Jancis Robinson on Napa; 20 and 100 pt scoring system discussion

What I sought there was: can you explain further the "90% and "95%" and their interpretation?

Between the 80s and today, wine "geekdom" has represented a minority of the total wine consumption in the U.S. It has grown as a proportion of the total, but not by much--and for the purposes of that stat, the geeks buy the wines that exceed the shifting premium price point.

On thinking about it, I suspect that the retailer's 1982 reference was a back-handed slap at geeks who woke up after RP's declaration of that year's Bordeaux, the declaration that set him on his road to stardom.

The geeks' 5 to 10 % rise as a portion of the whole market may have statistically been less before 1982, but I had not seen statistics widely published in the years BG (Before Geekdom!).

Between the 80s and today, wine "geekdom" has represented a minority of the total wine consumption in the U.S. It has grown as a proportion of the total, but not by much--and for the purposes of that stat, the geeks buy the wines that exceed the shifting premium price point. ... The geeks' 5 to 10 % rise as a portion of the whole market

Thanks, those are useful stats. (Reasonably consistent with my perceptions of wine geekdom numbers.)

In case anyone's interested, a source I've consulted sometimes since ca. 1980 (it went onto the Internet, relatively early, but earlier you could write for the data; also journalists sometimes quoted it) is the Wine Institute, the California trade organization. Publishing worldwide and US wine data. Traditionally the Institute does not break it all down by wine type. Exceptions are annual summaries, for instance 2005, the Institute's arbitrary division of "everyday" California wines as $7 per bottle or less (65% of 2005 case sales), the remaining 35% being "Premium" wines. Also it offers little perspective on the pre-Prohibition industry, for instance Robinson's point in her Oxford companion that only in the 1990s did California wineries surpass their peak pre-Prohibition count.

The Institute is handy for data like US wine-consumption history and world wine consumption (now a PDF file). I noticed from such numbers many years ago some 1:12 ratio (now narrowed to something like 1:8 ) between per-capita US wine consumption and that in major wine-consuming cultures (which are concentrated in Mediterranean Europe, Eastern Europe, and parts of Latin America). Other sources show different aspects of this, e.g. US consumption is geographically very nonuniform. (The overall impression I received is that growth in per-capita numbers reflected new buyers of wine, rather than existing buyers buying a little more.)

On thinking about it, I suspect that the retailer's 1982 reference was a back-handed slap at geeks who woke up after RP's declaration of that year's Bordeaux...

Yes I know about that milestone, and how various observers view it. (However that was not the young merchant's context, as was clear in the longer conversation from which I excerpted that detail.)

I find that talking about wine in a subjective manner, which means that the discussion only has relevance to individual experience, is a complete waste of time because relating the experience to others can often be meaningless to them.

Mike

And you feel that if you tell me a numerical score you gave a particular bottle, that makes it all worthwhile? What possible meaning could the fact that you scored a wine, say, 90 points, have to me when I wasn't there, didn't share the bottle with you and have no idea of your preferences and how you score?

Hi Bill,

I can see that you are a wine drinker who believes that the experience is very personal, and really does not extend beyond the sharing of a bottle of wine. In that vein you may be interested to read some of Kent Bach’s writings on the subject.

Knowledge, Wine, and Taste: What good is knowledge (in enjoying wine)?

Why talk about wine?

Bach does make some interesting points, although I find the discussion rather limiting. But then my professional background means that I am much more analytical in my evaluation of wine; however that does not mean that I do not derive great pleasure from wine.

I agree with you that the description of a wine as a 90 pointer conveys very little information, although I would appreciate that the individual providing that score obviously liked the wine. Does that mean that my palate will appreciate the wine as much? We all know that (wine) tastes differ between individuals and it is becoming clear that many of those differences are due to anatomical/biochemical/genetic differences. The TAS2R38 gene and fungiform papilla density on the tongue may well explain differences in taste sensitivity between individuals. And the intensity and pleasantness of a given odor can differ dramatically between individuals. But do those differences mean that one individuals’ description (and scoring) of a wine has no relevance to another? IMHO, no. Those differences are essential to the complete description of a wine, and (I believe) contribute significantly to the diversity of wine. Imagine how boring wine would be if we all had the same perceptive ability to taste and smell? The argument for homogenization (or globalization) of wine would be a reality; rather than its current argument as the outcome of a single individual’s palate preferences. So I expect diversity of opinion on an individual wine, irrespective of whether we are drinking from the same bottle or not. But does this mean that I should consider all opinions equal?

Getting back to that 90 pinot wine, with very few exceptions (in my experience) scores don’t come without a descriptive tasting note. The significance of that description (for my palate) can have varying degrees of relevance; apart from the expected differences in smell and taste perception. If it’s a critic that I know has extensive experience with a particular wine style (say James Halliday and Aussie Shiraz), then I’m likely to consider the opinion worthy of consideration. But if its my mother-in-law (MIL), who has never met a wine she didn’t like, I’m going to nod politely and pour her another glass. But why should I dismiss my MIL’s opinion if I believe all opinions have relevance? Well, MIL’s opinion never varies much from “Hmmm, its (very) nice”, so while I would never dismiss it outright, the description has very little objective weight. In contrast Halliday’s opinion will have been derived from a much more objective set of criteria (not limited to sight, smell, taste, but also variety, style, region, price etc, etc.).

Now does this mean that I buy Aussie Shiraz based on the points that Halliday gives them? No, just because I believe that wine can be ranked (scored) does not mean that I buy wines based on the points they receive; I’m more objective than that!

So, while I understand if you dismiss my opinion on wine, I would hope that you do value the opinion of others; otherwise (I believe) we miss out on gaining a complete description of a wine.

Mike

Hi Bill, / I can see that you are a wine drinker who believes that the experience is very personal, and really does not extend beyond the sharing of a bottle of wine.

Whoa, Mike -- maybe you can see that; I can't. I read Bill S's comments to be specifically about numbers, not subjectivity vs objectivity. Wine writers often use objective description (in imperfect language) with or without numbers. If you've read US wine newsletters for the 30 years that you mention you've been absorbing wine information, you'll have noticed that critics got by completely without 100-point scales until one particular critic popularized that touch. My impression is of a pretty clear consensus, before then, that ultrafine numerical scales are hard to justify, precisely on objective grounds and because wine has so many facets; thus the pre-Parker publications, which I retain, employed coarse quality categories: excellent-fine-good-fair-poor. My further impression is that the numbers caught on specifically because some consumers took a liking, not the expert critical community. (Only around the middle 1990s did I start to hear consumers calling wines "XX-pointers" and they tended not to be longtime wine geeks. Many of us wine geeks who preceded Parker's popularity never found the numbers very useful.)

I rely heavily on objective description, though, from critics and in my own tasting notes. (Some objective details are easy: Ester smells like amyl acetate; VA; wood and its toast level; Brett; flaws like TCA or madeirization. Some are fairly easy -- anise, raspberry, sauerkraut, other flavor associations. Some are more subtle or harder to word.)

Isn’t it true that a “good judge” will evaluate a wine fairly and not necessarily like it? This is where the “numbers” become relevant; one can judge the wine’s “quality level” (true to; grape variety or varieties; and style and type). Then look at the written comment to see what the person evaluating the wine thought of it

Salute

Hi Bill, / I can see that you are a wine drinker who believes that the experience is very personal, and really does not extend beyond the sharing of a bottle of wine.

Whoa, Mike -- maybe you can see that; I can't. I read Bill S's comments to be specifically about numbers, not subjectivity vs objectivity. Wine writers often use objective description (in imperfect language) with or without numbers. If you've read US wine newsletters for the 30 years that you mention you've been absorbing wine information, you'll have noticed that critics got by completely without 100-point scales until one particular critic popularized that touch. My impression is of a pretty clear consensus, before then, that ultrafine numerical scales are hard to justify, precisely on objective grounds and because wine has so many facets; thus the pre-Parker publications, which I retain, employed coarse quality categories: excellent-fine-good-fair-poor. My further impression is that the numbers caught on specifically because some consumers took a liking, not the expert critical community. (Only around the middle 1990s did I start to hear consumers calling wines "XX-pointers" and they tended not to be longtime wine geeks. Many of us wine geeks who preceded Parker's popularity never found the numbers very useful.)

I rely heavily on objective description, though, from critics and in my own tasting notes. (Some objective details are easy: Ester smells like amyl acetate; VA; wood and its toast level; Brett; flaws like TCA or madeirization. Some are fairly easy -- anise, raspberry, sauerkraut, other flavor associations. Some are more subtle or harder to word.)

Max,

I am not trying to be overly critical of Bill S; which I think your note may be implying. Bill’s comment does suggest to me that if I (or anyone else) rate a wine as 90 points then he places no value on that judgment because he wasn’t with me when I tasted the wine, didn’t taste it with me and does not know my palate preferences. That implies a requirement for a very personal interaction, something which I am not sure has anything to do with the ability to assess a wine; although it may have a lot to do with enjoying a wine (which I rate as more subjective than objective).

The point I was trying to make is that the evidence for diversity in taste and smell between individuals obligates us (well at least me) to accept that every opinion has merit – be that a score of 90, a well written tasting note (or a subjective experience). However some opinions do carry more weight (at least to me) in the assessment of wine because of the objectivity that some individuals bring to the table. The enjoyment of wine does not necessarily require such objectivity.

Just to be clear, I’ve not read US wine newsletters for the 30 years that I’ve absorbing wine information. I was born in Australia. My early wine experiences/knowledge (mid-1970s) were reading people like Len Evans and Michael Broadbent, wine appreciation courses with the likes of academic (and later winemaker) Andrew Pirie among others, and (Aussie) wine mags like the defunct “Wine and Spirit Buying Guide”. So, yes I come from a different background, a different set of wine experiences. Oddly enough any interest I may have in American wine critics (especially Parker) has really only come about because of my wine blog - prior to that (and to this day) my American wine experience has relied heavily on interactions with others and especially selected wine retailers for whom I have great respect.

Mike

EDIT: How could I have forgotten. Much of my love of wine came from reading Walter James. Almost entirely unknown outside of Australia but one of the great wine writers.

Isn’t it true that a “good judge” will evaluate a wine fairly and not necessarily like it? This is where the “numbers” become relevant ...Then look at the written comment to see what the person evaluating the wine thought of it

First sentence is surely a good summary of objective criticism.

But (I seem to have trouble getting this across, just as my previous posting was not at all about Mike Pollard being critical of Bill S here) -- don't you see that someone can describe a wine's "quality level" without using a 100-point scale? US wine critics have always, for decades, judged wine "quality level" and expressed it clearly. What's different (and relatively recent) is doing so via a precise-looking two-digit number. The issue I'm talking about is 100-point vs. non-100-point quality rankings (not subjectivity vs. objectivity, not qualitative descriptions vs. quality rankings.)

I wonder sometimes if people I meet, who came to wine after the 100-point scheme surfaced in US, have bought in unconsciously to an assumption that two-digit numbers are somehow inseparable from reasonable objective quality gradings. Another point -- I don't wonder about it at all, because people have told me explicitly, surprisingly -- is that casual wine buyers now, quite intelligent people, sometimes have a misconception that the 100-point numbers they see in wine advertisements are some industry-standard measure: calibrated, repeatable, and uniform in meaning between critics. (They are surprised when I explain otherwise.)

Of course, Max, I am in general agreement with you, but I wonder if you can codify "quality" for me. I'm not sure what you mean by that word.

Of course, Max, I am in general agreement with you, but I wonder if you can codify "quality" for me. I'm not sure what you mean by that word.

Actually Thomas I borrowed that word from a previous poster, and I'm not that sure what it means either. But I used the word upthread too, Here, for what US newsletters before Parker's popularity, such as Olken and Singer, Finigan, Vintage, Underground Wineletter, and California Grapevine meant with their rough categories à la excellent-fine-good-fair-poor.

Whatever that was.

Surely this is part of the point. (Should there be less doubt about an ultrafine numerical "quality" scale, if there's already uncertainty what's meant by four or five rough quality grades?)

Max,

The more I have these conversations, the less I think of any rating system, whether numerical, verbal, or grunting.

I suppose it gets down to what one seeks and what one gets from wine, or what is it that makes people think that they own the answer to the largely unanswerable.

Yes, Thomas, we are in the same boat. My recent postings this thread were written only for the narrow context of two immediate predecessors (one I took as interpreting Spohn's rejection of numerical scores as rejection of all objective wine description, the other as suggesting numbers add something to the writing of a skilled wine assessment).

I don't "rate" wines nor do most wine geeks I know (nor pay attention to published numbers except -- repeating here -- to note their side effects, which are very real). Some of these geeks have considerably longer wine experience than Parker. I've been a "conscientious objector" to personal preference ranking in sit-down wine tastings since 1982 but went along with it after joining groups using it solely to sequence the wine discussion. I find the coarse gradings formerly standard in US wine newsletters (like similar ratings by restaurant guides, movie reviews, and the US Department of Agriculture) useful as summaries of the reviewer's opinion. In almost every sphere except (apparently) wine, these ratings are understood as subjective. Wine also has objective measures (alcohol content, pH, Brett presence, etc. etc.), which by definition do not depend on point of view.

I love Broadbent's system of five stars, but the problem with any of these systems is that they only really work on similar wines. If you are trying to compare a good Beaujolais villages with a cru classé claret it makes no sense to me to put them on the same scale.

I understand the difference between 19, 18, 17, 16, 15 and 14. I wish I understood the difference between 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91.

It just reflects the power of distinction for a trained nose versus an amateur's. I am sure that Parker can really judge a 1% difference, from his perspective, while some non professional person might not be able to detect a JND (just noticeable difference) below the 5% change threshold. Eskimos make distinctions between 200 different types of snowflakes, for example. I detect maybe three (a 200 point system versus 3).

I know I am not alone in finding the whole idea of rating quality in wine by numbers to be sterile and even unkind. Since I very much relate to wine, when you say that some wine is only worth 79 points, to me it is like saying some person is only worth a 79, like if he was much worse we might as well just kill him and get him out of our faces. Every wine has a personality, which is its primary reason to live, in my opinion, without being judged as good or bad. Of course, if a wine is spoiled, or corked, or cooked, or oxidized, it is a bit like a person with a personality disorder. Not so sympathetic about such a wine or person.

I love Broadbent's system of five stars, but the problem with any of these systems is that they only really work on similar wines. If you are trying to compare a good Beaujolais villages with a cru classé claret it makes no sense to me to put them on the same scale.

This subject is perennial online by the way. From a long 1988 discussion on the Internet wine newsgroup:

Date: 9 May 88 20:36:00 GMT
Read [one critic's] Buyers's Guide, and note the difference in the reviews between the Rhone section and the Bordeaux section. [The critic] throws many more superlatives at the Rhone wine producers, and rates the wines higher. Are we then to believe that the Syrah somehow makes a "better" wine ...? I'd say it's just a different grape...

I understand the difference between 19, 18, 17, 16, 15 and 14. I wish I understood the difference between 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91.

It just reflects the power of distinction for a trained nose versus an amateur's. I am sure that Parker can really judge a 1% difference

Evidently not, from the same 1988 discussion:
There was a good article in Decanter by Jancis Robinson who was telling of a dinner she had with Parker. They opened some dynamite wine ... a '66 Mouton or something ... and Parker had just finished saying that he believed that a 1 point difference in his ratings really made a difference to his readers. So Robinson asked him what he would rate the wine they were drinking now, and he gave it a 90. She looked up the rating he gave it in his book, and there it was a 95.

Date: 9 May 88 21:14:07 GMT
[That last anecdote] is a good example of one reason why numerical rating systems based on taster preference can be meaningless. Parker could easily contend that the difference was due to bottle variation (caused by differences in storage conditions, etc.). And since no one can expect to taste from the very bottle that Parker sipped while making his rating, everyone should expect significant fuzziness in Parker's numbers.

when you say that some wine is only worth 79 points, to me it is like saying some person is only worth a 79

Exactly, I've long noticed the same analogy. Objective measures of people can be compared in ways widely agreed on: Age, height, etc. But the whole person ?!

From a long 1988 discussion on the Internet wine newsgroup:

There was a good article in Decanter by Jancis Robinson who was telling of a dinner she had with Parker. They opened some dynamite wine ... a '66 Mouton or something ... and Parker had just finished saying that he believed that a 1 point difference in his ratings really made a difference to his readers. So Robinson asked him what he would rate the wine they were drinking now, and he gave it a 90. She looked up the rating he gave it in his book, and there it was a 95.

Date: 9 May 88 21:14:07 GMT
[That last anecdote] is a good example of one reason why numerical rating systems based on taster preference can be meaningless. Parker could easily contend that the difference was due to bottle variation (caused by differences in storage conditions, etc.). And since no one can expect to taste from the very bottle that Parker sipped while making his rating, everyone should expect significant fuzziness in Parker's numbers.

The last sentence above reminds me of the saying, "There are no great wines, just great bottles".
Cheers,
Sue

From a long 1988 discussion on the Internet wine newsgroup:

There was a good article in Decanter by Jancis Robinson who was telling of a dinner she had with Parker. They opened some dynamite wine ... a '66 Mouton or something ... and Parker had just finished saying that he believed that a 1 point difference in his ratings really made a difference to his readers. So Robinson asked him what he would rate the wine they were drinking now, and he gave it a 90. She looked up the rating he gave it in his book, and there it was a 95.

Date: 9 May 88 21:14:07 GMT
[That last anecdote] is a good example of one reason why numerical rating systems based on taster preference can be meaningless. Parker could easily contend that the difference was due to bottle variation (caused by differences in storage conditions, etc.). And since no one can expect to taste from the very bottle that Parker sipped while making his rating, everyone should expect significant fuzziness in Parker's numbers.

The last sentence above reminds me of the saying, "There are no great wines, just great bottles".
Cheers,
Sue

I don't want to become the defender of either Parker or the 100 point scoring system. But the argument that a score is faulty because Parker scored the same wine a 90 and then a 95 carries no weight with me. I'd bet that the tasting notes that Parker wrote also differed. In fact I'd wager that any individual tasting the same wine twice, especially under binded conditions, will fail to reproduce a score, details in a tasting note, or any other means of assessing a wine.

What is more interesting to me is that Parker says he remembers all the wines he has tasted, and this indicates to me that his memory is not as accurate as he seems to believe it is.

Mike

the argument that a score is faulty because Parker scored the same wine a 90 and then a 95 carries no weight with me

That's not my logic here either, FWIW, and it's getting into reponses to the 1988 response to the original data:

It just reflects the power of distinction for a trained nose versus an amateur's. I am sure that Parker can really judge a 1% difference

Evidently not, from the same 1988 discussion: [Parker claiming 1-point resolution, then differing 5 points on same wine]

-- one of (I think) various examples I saw published in 1980s, testing Parker's tasting in circumstances outside his control (and if I understand right, he addressed that by allowing fewer such tests to happen). (Also, there was no mention of a tasting note with the in-person 90-point score.) The 1988 respondent's specific argument was there's bottle variation, and we all open different bottles, so how can we expect to read 1% resolution on a single wine, when even Parker couldn't?

I believe the deeper limitation, regardless of scorer, is summed up in the analogy of measuring people by a single overall number.

I understand the difference between 19, 18, 17, 16, 15 and 14. I wish I understood the difference between 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91.

It just reflects the power of distinction for a trained nose versus an amateur's. I am sure that Parker can really judge a 1% difference

Evidently not, from the same 1988 discussion:
[size=9]There was a good article in Decanter by Jancis Robinson who was telling of a dinner she had with Parker. They opened some dynamite wine ... a '66 Mouton or something ... and Parker had just finished saying that he believed that a 1 point difference in his ratings really made a difference to his readers. So Robinson asked him what he would rate the wine they were drinking now, and he gave it a 90. She looked up the rating he gave it in his book, and there it was a 95.

The ability to differentiate 1% is obviously not reliably reproducible, but the struggle to do so is an aspect of the intellectual appreciation of wine, an important factor for any connoisseur. It is arguable that RP can reproduce a one point judgment more often than most connoisserus; therefore, the 100 point system is appropriate for him.

Robert Parker is oriented in the "feeling" quadrant of the personality wheel. That means that he naturally judges things as good or bad. This natural drive along with his extraordinary ability to “taste” makes him a genius at deciding which wines are good for us.

I operate in the intuitive quadrant, which means that I look at connections and do not lead with judgment. My intellectual appreciation revolves around all the connections to meaning that I find in wine.

Most wine geeks bounce around in the thinking sector. They love the technical aspects of wine, such as new kinds of closures and learning facts about the whole genre.

The last quadrant composes the “sensates,” or the folks from Missouri that don’t believe anything unless they personally experience it. They are the types that tell you that they like what they like and don’t have much to say about anything. My guess is that they would mostly like simple wines that make an instant, strong impression on them.

I understand the difference between 19, 18, 17, 16, 15 and 14. I wish I understood the difference between 95, 94, 93, 92, and 91.

It just reflects the power of distinction for a trained nose versus an amateur's. I am sure that Parker can really judge a 1% difference

Evidently not, from the same 1988 discussion:
[size=9]There was a good article in Decanter by Jancis Robinson who was telling of a dinner she had with Parker. They opened some dynamite wine ... a '66 Mouton or something ... and Parker had just finished saying that he believed that a 1 point difference in his ratings really made a difference to his readers. So Robinson asked him what he would rate the wine they were drinking now, and he gave it a 90. She looked up the rating he gave it in his book, and there it was a 95.

The ability to differentiate 1% is obviously not reliably reproducible, but the struggle to do so is an aspect of the intellectual appreciation of wine, an important factor for any connoisseur. It is arguable that RP can reproduce a one point judgment more often than most connoisserus; therefore, the 100 point system is appropriate for him.

Robert Parker is oriented in the "feeling" quadrant of the personality wheel. That means that he naturally judges things as good or bad. This natural drive along with his extraordinary ability to “taste” makes him a genius at deciding which wines are good for us.

I operate in the intuitive quadrant, which means that I look at connections and do not lead with judgment. My intellectual appreciation revolves around all the connections to meaning that I find in wine.

Most wine geeks bounce around in the thinking sector. They love the technical aspects of wine, such as new kinds of closures and learning facts about the whole genre.

The last quadrant composes the “sensates,” or the folks from Missouri that don’t believe anything unless they personally experience it. They are the types that tell you that they like what they like and don’t have much to say about anything. My guess is that they would mostly like simple wines that make an instant, strong impression on them.

Covert,

Is there room in your pantheon for people who have technical grapegrowing and winemaking training, can evaluate wine on two levels (technical and emotional) do not feel compelled to tell anyone else what to drink, and hate the idea of rating anything so seemingly esoteric but really just a basic "I like it" thing as the enjoyment of a beverage?

There really are such people.

Covert, Is there room in your pantheon for people who have technical grapegrowing and winemaking training, can evaluate wine on two levels (technical and emotional) do not feel compelled to tell anyone else what to drink, and hate the idea of rating anything so seemingly esoteric but really just a basic "I like it" thing as the enjoyment of a beverage?

No. I need to put humans in neat little categories so that I don't have nightmares about them.

Covert, Is there room in your pantheon for people who have technical grapegrowing and winemaking training, can evaluate wine on two levels (technical and emotional) do not feel compelled to tell anyone else what to drink, and hate the idea of rating anything so seemingly esoteric but really just a basic "I like it" thing as the enjoyment of a beverage?

No. I need to put humans in neat little categories so that I don't have nightmares about them.

Then you'd make a great wine critic.

It is arguable that RP can reproduce a one point judgment more often than most connoisserus

-- I've no problem with that assertion; more with this one:

therefore, the 100 point system is appropriate for him.

Robert Parker is oriented in the "feeling" quadrant of the personality wheel. That means that he naturally judges things as good or bad.

I don't know about this personality whatsis but about the statement above, I know from much experience that a reflex to project personal judgment as objective is human nature, avoided only with thought or work. (Data: all the current restaurant-comment sites full of things like "this place is bad," where a more objective account might be "we went once at time X to location Y, with tastes Z, ordered dishes V and W, asked them to please omit the shrimp from the shrimp salad because of my allergy, and I got the following impressions. By the way the two of us were also having a fight that night.")

Whether RP is a genius on the other hand I can't say. I will defend him as another independent wine critic, of evident integrity. As to advising us, when RP surfaced nationally 20+ years ago I compared him to the other independent US wine newsletter writers (I could show you) and saw (a) his own particular tastes, like all of them; (b) habit of categorical statements ("greatest ... this decade"); (c) tendency to predict aging profiles over more years than he himself had been tasting; (d) a numerical rating gimmick. That was the whole story. (d) I didn't care about, (a) was appealing; (b) and (c) were warning flags. So I never subscribed. End of summary.

(a) his own particular tastes, like all of them; (b) habit of categorical statements ("greatest ... this decade"); (c) tendency to predict aging profiles over more years than he himself had been tasting; (d) a numerical rating gimmick. That was the whole story. (d) I didn't care about, (a) was appealing; (b) and (c) were warning flags. So I never subscribed. End of summary.

Which fits Covert's joke:

"I need to put humans in neat little categories so that I don't have nightmares about them."

Change "humans" to "wines."

Seriously, Max, you have to give credit to a concept that spawns so many conversations.

I do appreciate your reference to the human habit of projecting personal judgment as objective. It's a conversation I find myself having way too often. Either I'm not persuasive, coherent, or able to form a good argument, but people generally don't accept there is a difference between personal judgment and objective reality.

I have chalked it up to a human ego gene...

I wondered in the 1980s why more new wine enthusiasts didn't also compare RP carefully to his competitors. But often their behavior was as if they liked his style, therefore he must be the best. Same phenomenon again.

(If you and I had brains, Thomas, we'd be getting rich off these knee-jerk habits instead of grumbling about them!)