90 points, what's the point

Though to some extent I agree with Robin, if we see a point rating at a merchant, we at least have a starting point. Perhaps Yummy or Jammy would also give the novice a clue, but it too is someones rating. Walking into a store with 4000 or more wines on the shelf (we have two or more such stores here in Rancho Cucamonga, CA) can be overwhelming. As one gains their own knowledge of their own tastes they will find it easier to manuver around the ocean of wines. I can remember when "grassy" was a negitive for sauvignon blanc, but I came to love the style and tend to prefer NZ to dear old Napa. So maybe the point is to give us a start until we learn to navigate and point ourselves in the right direction.
Lee

A numeric score by itself, without knowing who rated it and what their wine preferences are, is totally meaningless, IMO.

-Paul W.

OK so I am ITB here in Oregon. Consumers love reading those shelf talkers. I just try and make sure that the vintages are correct. I then have customers ask me if I agree with the particular ratings. Sometime I do but I tend to be on the conservative side. I also will say if I have tasted the specific wine. I also say that certain critics tend to give higher points than I would. But I talk about specific wines.

Funny you should bring up shelf-talkers Michael. I was helping out at my fave store downtown and this subject came up with a customer. I never realised that most quality wine stores in Edmonton do not tolerate them. We are not representative of Alberta but I wonder about some of the other high populated areas here in the province?

Another bizarre coincidence? WS reviewed Baracchi 2007 "Smeriglio" Cortona Sangiovese at 90 points (and some others by the same winery as high as 95). Seems like WS and Robin are not always diametrically opposed to what they like.

Regarding the 100 point system, we can question what the heck's the difference between a 89 and a 90 (or a 91 for that matter), but I think the numbers, along with the descriptions, provide a more accurate picture than just the words. Of course, it's just one person's opinion, but so is the opinion of those that do not use a numeric (or for that matter any other) rating system. You still have to be in synch with the reviewer's palette. Saying something smells of violets, tar, etc., is nice, but is it a fantastic wine that smells of violets and tar, or just an OK one? Using numbers, or stars, or cups, or whatever, gives you a relative positioning of the quality beyond the mere words.

I am constantly surprised by how put off some are by these systems to rate. I certainly don't live or die by them, but I value them as another piece of information in my arsenal of tools when deciding what to buy.

Paul
I'm not a fan of points (in the way they are used/abused) but I guess we're not that far apart. Points (or verbal ratings: Good, excellent, poor, etc.) often give a useful overall picture of a TN that may pick on positives, negatives or mainly just different features. If points were generally used as an adjunct to the TN, then I'd have *no qualms whatsoever. Like a stickler of a college prof. I'm more interested in the student's workings than the answer.

For me the issues come when the points are the be all and end all of the decision. E.g. "I must get some of that - it's a 98 point wine for $30!", or "Life's too short to drink sub 90 point wines".

I love the lack of focus on points (specifically WS and WA points) here. Yet even Parker got fed up and railed against the (in his words) 'points whores'. For any fans of 'Little Britain', I'd offer the following phrase to those who swear by the 'accuracy' of scoring by any specific critic... "Bitty!"

As for retailers, they have wine to sell and shelf-talkers sell wine. There are enough critics around to ensure most wines can find a suitably enthusiastic shelf talker. However as Michael alludes to, a merchant who relies just on the shelf talkers will risk alienating the customers who come to resent the 'everyone's a winner' nature of shelf-talkers. Investigating the customer's palate preferences takes the relationship to another level, allowing the merchant to suggest wines that better align to the customer, but also encourage the customer to trust their own tastebuds rather than blindly relying on a critic whose tastes may be significantly different. Harder work, but rewarding IRO customer loyalty.

regards

Ian

* well except for some residual resentment at scales where a bottle of urine would score more than half marks

I was at one time a ardent defender of the validity of the points system. Scientists like things they can quantify. But I came to object to the degree of implied precision in the system (echoing Paul's comment about 89 vs. 91). However, it still remains the fact that there is something calibratable about it, because people can taste wines independently and come up with scores that are quite similar, usually to within 2 - 3 points, which is where I set the "resolution" of my own rating scale. So, there is some basis to it - whatever that basis may be. I think ratings in general are a very useful means, at least subjectively, of indicating how much a particular person liked a particular wine. For me, giving ratings of some kind is useful, especially in a database of TN's, because it tells me what I thought (on my own scale) of wines that I honestly may not remember tasting. So, in short, I think the points systems is useful, but one has to be aware of its limitations. I guess when it comes down to it, there are actually only two relevant questions for evaluating a wine: (1) did you like it or not, and (2) do you feel it was worth what you paid for it.

I guess when it comes down to it, there are actually only two relevant questions for evaluating a wine: (1) did you like it or not, and (2) do you feel it was worth what you paid for it.

Agreed, and when assessing critic's (or other's) ratings of a wine, it perhaps comes down to:
1) Did they like it (or not)?
2) Why did they like it (or not)?
3) Do I think I might like it (based on the detail of their note & score)?
4) Does the price appeal based on the above?

regards

Ian

An even better statement of my point Ian. Bravo.

Sometimes I wonder about the too-too human trait that leads us to return to arguments long-ago settled and to rehash them over and over ad infinitum and ad nausea.

As a person who awards scores to wines let me say first of all that I concur, in fact vehemently, with all that both Ryan and Ian have stated in the last three posts on this thread. As I have often said myself, scores are nothing more than two digits (sometimes but rarely three) at the end of a wine review and reading a score in and on its own is meaningless. Simply stated, because the score says nothing about the wine itself other than one critic's shorthand notation of how he/she perceives its overall quality to him. Scores on their own, no matter how high, say nothing whatever about whether you are going to like or dislike a wine.

Despite that, and taking great liberties with Mr. Shakespeare, I come more to praise scores rather than to bury them. I hasten to add that abusing scores is like abusing wine itself. As wine is a beverage to be enjoyed in moderation by civilized people in civilized company and often with good food, scores too must be used in moderation, must be taken in context and should never be taken in and of themselves as critiques or complete evaluations of wines.

In brief, I find three advantages to the awarding and then reading of numerical scores. First of all, if you trust the critics you are reading, the scores they award to wines can serve as initial guides or, if one prefers, hints about their overall impression of the wine in question. Second, and again on the condition that they come from a source one considers reliable, numerical scores also give an immediate basis for comparison - of that wine to others in its category and to the same wine of the same winery from earlier years. Finally, for the at least partly knowledgeable or more sophisticated reader, when later checking prices scores give valuable hints as to whether the wine in question is available at a reasonable value for one's money. As to objectivity, indeed scores are not fully objective. They are, however, objective within the limits of an individual critic.

One additional note – agreed in full that the difference between a score of 88 and 89 is relatively insignificant. The difference, however between a wine scoring 89 and one scoring 90 points is considerable, and that because the two wines fall into two quality categories – the first being excellent and highly recommended, the second being exceptional in every way.

My own system, quite similar to that of Robert Parker and The Wine Spectator, is quite easy to decode:Wines rated 96 - 100 are those I consider truly great and those that earn 90 – 95 are exceptional in every way. Wines with scores of 85 – 89 are excellent and highly recommended; those with scores between 80 – 84 are recommended; wines earning 70 – 79 are average but at least somewhat faulted; and those earning under 70 points are not recommended. Wines attaining scores of 60-69 are seriously faulted and not recommended under any circumstances and wines earning under 60 are undrinkable in my opinion. Under this system price is not considered, only the quality of the wine.

Best and Truly Hoping this Argument Goes to Bed for Another Year or Two now
Rogov

One additional note – agreed in full that the difference between a score of 88 and 89 is relatively insignificant. The difference, however between a wine scoring 89 and one scoring 90 points is considerable, and that because the two wines fall into two quality categories – the first being excellent and highly recommended, the second being exceptional in every way.

I remember thinking when I saw your appearance with Vaynerchuk, and you said something nearly identically, that my Excellent / Exceptional (89 - 91) rating must drive you nuts.

Best and Truly Hoping this Argument Goes to Bed for Another Year or Two now
Rogov

Rogov
If you ever need a 2nd career, there is a great opportunity for you in comedy We'll stop discussing it, when the points chasers get too tired More seriously, having a reasoned and respectful discussion (such as this), also makes it pleasant to resurrect and mull over. The lack of trenches & grenades is reassuring!

Sorry to raise this, but I'm somewhat scratching my head at the 89 vs 88 and 89 vs 90 comment - and I'm guessing it wasn't an ironic jest (I may be wrong). I've never heard this argument made before and if it isn't a joke, I see where the idea comes from, but would buy that argument better if you were scoring A, A-,B+ etc. I suspect your distinction would be lost on 99% of your readers who would assume a broadly linear scale.

Finally, picking up on the reasons for following a critic, I think the idea of trusting a critic is an interesting topic. Over time, I think we move to place trust (to a greater or lesser degree) in critics whose opinions seem to tally with our own on wines we taste and I'd also add that there is also a degree of liking/respecting the person themselves (or at least their image). If I find the critic comes across an arrogant and objectionable person, then I'm unlikely to care for their opinion. There aren't many of these (and you are definitely not one of them ).

However initially (and indeed potentially for a few years or more) people will place faith & trust in a critic because they are famous, respected, etc. or perhaps just prolific/ubiquitous/high profile. It's understandable and I guess most of us have done this at some time or other, be that a critic, or mentor or friend. My encouragement to people is to have the confidence to break out from believing implicitly in a critic, to form their own judgements. Chances are they'll still find interest in the critic they used to trust, but over time they'll learn where guidance is appropriate and times where it's not, or indeed learn to spot the warning signs where they may have a significantly different view from the critic, or just to learn to read the tasting note and use it to pick up on aspects that appeal (or don't). Also to learn to graze a number of sources for info and not to rely religiously on one.

regards

Ian

Agreed, and when assessing critic's (or other's) ratings of a wine, it perhaps comes down to:
1) Did they like it (or not)?
2) Why did they like it (or not)?
3) Do I think I might like it (based on the detail of their note & score)?
4) Does the price appeal based on the above?

How about this list?:
1) Were they paid to taste the wine, or given junkets/freebies/etc. by the maker?
2) Did they taste it with 100 other wines at a swish-and-spit or did they spend some time with the wine, maybe even try it with food?
3) Do they use all the points of their 100-point scale or really just a few?
4) Can they say exactly what distinguishes a 73-point wine from a 74-point wine?

Rogov,

Let me try to demonstrate to you the folly of ratings. See chart.

This is an Excel chart of data drawn from a famous critic's report on wine of a certain region and a certain year. I have put each of the 450+ wines along the X axis, the estimated cost per bottle on the Y axis, and sorted the entries by the rating. The first tranche is the 87-point wines, then the 88-pointers, the 89-pointers, and so on up to the very skinny tranche of the 93-point wines (and the last scribble is the 94-96 point wines whose prices take them off my snapshot).

Some conclusions leap off the page:
-- At the critical 89-90 juncture, the most expensive 89-point wine is $70 while the least expensive 90-point wine is $11. I can cross the magic threshold and save $59 at the same time.
-- For $2 more I can have a 91-point wine. Not a category change but a point is a point.
-- For this region for this year, you can get pretty much anything for less than $50, including a 94-point wine for less than $30.

We still don't know what we're drinking... style, RS, elevage, not even the grape or color.

What we have is a familiar data scale and a lot of values with false precision:
-- In fact, only 10 values are present in the chart. Labelling them eighty-this and ninety-that is deceptive.
-- No metric is offered that distinguishes the meaning of any value from its neighbors. Their customary ordering is simply allowed to prevail in the reader's mind. This is deceitful.
-- Vendors, of course, use the change in orthography (8x to 9x) to drive prices. As do big ego buyers. This is dumb but the way of the world.

I'm not against shorthand. I have two systems of them myself! But neither one grabs a subset of the integers and tries to borrow their mathematical properties.

Jeff, Hi...

Your questions and comments in bold and underlined. My responses in italics...


Were they paid to taste the wine, or given junkets/freebies/etc. by the maker?

That's why I said that one should "know" and trust those critics they follow. In a phrase, one has to decide to follow a critic and not a whore

Did they taste it with 100 other wines at a swish-and-spit or did they spend some time with the wine, maybe even try it with food?

Many professionals are as capable of tasting 100 wines at what you call a "swish-and-spit" session as they are in sitting down to taste a mere 10-12 wines. That, in part, are what professionalism and experience are all about.

Do they use all the points of their 100-point scale or really just a few?
As is known, the 100 point scale is actually a 50 point scale starting at 50. Much the same as grades in the USA. You've probably seen pupils and students get grades of 50 (a notable and remarkable failure) but I'll bet you a nickle thatyou've never seen a grade of 40. Fifty as a minimum says it all - an undrinkable wine. See my book...alas, quite a few 50's.

Can they say exactly what distinguishes a 73-point wine from a 74-point wine?

With the possible exception of words to the effect of "my palate at that particular moment with that particular wine", no. If critics would do that we would not live in New York, Paris, Bordeaux or Tel Aviv. We would have a special place set aside for us on Mount Olympus.

With regard to your comments about buying entirely on the basis of points we are agreed in full. A score says nothing about whether an individual (including the critic) will "enjoy" the wine. We are not as fully in agreement with regard to prices however, for there should be no relationship at all between the score awarded to a wine and its price. Anyone making that asumption is mistaken.

Best
Rogov

Did they taste it with 100 other wines at a swish-and-spit or did they spend some time with the wine, maybe even try it with food?

Many professionals are as capable of tasting 100 wines at what you call a "swish-and-spit" session as they are in sitting down to taste a mere 10-12 wines. That, in part, are what professionalism and experience are all about.

This is not the same as giving the wine time to breathe, seeing how well it works with other flavors, not fatiguing one's palate so that only the boldest/woodiest stand out, etc.

Do they use all the points of their 100-point scale or really just a few?

As is known, the 100 point scale is actually a 50 point scale starting at 50. Much the same as grades in the USA.

School grades are not relevant to the discussion; that is merely another aspect of why the "100 point scale" seems familiar.

Jeff,

As someone who spends a great deal of time examining data plots, allow me to make a few observations. While your plot does in fact demonstrate that the maximum price paid for wines of certain score is not well correlated with score, the minimum price paid for a given score is, i.e., the minimum price goes up quite clearly in your plot. Also, I expect that the median price paid for wines of a given score will correlate with score much more nicely. It is a well known fact that QPR goes down with increasing price. It might be less confusing to omit the x-axis labels, and simply put manual labels on each "tranche." Plotting score (Y) versus price (X) would contain all the information in your plot, but organized as to also demonstrate the global trend.

All of that aside, I'm with Rogov. Nobody ever said that price was supposed to correlate with score. A quality-scale rating should be given without regard to price. If you want to use a value for money scale, that's a different matter. But the greatest wines in the world will always do poorly on such a scale. Your assertion that the poor correlation of score with price invalidates the scoring system is based on premises that either aren't necessarily true, or have been explicitly declared not to be true, i.e., irrelevant to the methodology.

Nonetheless, thanks for posting this plot. It does demonstrate some interesting trends.

Best Wishes,
Ryan

It might be less confusing to omit the x-axis labels, and simply put manual labels on each "tranche." Plotting score (Y) versus price (X) would contain all the information in your plot, but organized as to also demonstrate the global trend.

The chart is rating vs price; I did not arrange the X axis labels nicely.

All of that aside, I'm with Rogov. Nobody ever said that price was supposed to correlate with score.

That sounds naive to me.

A quality-scale rating should be given without regard to price. If you want to use a value for money scale, that's a different matter. But the greatest wines in the world will always do poorly on such a scale.

Really? Why so?

Your assertion that the poor correlation of score with price invalidates the scoring system is based on premises that either aren't necessarily true, or have been explicitly declared not to be true, i.e., irrelevant to the methodology.

You misunderstand my point. I am not trying to defend this or that correlation. I am observing that the entirety of my post -- chart, tranches, min-max'ing, magic thresholds, the kit and kaboodle -- are all nonsense. Absolute garbage. To think in those ways comes directly from the use of an apparently mathematical scale, which, in other contexts, supports this kind of reasoning.

Jeff, Hi…

Intelligent discussion/debate is always welcome. In that spirit, I continue…

You write that tasting wines at a swish-and-spit

…is not the same as giving the wine time to breathe, seeing how well it works with other flavors, not fatiguing one's palate so that only the boldest/woodiest stand out, etc.

You actually raise four good points here – the time element, the food-wine element, palate fatigue, stand-out wines.

(a) With regard to the time element: Not at all a problem in our own tasting rooms when flights of wine can simply be moved to the back of the table with the idea of returning to them in 1, 2 or 3 hours in order to follow their development. Even at professional tastings (e.g. at Vinitaly, the Consortia di Brunello di Montalcino, at which I taste 100-150 wines in a day) arrangements can be made to set glasses aside in order to return to them, even if one chooses the next day (which I personally do not choose). That is precisely why professional tastings are vastly different than those held for the public, no matter how sophisticated (e.g. The Wine Spectator's Wine Experience). When I attend such events it is never to make full and formal tasting notes but just to gain impressions or impressions anew. I know of no critic who posts tasting notes based on a walk-about sip and spit.

(b) With re tasting wine with food: Another time honored debate, I being firmly on the side that wine should not be tasted with food. Nearly all wines will taste better with food (and most especially with cheese) and I am thus of the belief that the only things on a tasting table should be water and unsalted and sugarless crackers or bread. Food, in fact, will detract from one's ability to evaluate and analyze a wine. Agreed of course that wine is meant to be served with food and that is why there is a huge difference between the tasting of wines and its actual consumption, the first of which is hard work and the second entirely pleasurable.

A step further – the idea of serving food with wine offers an interesting conundrum. Let's say one is tasting 10 wines and knows only that these are Cabernet Sauvignon based wines from the 2005 vintage. Some of those will be medium-bodied, some full-bodied, some grippingly tannic, others softly so, some will show primarily tobacco, chocolate and herbs while others may be overtly fruity. Even if one knows the list of 10 wines in advance (and that would pretty much eliminate the possibility of blind tasting) one would have to match every wine with six-eight different dishes in order to know which match is "best". The mind, the digestive tract and that part of the body responsible for elimination rebel just in the thought.

(c) With re palate fatigue: Yet another long term debate. Simply stated, there are those who can taste 6-8 wines before palate fatigue and there are those who can taste 20-30, 50-100, or even more than 100 without experiencing such fatigue. There is even a quite simple manner in which to check one's palate on this – to double up wines in different flights separated by time (that is to say, the same wine in a glass with a different number so that the taster does not know he/she is being tested). If our tasting notes from the two tastings are similar and our scores close enough, no palate fatigue. If they are not – discard your tasting notes.

(d) As to the boldest wines standing out as a result of over-tasting, depends on the critic, n'est-ce-pas vrai? For some it may be the most gentle that stand out.

You wrote that

School grades are not relevant to the discussion; that is merely another aspect of why the "100 point scale" seems familiar.

On this one we disagree diametrically. The 100 point scale was devised precisely because it correlated with school grades in the United States. Simply stated it was felt that using that scale would be familiar and not at all threatening because of that earlier knowledge. On the other hand, the 20 point scale, which is largely European at its source, was devised because European schools use a grading system based on 20 and not 100 points.


Ryan wrote that "nobody ever said that price was supposed to correlate with score" and you responded that "that sounds naïve to me". Not at all naïve for when tasting blind the critic has no idea whether the wine in glass numbered 9Alpha cost US$18.00 or 280. Wines should be (oyez, in my opinion, must be) analyzed and evalued without any knowledge whatever of price.


In the vernacular Arabic when finishing one's argument, one calls out Yaala, in other words – and now its up to you.

Very best and enjoying the dialogue.

Rogov

Hi Rogov,

Where is the shrub? Oh! Always on the left...

(a) With regard to the time element: Not at all a problem in our own tasting rooms when flights of wine can simply be moved to the back of the table with the idea of returning to them in 1, 2 or 3 hours in order to follow their development. <snip> When I attend such events it is never to make full and formal tasting notes but just to gain impressions or impressions anew. I know of no critic who posts tasting notes based on a walk-about sip and spit.

I see two comments in there:
1. Your amelioration w/r/t the time element is to taste 300 or 450 wines instead of 150. Seems like a lot in a day. (An 8-hr work day has 480 minutes.)
2. If no one posts notes on a sip'n'spit, then the point is to make notes about which wines deserve closer attention. Yes? So, whether it is this (non-)note or the follow-up note, the prejudice is still baked in. Yes?

(b) With re tasting wine with food: <snip> Food, in fact, will detract from one's ability to evaluate and analyze a wine. <snip> [O]ne would have to match every wine with six-eight different dishes in order to know which match is "best".

"Food" does not need to be tweaked for each wine, nor does it need to be prejudicial (e.g., cheese, apples). I agree that the use of food will reduce the number of wines tasteable in one session. This may simply be an imperfection of the world, in my eyes, simply due to the economic necessity to provide many reviews in a short span of time.

(c) With re palate fatigue: <snip>

This is the same idea as the above, to taste the wines again. While double-checking is a good policy, the resulting data still seems thin to me.

(d) As to the boldest wines standing out as a result of over-tasting, depends on the critic, n'est-ce-pas vrai? For some it may be the most gentle that stand out.

This is related to the discussion about palate fatigue, but, in any case, I have never seen a review that choose the whispering wine from a room full of shouting wines.

School grades are not relevant to the discussion; that is merely another aspect of why the "100 point scale" seems familiar.

On this one we disagree diametrically.

Yes, we do!

Ryan wrote that "nobody ever said that price was supposed to correlate with score" and you responded that "that sounds naïve to me". Not at all naïve for when tasting blind the critic has no idea whether the wine in glass numbered 9Alpha cost US$18.00 or 280. Wines should be (oyez, in my opinion, must be) analyzed and evalued without any knowledge whatever of price.

Normative (and, dare I say, speculative?) statements aside, the law of supply and demand asserts that the price of B+ wine will rise higher than that of the B- wine because more people pursue the B+ wine than the B- wine. (Do we like how I'm getting away from points? )

On this one we disagree diametrically. The 100 point scale was devised precisely because it correlated with school grades in the United States. Simply stated it was felt that using that scale would be familiar and not at all threatening because of that earlier knowledge. On the other hand, the 20 point scale, which is largely European at its source, was devised because European schools use a grading system based on 20 and not 100 points.

No offence intended, but perhaps this defines the 100 point wine scale as a parochial American system...of little meaning to outsiders. I have certainly had no previous exposure to 100 point scales that start at 50, or indeed anywhere else since I heard of this via wine. In our exams we typically got a score out of 100, that was the % we got right.

regards

Ian

(d) As to the boldest wines standing out as a result of over-tasting, depends on the critic, n'est-ce-pas vrai? For some it may be the most gentle that stand out.

Yes indeed - no single brush is suitable to tar all

Jeff, Hi….

[quote[Your amelioration w/r/t the time element is to taste 300 or 450 wines instead of 150. Seems like a lot in a day. (An 8-hr work day has 480 minutes.) [/quote]

From time to time I thank the gods that I taste an average of "only" 30-35 wines daily. Tastings of 150 wines are thankfully the exception. And when doing tastings like that, one generally shows up at about 8 a.m. and finishes at about 8 p.m., staggers back to one's hotel, has a good but at least relatively light dinner and then stays up until the wee hours typing up or dictating those damned tasting notes.

If no one posts notes on a sip'n'spit, then the point is to make notes about which wines deserve closer attention. Yes? So, whether it is this (non-)note or the follow-up note, the prejudice is still baked in. Yes?

No…impressions, not biases or prejudices.

"Food" does not need to be tweaked for each wine, nor does it need to be prejudicial (e.g., cheese, apples). I agree that the use of food will reduce the number of wines tasteable in one session. This may simply be an imperfection of the world, in my eyes, simply due to the economic necessity to provide many reviews in a short span of time.

Ah…but the world is full of imperfections, that including the world and within that, the limitations of the critic

…I have never seen a review that choose the whispering wine from a room full of shouting wines.

Wines that "shout" too loudly are vulgar. Wines that whisper into your ear can be the ones that woo. Depends on what critics you are reading.

Between you and I:

You: School grades are not relevant to the discussion; that is merely another aspect of why the "100 point scale" seems familiar. …Me: On this one we disagree diametrically. … You: Yes, we do!

Fair enough.

With regard to comments on scores and pricing, you wrote:

Normative (and, dare I say, speculative?) statements aside, the law of supply and demand asserts that the price of B+ wine will rise higher than that of the B- wine because more people pursue the B+ wine than the B- wine.

Absolutely. Which is precisely the reason that Oscar Wilde declared that "…the only problem with the common man is that he is so bloody common" Or, perhaps more suited to Woody Allen, people who buy on the basis of scores alone are schmucks.

Best
Rogov

De nouveau:

Tastings of 150 wines are thankfully the exception. And when doing tastings like that, one generally shows up at about 8 a.m. and finishes at about 8 p.m., staggers back to one's hotel, has a good but at least relatively light dinner and then stays up until the wee hours typing up or dictating those damned tasting notes.

and

If no one posts notes on a sip'n'spit, then the point is to make notes about which wines deserve closer attention. Yes? So, whether it is this (non-)note or the follow-up note, the prejudice is still baked in. Yes?

No…impressions, not biases or prejudices.

I don't understand. First, you say that you do use 150-wine events for notes, but then you say you don't. And, then, you talk about impressions -- not notes -- but if you don't use those "impressions" to narrow down the field of 150 wines into something manageable (maybe, three days of 30 wines) then what was the point of writing down the impressions in the first place? And if you do use the "impressions", well, then, they are prejudicing your selection of wines-to-be-tasted-for-publishing, yes?

Or, perhaps more suited to Woody Allen, people who buy on the basis of scores alone are schmucks.

Agreed, but we must make our purchases in and around the market they make!