Reblog from Wordpress: Liberating Numbers? Wine Scores

A number of months back, during some our prolonged Empty down time, I catching up reading Andrew Jefford's weekly column for Decanter and my gears got grinding again on an old personal bugbear and moral quagmire; wine scores. While they are unfortunately the Lingua Franca at the wine court these days. I am unmistakably hostile towards them and, unsurprisingly, it follows that I have some issues.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 

@Rob_Gilmour has been writing for Empty for too long to mention, he is currently working in wine in Edinburgh where he runs @Wine_Edinburgh and somehow has found time to be Vice-President of the @IWSScotland. Being a balanced, multifaceted individual Rob's only interest in not wine, he is also interested in wine education as well having passed with distinction his WSET L3. If you'd like to contact him email: emptyglassie@gmail.com 

There are several core premises to the 100pt scale.

It is meant to be easily understandable and rapidly conveyable. Lingua Franca, must by its nature be learned and measured, however, this context is overlooked, and of course why not? Everyone's an expert, right?

The 100pt scale serves as an easy guide to explaining each wine it is applied to. That is the premise. Where I to say to a novice that a certain hypothetical wine was a 50pt wine they may deduce that the wine was anywhere from "okay" to "not great". However this would actually mean that the wine was invisible, had no scent or aroma, had no flavour, finish or potential. Thus a 50pt wine is in fact, an empty glass. Furthermore, you would assume, no wine is better than a corked wine. However, an objective taster would have to admit, that corked wine has an colour. To quote Parker on matter "Since most wines today are well made, thanks to modern technology and the increased use of professional oenologists, they tend to receive at least 4, often 5 points." So, here we are off and already we've clocked 54 points potentially. Lets see where this takes us. Aroma, it has one. It is unrepentantly awful, yet, failing to have "no aroma" that's another point. 55pts now folks. Palate, Parker provides five categories for this, I will let you go into them yourself. Given that these are all unfortunately present in our corked wine, we have another five pts. 60pts for TCA and friends so far. Now, last category, potential for improvement and ageing. Potentially this wine can become vinegar, I would wager, that vinegar is a huge improvement on a corked wine. 5 points for improvement! Now, not knowing how exactly vinegar ages I am going to be modest, lets say that this will be another 1pt. So, where does that leave us? A grand total of 66pts for our faulty wine. 66 is 2/3rds of the way to 100. If anyone has been to an amateur tasting, you will no doubt have been asked to rate out of ten and six generally means that it was okay and not your cup of tea. In fact, rate anything out of ten, 6 and close to 7 are pretty good. I rest my first beef; There is clearly layer upon layer of nonsense to this rating system present only to add a semblance of rigour to a loopy system. A corked wine is corked, and it is manky, even amateurs can gather that.

Beef number two. The complete farcical suggestion that it is meant to give a more objective quantifier of wine. Therefore, importantly, it is aimed at demystifying wine and pulling the curtains down upon the romantics, freeing wine up to the markets and masses.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Like what you've read? Have a wee gander at another post: Smoke & Substance

However, our friends at the Spectator have helped create a culture of sky rocketing fame for Critics, a wine market boom (which looks set to burst, thankfully), the seeming removal of the written word and an ever encroaching shadow of individual interpretation and the dogma of the 100pt scale, where everyone implements their own interpretation and conveniently forgets to divulge their methodology, even of they had, the power of suggestion in the name of the 100pt scale will allow the wines scores to be compared to Parker Points.

Critics and their scores have created a boom, wines that were once somewhat attainable dreams for the ordinary are now so farcically priced they are removed from the realm of reality, never mind the realm of ordinary people.

Critics as a singular cannot be objective. A wine may be investigated objectively, however, the conclusions will need an objective, unbiased discussion. An individual is by their very nature subjective and, as such, cannot grasp every single detail, some factors way heavily on certain people. For a truly objective consideration of wine, several tasters must, I would argue, taste the bottle, blind, discuss it's every facet with language, and conclude by consensus, not a score, but an intelligent comment about the wine.

Do not forget, mind you, a sizeable amount of points are rewarded for the prestige of a wine. Objectivity and the 100pt scale, cannot co-exist.

The two pillars of the 100pt scale, accessibility and objectivity, I argue are completely at odds with the objectives and effects the the same scale.

I conclude on this note. Seemingly there are two schools of thought for how we should communicate and educate our audience on wine.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 
Like what you've read? Have a wee gander at another post: Empty & Full; The Stop, Start nature of Empty

The more traditional of the two is "wine writing" in the great tradition of George Saintsbury, it has given birth to some of the most notable figures in wine, the story tellers of this great tradition. Hugh Johnson champion and great inheritor of this tradition, has so many times influenced my stance on this issue. Would we subject a great symphony to a numerical scale? Johnson, it would seem would argue no. Why I am inclined to agree hangs in why we would not. Music is art. To anyone who is has a genuine passion for wine, it is clear wine is most definitely an art form. It possesses a very real ability to alter states, and provoke one to thought.

The second is that of "doing wine". Wine as business, not passion. Where blundering inflating, profits and prestige trump the most human elements of wine. Wherein, numbers aid the transmission of "information". Wherein, that "information" serves a single god, consumerism.

Wine, to me, will never be about numbers and as some one in the trade, it has always been about passion. I argue, therefore, wine writers, amateur and professional should be unequivocal in shunning the 100pt system.