Should We Do Away With Objective Wine Ratings?

A little food for thought for today.

My good friend Ben Simons (of deserved fame for his blog Vinotology) wrote an article for Palate Press that was published this week titled “Wine Writing in the Time of Technology” wherein he pretty much lays down a case for abolishing objective wine ratings altogether.

As a rogue wine reviewer (yes, that’s how I fancy myself) who uses an essentially 13-point scale system to rate the wines I review, I’m a bit torn on this topic. I find the Robert Parker “100-point system” (really 31 potential scores from 70-100) too precise, and “5 stars” or similar systems too vague.

What do my readers think (if any care to chime in, of course)? Do you like that at the end of my reviews there is a “Verdict” with a letter grade? Do you not care about those at all? What about my grouping the reviews by grade over in the right-hand column, does anyone use that to look at wines that received certain grades?

As the crowd here grows, I find myself more and more interested in why. So, even if you’ve never commented here before, I’d love to hear your thoughts on the topic.

No related posts.

  • http://swirlsmellslurp.com/ Sacha

    “Objective Wine Ratings” = oxymoron? Further explanation, please. (objective: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations)

  • http://notesfromthecellar.com Steve Paulo

    OK, fair enough, I meant of course “objective-style”… as in actual ratings/grades/etc that infer an objective comparison between two wines. This is in contrast to using only subjective descriptors to “review” a wine.

  • norcalwingman

    Hey Steve, I like your rating system A+ – F, it gives the review reader something they can relate to, not to say one couldn't relate to a 100 point scale, but you're right. It adds ambiguity, what's the real difference between a 89 point rating and a 90?

    At the end of the day though, it really comes down to two choices. Will you drink this wine or will you pass on it. I'm probably never going to develop a “sommelier” set of taste buds, but I sure know what I think is good and what is flawed or just crappy tasting.

    Just my 2 cents on ratings.

  • WineDudeOnline

    Steve,
    I like the rating system. I feel that it gives me a way of comparing my palate to others when I try some of the same wines. However, I am not a huge fan of the RP 100 point system.

  • bensimons

    I definitely understand your point about the scale being used (100, 5, 13) affecting how useful the system is. I can agree that the way that you do it gives a good range. The same would apply for incorporating half points into a 5 point system (which I've considered doing on my own blog). My question has to do with whether scores have any real meaning at all, regardless of the scale. As I said in my comment on the Palate Press post, I realize that this is pretty much me tilting at windmills. It's the same as arguing whether television has damaged the quality of public discourse. Of course it has, but nobody cares. I still watch tv, and I still use and look for wine scores. Wine scores are an efficient means of evaluating wines. It boils everything down into a quick and easy to digest number, but what does that number really mean?

    I will say that this kind of post is exactly why I wanted to write the piece to begin with. I haven't made up my mind about the whole scoring thing, and it's great to get to have a good conversation with the community about the topic. Thanks for all of your thoughts, both here and on the Palate Press site. I always know that I can count on you to provide some insightful comments on any topic, and this one is no exception.

  • http://www.winemakernotesblog.com/ John Kelly

    The question was asked “what's the difference between a wine scoring an 89 and one scoring a 90?” The answer is “whether the winery will sell out the vintage or not” depending on the clout of the reviewer. Anything under a 90 is the kiss of death for some wines, while lately for California Syrah in particular, even 96-100 point rankings won't do much to generate sales. Cynical, much? Yep.
    Steve, I wish more reviewers were up front about the subjectivity of their process. I find value in any particular reviewers assigning an “objective” ranking to wines when that reviewer demonstrates the ability to remain consistent. Your “A+” needs to be an “A+” every time, for reasons you can communicate clearly (and transparently) to your readers.

  • http://notesfromthecellar.com Steve Paulo

    Of course, I've yet to give an A+ :)

    But I feel that my grades are consistent. Would I like to go back and alter some of them? I would. I'm learning, after all. But changing them feels somehow disingenuous.

  • http://blog.wine-accessorized.com/ Joshua S. Sweeney

    As I said over at Ben's post, ratings combined with a review to me are an ideal system. I'm a fan of the 1-10 system (or 0-10, though I've never had a wine that bad… even boxed wine!), but I like your rating system just as well. You personally give a wine a C, and even without reading a description I'll know basically what the deal with that wine is… decent but flawed. Ratings are good because they assign easy snap-to associated impressions to things. If I remember only one thing about a wine when I'm considering buying it, it'll be the rating.

    Though, I'll be honest, the 100 point system is tired out for me as far as shopping is concerned. I barely pay attention to it anymore when I'm buying wine. All it means to me when I see a 100 point rating posted in a wine shop is someone I've never met who would probably judge me for even attempting to drink wine got sent a sample of it and scribbled about it to a group of yes-men, who then transferred it to the people who will be taking my money. Without reading the review, I won't be able to make an informed opinion.

    Whether or not I know the person reviewing is critical too. If I got to know Robert Parker and he turned out to be a stand-up guy, I'd probably be more trusting of anything he reviewed. Human nature, I guess. I suppose I'm still influenced by the perceived stigma of pretentiousness in wine reviewing. Am I too young to be cynical about the very thing I'm emulating? :)

  • http://www.thevinofile.net/ Scott

    I actually think that the nuance and debate around which scoring system is used is really only of interest to those of us who do review wines (poorly in my case, but still…) Like most things I say, I don't have much to back this up besides my own observation: but I perceive that the majority of wine consumers do not have the interest or resources to taste nearly as many wines as most wine critics (professional or 'citizen') They therefore seek information and opinion, and not just to get a list of taste descriptors (although that is nice to know). They ultimately want to know if someone who has some knowledge thinks the wine is good or not. Inevitably an objective scale gives them an easy way to sort through the thousands of options that are available to them, making them more confident when parting with their money. Wine scores are here to stay, and it doesn't really matter which scale is used. I think the proliferation of their use in print, shelf talkers, and even in wine blogs proves it.

  • http://weeklywinejournal.com/ @wklywinejournal

    Is this somewhat like trying to get rid of letter grades in school? I say, yea stick with something tangible like 8 out of 10 or A minus, or 93 points. I have found that being specific seems to enhance the hedonistic value of a product

  • http://www.CocktailHour.TV/ David

    Yeah I agree about the 100 point system, how many wines are ever rated in the 1-60 range anyway? “Yeah man that cab was a rocking 27!”

  • http://www.CocktailHour.TV/ David

    Yeah I agree about the 100 point system, how many wines are ever rated in the 1-60 range anyway? “Yeah man that cab was a rocking 27!”