It's The Score, Stupid...NOT The WTN...(long/puzzled)

MrParker and other noted wine critics (like Laube & Tanzer) always insist the wine score means nothing w/o reading the accompaning TN.

Has the Wine Advocate policy changed? Seems so by the list of scores only on pages 78, 79 and 80 of WA176. Disappointing from this end of the earth, especially with the WA's first ever extensive review of NZ wines. It seems you are indeed right when you say "It's The Score, Stupid...NOT The WTN...". I too am puzzled

Yup....that's something I noted too in the last WA issue. This big/long list of scores seems to imply a change of emphasis.
But Parker (and is minions) have always insisted, both on eBob and in print in the WA, that the scores are to be used only
in conjunction w/ the TN.
Tom

Mmmm, so where do you get the TN's from in this case? It doesn't advise in the WA whether they will be published at a later date..

Mmmm, so where do you get the TN's from in this case? It doesn't advise in the WA whether they will be published at a later date..

Maybe it's just the new paradigm at WA. Maybe you have to pay xtra and subscribe to all the online stuff?? Don't have a clue as
to what's going on.
Tom

You don't rate a corked wine, You just say it is corked. You get a replacement bottle. If it is corked in the first but not in the second, you rate the second.
If a second bottle is corked -and even a third, the winery has a serious problem and should switch to Diams or screwcaps.
If it's a DNPIM, then a second bottle should be checked to see if that is also that DNPIM bad. If it is, the winery has a serious problem and needs to either do some serious cleaning up in the winery and/or get a new winemaker and the wine gets a shocking score.

So...the corked wine was just an example. Sopposing it's so badly brett-infected, or such screamingly-high VA that you can't bring to put
the stuff in your mouth. Does it get a 0...or a 10 for a pretty label...or a 40 for a deep/dark color??
I think that scores below the 50 mark are sorta irrelevant...none of those wines you're going to want to try.
Tom

You don't rate a corked wine, You just say it is corked. You get a replacement bottle. If it is corked in the first but not in the second, you rate the second.
If a second bottle is corked -and even a third, the winery has a serious problem and should switch to Diams or screwcaps.
If it's a DNPIM, then a second bottle should be checked to see if that is also that DNPIM bad. If it is, the winery has a serious problem and needs to either do some serious cleaning up in the winery and/or get a new winemaker and the wine gets a shocking score.

So...the corked wine was just an example. Sopposing it's so badly brett-infected, or such screamingly-high VA that you can't bring to put
the stuff in your mouth. Does it get a 0...or a 10 for a pretty label...or a 40 for a deep/dark color??
I think that scores below the 50 mark are sorta irrelevant...none of those wines you're going to want to try.
Tom

That is why the tasting note, in this case simply 'DNPIM because it is so badly brett-infected' or 'DNPIM because it has such screamingly high VA' is more important than the totally irrevelant numerical score. You could add, 'Would look pretty on the mantle piece' if it does have a pretty label.

Mmmm, so where do you get the TN's from in this case? It doesn't advise in the WA whether they will be published at a later date..

Maybe it's just the new paradigm at WA. Maybe you have to pay xtra and subscribe to all the online stuff?? Don't have a clue as
to what's going on.
Tom

Well, that would seem a bit unfair especially when you pay for the print version and also pay extra to get it airfreighted halfway across the world. I would hate to think a policy is going to evolve in that you have to pay more to read what is missing (in this case the tasting notes), by an additional subscription to a website.
PS - did you get a duplication of page 80 and no page 82?

PS - did you get a duplication of page 80 and no page 82?

Yup....got the same mistake in the copy I read (I don't subscribe...read a friend's). So I only gave the latest
WA an 83 for that glaring error!!!
Tom

Mmmm, so where do you get the TN's from in this case? It doesn't advise in the WA whether they will be published at a later date..

Maybe it's just the new paradigm at WA. Maybe you have to pay xtra and subscribe to all the online stuff?? Don't have a clue as
to what's going on.
Tom

Well, that would seem a bit unfair especially when you pay for the print version and also pay extra to get it airfreighted halfway across the world. I would hate to think a policy is going to evolve in that you have to pay more to read what is missing (in this case the tasting notes), by an additional subscription to a website.
PS - did you get a duplication of page 80 and no page 82?

I have to ask but isn't that already what Wine Speck did? I only pick up the Spec when I am in an Airport and need something to read on the plane but have noticed many times that they just publish a table of scores and it says for tasting notes one needs to go to the web site. I have never checked out the web site and just assumed (yes, I know) that the tasting notes were not open to the public on the Web Site otherwise why subscribe to the Mag if I can get the notes for free on-line?

As far I know, Parker invented the 100 system

I don't believe he did, but can't recall who did (French and many decades before, I recall reading, but that's about all that registered with me). However it would be very fair to say that he has popularised it, even made it the new 'standard'.

As far I know, Parker invented the 100 system

I don't believe he did, but can't recall who did (French and many decades before, I recall reading, but that's about all that registered with me). However it would be very fair to say that he has popularised it, even made it the new 'standard'.

Parker did make the 100 system his own and that has led to its popularity, but he did not invent it. Dan Murphy (Australian wine judge and retailer) in his "A Guide to Wine Tasting" (Sun Books, Melbourne, 1977) stated that he had been using a 100 point system for 25 years (i.e begun early 1950's - Parker probably had not even tasted wine at that time). Its not clear if Murphy invented the 100 point scoring system because he wrote in his book “Many judges in various countries think that a scale of 100 has its value, since a judge may include far more individual facets of the wines and allot points (or subtract them) accordingly. This may help his accuracy and consistency.”

But then the Parker 100 point system is really only a 50 point system (i.e. a wine gets 50 points just for being fluid in a bottle), and as a useable scale it really only uses 15 points because in the current format recommended wines (those written up online or in print) range bewteen 85-100.

Mike

Thanks for the corrections, gentlemen ...... perhaps "Parker formulated (and thus popularised) his own brand of the 100 point scoring system".

Given the variety of influences on tasting assessment (e.g. environment, mood, experience, temperature, prediction of development, etc) I actually think that the degree of agreement is quite amazing. If you are using other people's TNs as a quality assessment of the wine in question then there's definitely value to be gained from the text, particularly when you understand how the author's taste relates to your own. I think any reading of someone else's TN should always be read with reference to both our own preferences and that of the taster's (in as far as is possible).

I think the value of a numerical score is when we compare scores given by the same author that compare wines of the same styles/appellations/same-producer-but-different-vintages, since a 93 over a 90 then has more meaning. Parker seems to have one of the more consistent palates among the critics, but I agree that even then the consistency of his accuracy probably has a resolution of +/- few points (BTW, if you want to be analytical and pedantic about it, then statistically analysing Parker's scores would probably give more insight on features like this than anything else available. For example, his scores exhibit significant compression in the 85-92 range, so a wine scoring <85 or >92 has significantly more "meaning" in terms of it's score (the wine being damned or exhalted) than wines scoring within the 85-92 range).

Surely the best use of scores involves underpinning the score information with our own interpretations, using what we know about the author's tastes, the methodology of the scoring, etc to better inform us about what that score really means. If we don't do that then aren't we reduced to "score whores"? As David pointed out, different people have different approaches. Doesn't that just make the world a richer place? These days, when I use others' TNs and scores to inform my buying decisions, I always try and use multiple sources. I think my buying decisions are all the better for it.