Extreme Variation in Evaluation?

Bottom line: numeric scores are bullshit. Nothing more needs to be said.

Paul, Hello.....

Indeed as was said above, I seem to be at my curmudgeonly best on this thread. Let me thus ask, when scores vary so widely so do the descriptive tasting notes. Should we conclude from that that tasting notes, like scores, are worthless?

Daniel,

Guilty as charged of overstating my case. You were right to call me out.

Let me try again.

A numeric score lets a critic express how much she or he did or did not enjoy the particular wine.

The tasting notes allow the critic to express the reasons why he or she did or did not enjoy the wine. The reader can analyze these reasons, compare and contrast them with his or her own criteria for evaluating wine, and then draw his or her own conclusions regarding how well the critic's evaluation matches what the reader likely would have thought about the same wine, had he or she been there to experience it. It's a lot harder to do that when all you have to work with is a number rather than a prose description.

-Paul W.

Paul, Hi....


We are now in full agreement. Might I take the liberty of adding one (rather long) phrase however....that to the effect that when the critic does state why he/she likes or dislikes a given wine that evaluation is based on a set of standards, those standards being known to the reader after becoming familiar with the writings and proclamations of that critic.

Best
Rogov

But the one thing Bob is, is reliable. Even if you don't agree with his assessments, you should, with a bit of experience, be able to adjust your own expectations in one direction or the other. I'd note that this is getting harder to do as he farms out certain areas to other tasters.

The other problem is when they do get a bad bottle. There was one Bordeaux that Parker vastly under rated, and that was therefor readily available for years at give-away prices - until a friend of mine that knows RP emailed him and told him that he should revisit the wine as it was much better than the review indicated. The revisitation resulted in a revised score and a predictably elevated sale price.

I subscribed to the WA for years. Once I understood where he was coming from I knew what I would think about a wine he graded,what we had in common and what we didn't. I don't see how anyone could buy/rate a wine based on an opinion from taster with whom they were not familiar. In other words, what you said.

And your friend is a rat fink.

I think Daniel (and others) has hit the nail on the head. Basically I view the scores only as a means of determining the possible rating of a wine’s quality and nothing more. Provided that the magazine or wine critic’s web-site gives me a summary of his/her scoring guide lines. By viewing the written description of a given wine with a score all I look for is if the “written words” jive with the score. I’m not really concerned whether or not the critic liked the wine or not. A written tasting note without a score or the terms- extraordinary, excellent, very good, good, average wine (good everyday wine), slightly flawed but drinkable wine, poor (objectionable, undrinkable wine) tells me what the taster experience when drinking a particular wine and whether or not he/she liked it or not but from a possible quality rating it tells me nothing.

Salute