Vintage Assessments Home Page

Recent Articles

Archive of National Post Articles

Get all the evaluations for the April Release
Subscribe to Vintage Assessments today by Clicking Here
This not-for-profit website is dedicated to the discerning reader!
Points of Contention
What do those numeric wine ratings really mean?

Numbers make the world go round, from the stock market and tax returns to school grades. It is exactly the same logic that has made the numeric scoring wines so acceptable - a simple system of shorthand that tells us how good a wine is.

Or does it? Nowadays, it seems that almost everyone uses numbers to score wines. After all, if professionals can use these numbers for scoring wines at competitions why can’t anyone? In fact, the real problem is that in many cases the numbers do not add up. They can vary immensely from critic to critic and, worse yet, few use them in a consistent manner.

There has always been a numeric scoring system. Originally, the most popular was the University of California Davis 20-point scale, which was developed for winemakers. It was Robert Parker Jr. who set the 100-point system into motion more than two decades ago. Today, most North American writers use some variation of the 100-point system, while many respected English critics still use a star rating system (from 3 to 5 stars).

As Parker is extensively quoted by the LCBO, one should know that he uses a 40-point system with 10 points thrown on top to take account of the ability to age. In other words, the very worst of wines will not get less than 50 points. I may not always agree with Parker scores, but he does offer consistency, something, which may well be more important than being right or wrong.

His system discriminates against certain grape varieties – i.e. the best Gamay Beaujolais in the world will never get more than 90 Parker points! Surely, wines should be judged for that they are. At dog shows, for instance, we don't judge a Dachshund against a Doberman; we judge a Doxie against what is expected for that breed. Ditto for different grapes.

Looking at the Wine Spectator Magazine (WS), which also uses a 50-point scale (starting at 50 and going to 100 points), you are hard pressed to find many “average” wines (i.e. below 80 points). It’s amazing that “average” is defined by WS as “a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws” and are scored from 70 to 79 points. Surely it’s time to face the fact that most of today’s average wines do not have minor flaws. This misguided scoring that puts many ordinary wines into the “good” (80-84 points) class: “a solid well-made wine.” In the words of one wine distributor, “it’s a shill - almost everything falls within 15 points!”

Uneven and/or unreliable grading is another complaint. Obviously different reviewers will have divergent abilities, as well as likes and dislikes. Consequently numbers from different reviewers are often incomparable. In addition, numbers depersonalize the wine. A wine that scores 89 must be better than something that scores 88. And yet only the tasting note will actually reveal which is more suitable to your own personal palate.

Closer to home, although tempted by four stars, I have used three stars to rate Vintage releases for over the past 15 years. After all, if three stars are good enough for Guide Michelin, they are good enough for me. Of course there has been some refinement. My system starts with two negative signs meaning “poor.” It then goes from below average (one negative) to average (one star) and finally up to three stars, which means outstanding – the best.

For many, stars make it easier to differentiate the wheat from the chaff – the good from the bad. As a contributor to various publications and judge at numerous international competitions, I also use the“100-point system.” To show you how things work, I have created a simple graph linking my three stars to the 100-points used at both Wine Access Magazine and in the Canadian Wine Awards. It shows that a mere eight points can separate a non-award-receiving wine (i.e. “slightly above average” with 84 points) from a gold medal winner (i.e. 91 points). Few are aware of the importance of each point in this narrow band.

Now you can see exactly what separates a Gold award (91 and more) from a Silver medal winner (88 to 90 points) and a Bronze (85 to 87 points). When scoring a wine 88 points, for instance, I ask myself: “is this wine actually deserving of a Silver (88) or just a high Bronze (87)?”

Of course, scoring systems say nothing about value or how a wine goes with food. Smoky BBQ ribs, for instance, may make that Bronze medal Zin taste better than a gold medal Bordeaux – an inappropriate food match can kill a great wine. Also, the shape of the wine glass will make a key impression on how the wine tastes. Added factors to consider when trying to coax every potential point out of that wine.  

LCBO Vintages Sale Update: The detailed list of more than 500 new Vintages markdowns (effective on Monday, March 15th) along with my scores complete with winefind.ca links is posted on my web site for National Post readers (use npreader for the user name and password). To see:  click here

2001-2002-2003-2004 Tasting Note Database

Our tasting note database from December 31, 2000 to March 2004, covers every Vintages release product for the past 39 months. There are more than 6,000 notes in the database data. Just enter the name of the product, supplier name or CSPC number. Or you can search by type of wine, country of origin, even wine agent! Nothing could be easier. Also you can get information on the agent by clicking on the agent’s name, as well as current LCBO store inventory by clicking on "Check LCBO Availability", which will automatically tell you the number of bottles at LCBO as of last night.

To use our winefind.ca Tasting Notes Database: click here

Subscribe to Vintage Assessments Today • Click Here