposal, but if I attached your warning — which is 158 words in length — to “each and every rating” there would be no pages left in Wine Enthusiast for anything else! Anyhow, I agree with some of the things you say and disagree with others. Your final point (about finding quality wine retailers) is one that every critic I’ve ever read, including myself, has made repeatedly. The point I disagree with the most is your #1, alluding to the futility of quantifying tasting. Quantifying is simply a way of noting preference. When you bought your last car or last necktie, you picked the one you liked the best, and you paid a certain price for it. That’s all that a score means: a relative ranking of preference. And yes, yes, yes, preference is [at least partly] subjective, as I’ve said more times than I can recall.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:06:05 AM
Dear F Levitt, Well at least give me credit for being the only major critic using the 100 point system who’s willing to slug it out in public and in print with passionate communicators like you and Pantagruel. (At least, I think I am…apologies to any other critics in the same boat : >) And by the way, I’ve also said many times I will consider my / our job done when, someday down the road, consumers do feel able to make up their own minds as to what to buy. But I doubt that day will ever come. I myself depend on outside critics to determine which movie to see, or which restaurant to go to, and I think it’s always going to be that way.
August 5th, 2008 at 10:43:11 AM
Hi Steve-
Thanks so much for engaging your readers in this conversation. As I read this, there have been 14 comments posted in dialog. I think it is great that you have the integrity to actually respond and then interact. Let’s all keep more conversations going; they are a refreshing change from our usual diatribes!
August 5th, 2008 at 11:06:02 AM
Yes, you do deserve credit, Steve, for tangling with doubters. And it is heartening to see you agree with Pantagruel’s point on GOOD retailers. As to your rejection of his point about the futility of quantifying quality, of course are right: the quantification (i.e., numbers) simply reflects one critic’s preference. But that preference is based on a blind tasting of peer wines in a sterile context. Given that context is so variable, what good is the original quantification? Zero to those who are able to embrace wine’s fuzzy, malleable reality. An 85-point Riesling becomes a 95-point Riesling when enjoyed in the right context. If you are willing to accept that, and are still set on encouraging readers to find their own favorites, then why tag the wines with immutable numbers to start with? I think it has something to do with the commercial value of the numbers to your own magazine, and those retailers who lazily lean on them.
August 5th, 2008 at 1:55:34 PM
I am actually the original creator of The 89 Project, sometimes cross-posting from my own site, 2 Days per Bottle, and I fear you both miss its point and, in a delicious turn of irony, demonstrate its reason for being.
First, the point of the project. As you know, the difference between and “89″ and a “90″ on a subjective 100-point scale is functionally arbitrary, yet the commercial result is enormous. Given that the 89 ratings often come from a single taster, I thought it might be interesting to give those wines a second look and created a platform to do so. You simply miss the point entirely, for the project does not create an “alternative wine rating system.” Rather, it works within that system and identifies a very small but significant body of wine that might be worth a second look.
Then it gets fun, the part where your arrogance demonstrates the actual need for reveiw. You write:
Reallly? Are you now saying that when you rate a wine a 90 it is worth keeping, but when you rate it an 89 you, the self-identified “celebrity,” are discarding it? That really does put the lie to the idea that an 89 really is a very good rating, and that you are not aware of your actions when you make that 1% arbitrary distinction. This arrogance is particularly absurd in the wine-rating world, where you and other, well, I guess you want us to call you “celebrities” now, can vary in your own arbitrary ratings by half a dozen points or more.
Thank you for the link, Steve, and if you don’t mind, my fellow bloggers and I will continue to dig through your refuse. By the way, when I write “bloggers,” I am really writing about wine afficianados, wine consumers, and as odd as this might sound to you, imagining a bunch of adolescents playing “Dungeons and Dragons” in our parents’ basement, with no discretionary income and nothing to say, “Wine Enthusiast Magazine” subscribers.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:02:18 PM
Dear dhonig, I’m sorry you’re upset. Best of luck with The 89 Project.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:47:25 PM
Good morning Steve. I hope that you are feeling not too cranky this morning, as you may view this comment as another wannabe wine critic. First of all, I’ll be right up front: what you may refer to as a “bash” will not be aimed at the critic, but will be aimed at the point-posing wine consumer. And my bash arrived from dealing with the posers in a retail environment for several years. When the point system was created it was a good thing - - it was a base for the wine consumer to help guide their palate and assist in their wine purchases. And as we know, the point system can bring glory to a wine or - - death. In my opinion, the main thing the point system is guilty of is creating a monster out of the wine consumer. Now if you want to use the term, “wannabe”, the point system created a bunch of “wannabe wine aficionados” who live their lives and their wine purchases by wine points and obviously do not trust their own palates. In the wine retail environment, more times than I care to count has a customer walked in the door with his sole mission to be about the highly-pointed wine, bought two cases and when asked if they wanted to at least taste the wine they were buying, usually shrugged it off. They rarely tasted. And of course, we all knew those cases would be his new trophy to share with other “trophy hunters.” At a B&B, overheard conversation from other guests: they “only visited wineries that sold wine with 94 points and above, being oblivious that the winemaker has to enter the wines, the wine point fairy usually come to them? Too bad for these wine posers, to be missing out on some real jewels and possible up and coming wines by ignoring those who are not subscribing to a point system. These actions from posers remind me of stories I have read of caveman beating their chests because they built a bigger fire or a locker room of men bragging…never mind. Sure, there is nothing better than selling a case or two of wine to one customer and certainly, his dollar doesn’t look any different from those who do not subscribe to points. But there is a bit of disappointment when you know the wannabe wine aficionado doesn’t understand the difference in taste from the 89 Syrah and the 90 Cabernet and will never understand how and why the wine judge arrived at his/her decision. To explain the feeling is like selling your first car, you babied for years, to someone who will use it at a demolition derby race. Okay, so maybe I am guilty of being the romantic wine aficionado dinosaur who is about the craft, science, the terroir and even the personality and story of the winemaker, instead of enjoying the wine for the points. What is this - - doesn’t anybody trust their own taste buds anymore? At my home, during an evening of wine tasting with friends, we “wannabe wine critics” talk about the craftsmanship and personality of the wine and it isn’t the points that brings the wine to the dinner table.
August 5th, 2008 at 2:58:23 PM
Dear Catie, as a gym rat I can assure you that in lockerrooms, men are total gentlemen. We debate the finer points of etiquette. But seriously, your comment is thoughtful and I appreciate it. It reminds me of something that happened years ago. I was part of a team helping Gavin Newsom (today the Mayor of San Francisco) assemble the wines he would sell in his first PlumpJack wine store. Gavin wanted to be able to assure buyers that every bottle in the store was hand-picked by his team of tasters. Lo and behold, opening day comes, and 2 or 3 days later I stopped by the store and asked Gavin (who was working the register) how it was going. He frowned. “A guy came in,” Gavin said, “and said he wanted a mixed case of wines. He didn’t care what they were, as long as every one of them scored 90 or above on Parker.” Gavin, who has a temper, added, “I wanted to throw the guy out on his butt, but I didn’t think that was a very good way of starting a business.”
August 5th, 2008 at 3:46:32 PM
Steve, first please allow me to thank you for the good wishes for The 89 Project. I simply wanted to clarify the purpose of the project, something that was misunderstood in your original post, perhaps due to your airport debacle.
August 5th, 2008 at 4:29:44 PM
As with many things in life, I believe the points system has its place but that it is a far over rated beast in both mainstream journalism and marketing.
In a wine show, where a flight of wines will be tasted by a panel of judges, the 100 point system makes (almost) perfect sense. With many many wines on offer, distinction needs to be made between the 89 and 90 point wines, if only for the purposes of awarding medals. In this case, having a panel enables you to iron out some quirks of personal preference and renders the process as objective as possible.
It’s unfortunate that this system finds itself into mainstream media. I don’t believe it’s helpful to have (for example) four wines reviewed by one person and score them in this way. An 89-pointer may end up being the ‘worst’ of the wines and may well have scored 89 rather than 90 for reasons that cannot be explained fully due to word limits.
In terms of marketing, the 90+ point wines will be promoted more heavily because the marketeers know the public will buy them and will pay a premium for them. In turn, this conditions the public to buy wines that have received 90+ points: after all, they are the ones in the shiny displays, on tasting, or with attractive looking reviews stuck next to them. They will just stand out more. And no matter how good your wine is, no matter how good value it is, if no one knows it’s in the shop - no one will buy it.
Much traditional print media I have come across has used the 5-star system. Certainly, the Guardian news paper here in the UK does this. But in addition to the star alone, the column includes a long piece, a brief description of each wine, and a three or four words (literally) about what to drink it with. Another newspaper, the Independent, offers three wines at different price points and incorporates further wines in its opinion piece - no scores offered at all. I quite like both of these approaches, and they both avoid the fine tuned 90/89 point distinction.
My understanding of the 89 Project is that, amongst other things, it aims to question the consumer’s reliance on the points system. It is NOT positing a replacement - it’s more a case of, OK, let’s look at wines that have scored 89 points and see what we think. That’s very similar to saying “let’s only buy wines at x pricepoint/made from y grape and see what we think”.
At the end of the day, what’s most important to most consumers, and certainly domestic wine lovers, is that they enjoy wines that they feel they’ve paid a fair price for. I, for one, do not think that a 100 points system is the best way to communicate with those people.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:05:34 PM
The issue with the 100pt system is that it is the score that sells and not the review behind it.
A 97 pt wine that smells wonderfully of tuna and gardenias and tastes of pureed funyuns w/ a focused blowtorch finish may not be everyone’s cup of tea.
A lot of retailers are rapidly filling their shelves w/scores, but leaving the review far behind. Resto wine lists are starting to follow suit. That’s totally silly- but it sells.
Crack sells too.
August 6th, 2008 at 8:12:29 AM
The 89 Project is a nice idea, but part of the whole numbers problem is that any wine that has received an 89 somewhere has probably also been rated 90 somewhere else, and 85, and 92….
Two facts here point again to the inescably flawed nature of the 100-point scale: give the same wine to five critics, you may well wind up with five different ratings
give the same wine to the SAME critic at different times in different flights, again you may wind up with different numbers.
THat is statistical unreliability no matter how you cut it.
August 6th, 2008 at 7:20:58 PM
“but if I attached your warning — which is 158 words in length — to “each and every rating” there would be no pages left in Wine Enthusiast for anything else! ”
OK, maybe I was over-emphatic.
Perhaps there is some happy middle ground that can be found, between stating these ‘warnings’ all the time and doing almost nothing at all. Personally, I doubt it’s gonna happen. The critics earn their bread and butter from the publishing of point scores. How hard are they gonna try and get people to go beyond that?
“The point I disagree with the most is your #1, alluding to the futility of quantifying tasting. Quantifying is simply a way of noting preference. When you bought your last car or last necktie, you picked the one you liked the best, and you paid a certain price for it. That’s all that a score means: a relative ranking of preference.”
Sorry, but this is patently untrue.
“Better” is stating a preference. “A more than B” is stating a preference. But “91″ is not.
And the implications of these differences are huge.