Why aren't rosés taken more seriously?

Whenever anything is subjected to that procedure that thing must be measured against some absolute standard, and in this case we are talking of a 100 point scale. Let us keep in mind that scores for wines do not start at 100 and then you deduct points for faults. They start (in the case at 50) and are then awarded points for their positive attributes.

That not all grapes are created equal and have the possibility to attain a score of 100 is not a sign of non-democracy. It is a reflection of reality.

None of which is to say that a rose cannot be every bit as enjoyable as a great Bordeaux wine. It is however to say that it is enjoyable at a different level.

And, as often I need to remind people, scores are merely two numbers (and rarely three) that follow a wine review. It is the review that is important - not the score, as it is the pleasure that the wine gives the drinker and not its price.

Best
Rogov

Actually Mr Parker claims his points reflect the quality of a wine within its peer group.
http://www.erobertparker.com/info/legend.asp
But I am not convinced that happens. Or perhaps it is simply that he never stoops to compare Gamay varietals, or Muscadets, as a group.

for bill - whatever else may be right or wrong with your post - no chianti could ever be a 100pt wine? i object. surely that denomination is one of the worlds greats.

A 100 point cabernet is a flawless wine and there is none better. A 90 point Muscadet may represent the best and highest attainment that a Muscadet can ever hope for - they are not in the same category as a Bordeaux or cabernet.

If you DO score wih some sort of egalitarian system, you would have chaos - a 95 point Ruby Cabernet? Is that as good as that 95 point Screaming Eagle......every score would be situational and would depend on the small subset of wine that your subject bottle represented.

That would be even more meaningless than I think scoring to be in the first place.

But hey, when you hit that bottle of 100 Point Night Train, you just give me a holler (after you finish it, if you please....)

for bill - whatever else may be right or wrong with your post - no chianti could ever be a 100pt wine? i object. surely that denomination is one of the worlds greats.

David, see the post above. Other sangiovese based wines (not to mention all the other varietals) exceed the best Chianti - have you ever had a truly great Brunello, for instance (Parker has granted up to 98 in rare cases)?

Parker has never rated any Chianti above 94 points (the 1985 Castello di Monsanto Chianti Classico Riserva Il Poggio), and that is justifiable.

You guys remind me of parents aghast at the concept of a bell curve and the proposition that not all children can, by definition, be 'above average'.

Aevery score would be situational and would depend on the small subset of wine that your subject bottle represented.

That would be even more meaningless than I think scoring to be in the first place....

And if that is all the worse for scoring, so be it...

A 100 point cabernet is a flawless wine and there is none better. A 90 point Muscadet may represent the best and highest attainment that a Muscadet can ever hope for - they are not in the same category as a Bordeaux or cabernet.

If you DO score wih some sort of egalitarian system, you would have chaos - a 95 point Ruby Cabernet? Is that as good as that 95 point Screaming Eagle......

Really? Not to someone who doesn't like Cabernet.

Who decided what makes a great wine great? Even the 1855 classification was based not on and established greatness but on prices commanded by the idea of a potentially established greatness.

My problem with the concept of scoring wine on on a scale other than egalitarian is that someone or some group must first proclaim that they are the arbiters of taste. When I first tasted SEagle, I knew that the group who proclaimed that one was wrong, at least to my taste.

What if the arbiters have it all wrong? What if greatness, like beauty, is a matter for each individual beholder? What if there were fewer followers in this world; what, then, would be the composition of greatness?

For interests sake, I scanned a quick survey of Parker ratings. Below are the maximum ratings he has given to a specific sort of wine.

Bordeaux - 100

Italian IGT - 100

California cab - 100

California Chard

Chianti - 95

Muscadet - 93

Chardonnay French - 100 American 99

Pinotage - 88

Rioja - 100

Port -100

He has also given perfect scores to Riesling and Pinot Gris (Alsace), 97 to Petit Sirah and Zinfandel

What if greatness, like beauty, is a matter for each individual beholder? What if there were fewer followers in this world; what, then, would be the composition of greatness?

Now you sound like the parent of one of those average (say it isn't so!) children.

Not everyone has the same objective views about wines, and some people like one thing while not others.

As a winemaker I am sure one could take pleasure when you win the gold at the local fair, but isn't that like saying I got the blue ribbon at an all Edsel car show....

Maybe there is no great wine, only great tasters, but until you pop a cork on a Pinotage, for instance, that causes me to want to pour all my 1982 Latour into the stock pot, I'm happy with a consensus approach while bearing in mind that there are no absolutes and any given reviewer is only as good as his preconceptions, previous experience, and that bottle he tasted on that particular day.

For interests sake, I scanned a quick survey of Parker ratings. Below are the maximum ratings he has given to a specific sort of wine.

And others will score differently.

What is your point?

I fail to see what Robert Parker's scores prove, other than what Parker likes. We all know Loire is not his favorite region (I wonder what's highest he's given dry Chenin?). I'm actually surprised he gave a Muscadet 93 (maybe it was one of the other reviewers?).

More than a third of my cellar is Bordeaux, I'm certainly a fan, but I've been to Bordeaux tastings where my most memorable wine of the night was a '89 Luneau-Papin Muscadet. While Pergole Torte doesn't say Chianti on label, it qualifies, and for me is better than any Tua Rita I've tried. So unless Robert Parker is drinking all my wines, I'm not too worried re his points.

I fail to see what Robert Parker's scores prove, other than what Parker likes.

Nothing, they were just an easily accessible set of notes from a known reviewer. The point was that not all (types of) wine are created equal, and that while opinions may, and will vary, it is nonsense to score (if one must score) on a scale dependent on what sort of wine you are tasting.

I was restating and supporting Rogov's statement

That not all grapes are created equal and have the possibility to attain a score of 100 is not a sign of non-democracy. It is a reflection of reality.

while opinions may, and will vary, it is nonsense to score

Finally! We agree

Score is merely an indicator. Many of the Strat's Place folk might remember that I was once a fierce defender of the validity of using a quantatative system to evaluate wine. I still believe in the validity of the system, although I myself use a modification that is somewhat more qualitative, because I dislike the implied precision of the system, and I've come to dislike the blind devotion to scores in the market place. And most importantly, score is not everything, and although it is a decent indicator of the hedonistic quality of a wine, it fails miserably in communicating the most important part - the experience. But, to the extent that score is an indicator, you can say this: that if a range of critics award a given wine a score in the high 90's, it is very likely a truly great wine. Regarding another point that has been made, I hate egalitarianism. Most people who use the scoring system, whether they are professionals or not, will tend to score a given wine within a range of about 3 - 5 points. This supports the idea that there is some kind of generally accepted standard. There are very objective reasons why not all wines are 'created equal.' The egalitarian approach would say 'this is the best possible White Zinfandel, and this is the best possible Grand Cru Burgundy, so let's give each 100 points.' I think we can all agree that such an approach is utterly, completely absurd.

I don't think one should 'throw out the baby with bathwater' where the scoring system is concerned - if used intelligently, it is actually quite useful.

Parker has never rated any Chianti above 94 points (the 1985 Castello di Monsanto Chianti Classico Riserva Il Poggio), and that is justifiable. / You guys remind me of parents aghast at the concept of a bell curve and the proposition that not all children can, by definition, be 'above average'.

[Aside: I don't know if Bill appreciates it, or if this also happened in his own great sovereign nation: After a radio show boasted for years facetiously of a town where "all the children are above average," it transpired that US educational claims said that too, minus the irony. I forget details, but something like large majority of 50 United states claimed their schoolchildren exceeded the average of all states by standardized measures. Circa early 1990s and one of many spurs to reform.]

Mention of either Rosés or wine scores evokes implicit history occluded from some readers without opportunity to witness or study it. Wretched public US perception of Rosés by the 1970s (rendering the brand a stigma) followed years of heavy marketing of insipid junk. Liebling, the food writer, lashed out at this in early 1960s (see Between Meals), and either he or Bespaloff described growing horror at discovering that one mass European Rosé production line merely blended red wine and white. Producers continue to put out classier Rosés in many styles -- intredpidly.

In the longer period before anyone talked of arbiters for 100-point scales, it used to be understood that a diversity of wine critics was practically useful: you'd learn how their tastes correlated with yours and thus judge the critic by your palate. (Not the other way around.) I'm with Bill and Rahsaan on scoring.

By the way, questions in this thread like how (on earth) a single numerical score can meaningfully compare multiple disparate wines or wine varieties -- apples, oranges, strawberries, tomatoes, and kiwis, if you get me -- started (even online!) as soon as those scores surfaced nationally around middle 1980s, never to any kind of general agreement that I've seen (and I have seen a lot of this).

One other thought, or train of thought: I'm a bit astonished at a kind of thread-drift here. I thought we were talking about taking rose seriously, and not about scoring. It occurs to me that if one is thinking about rose in terms of scoring, one is not taking rose seriously at all, or perhaps not seriously enough.

Some people seem to be proceeding on the theory that all wines can be rated up to 100 points.

Some people seem to be proceeding on the theory that all wines can be rated on the 100 point scale.

Some aren't. Some don't think there's a scale. And certainly not one that applies to anyone but the individual creating the scale.

And some are still scratching their heads as to why people accepted someone else's 'rules' for which wines could attain certain points, and which wines couldn't.

I'm personally struggling with the idea that there is no such thing possible as a '100 point Muscadet' (or Beaujolais, etc.)---i.e., the best Muscadet around, the one that is the best imaginable (by whatever individual is assessing said Muscadet) of all the Muscadets tasted. And I simply don't understand why awarding a number meaningful only to the individual awarding it---say, to a Chateau Margaux Bordeaux, eliminates a Muscadet from the same consideration of excellence.

Or am I missing something here?

[Oh, wait....is this like that golf handicap thing???)

I think we can all agree

Wow, thanks, Ryan. I enjoyed that.

You're a funny guy sometimes. That one really cracked me up.

Wait....unless...maybe... Were you serious?

I go to a summer concert series in park by our river. Picnics, music, dogs- and sometimes real heat. Now, I'm not saying that I'd turn down an 1982 Mouton, '83 Cheval Blanc, or '89 Haut Brion if offered. But usually if you asked me what would be the perfect wine for that evening, I'm much more likely to say '06 ESJ Bone Jolly Rose or '95 Luneau-Papin L d'Or.

There seem to be a couple of issues getting mixed together.

1. Context. Wine is relational. We consume it with others and generally, though not always, with food. You can never strip the context away. One of the fundamental things roses do is quench thirst on hot days and pair with foods that can be difficult for other wines. Does every wine have to go up to eleven? Is "going up to eleven" a sign of perfection?

2. Say, for the sake of argument, you want to contemplate a complex wine, a wine that can develop layers and nuances over years? Can a rose fit the bill. There aren't a whole lot in this category, I don't think, but they are out there.

Does every wine have to go up to eleven? Is "going up to eleven" a sign of perfection?

Rock on (loudly), Dude!

The answer, but of course, is a resounding YES!.

As soon as you presuppose there is a scale of one to ten, someone will be looking for the elevenses.

Bill and Daniel seem to think everyone should accept that wine is objective (or capable of being objectified on a quality scale) and that there are these things called absolutes within the scale.

I maintain that each and every evaluation of a wine is a subjective measurement, and slapping on some sort of numerical score is simply a shortcut way to say to someone "I liked the wine THIS much." So despite all the protestations that it's the review and not the score that is significant---which necessarily asks the question, "Then why apply a score at all?", only to get the answer that it's a convenient short cut/summation, which implies that if someone is paying attention to the score they are not actually reading the review---the score then "becomes" the wine in the reviewer's mind, and is placed in some sort of hierarchical scale. Trouble is, we don't usually know what the specifics of that hierarchical scale are; meaningless anyway, because each different reviewer has his own construction and interpretation of what the scale and the score means TO HIM OR HER.

Fine. You want an easy shorthand for "I like the wine THIS MUCH," that's certainly okay with me. Just don't pretend it is either objective or absolute or particularly meaningful to anyone but, perhaps, yourself.

How anyone can come up with the idea that summing up everything that is a particular wine in two digits, and have that be in any way meaningful (versus convenient and casual) is still a puzzlement to me.

I think we can all agree

Wow, thanks, Ryan. I enjoyed that.

You're a funny guy sometimes. That one really cracked me up.

Wait....unless...maybe... Were you serious?

Of course I was serious - God personally revealed to me that, deep down, everyone thinks the same way I do.

But is anyone going to try to argue that the best possible White Zin should, hypothetically, be rated as equal, in whatever evaluation of greatness/achievment you care to choose, to say, a legendary vintage of Romanee-Conti?

But do note what I said before that pronouncement - I am not a slave to score, and the way in which the system is calibrated does some wines an injustice, but i do believe it can be useful if used intelligently, and with perspective.

Does every wine have to go up to eleven? Is "going up to eleven" a sign of perfection?

Rock on (loudly), Dude!

The answer, but of course, is a resounding YES!.

As soon as you presuppose there is a scale of one to ten, someone will be looking for the elevenses.

Bill and Daniel seem to think everyone should accept that wine is objective (or capable of being objectified on a quality scale) and that there are these things called absolutes within the scale.

I maintain that each and every evaluation of a wine is a subjective measurement, and slapping on some sort of numerical score is simply a shortcut way to say to someone "I liked the wine THIS much." So despite all the protestations that it's the review and not the score that is significant---which necessarily asks the question, "Then why apply a score at all?", only to get the answer that it's a convenient short cut/summation, which implies that if someone is paying attention to the score they are not actually reading the review---the score then "becomes" the wine in the reviewer's mind, and is placed in some sort of hierarchical scale. Trouble is, we don't usually know what the specifics of that hierarchical scale are; meaningless anyway, because each different reviewer has his own construction and interpretation of what the scale and the score means TO HIM OR HER.

Fine. You want an easy shorthand for "I like the wine THIS MUCH," that's certainly okay with me. Just don't pretend it is either objective or absolute or particularly meaningful to anyone but, perhaps, yourself.

How anyone can come up with the idea that summing up everything that is a particular wine in two digits, and have that be in any way meaningful (versus convenient and casual) is still a puzzlement to me.

1. I completely agree. Trying to quantify wine on a univariate scale makes no sense to me. Any effort to create a simple, single scale will lead to the Spinal Tap Effect. Any scale complex enough to begin to get the job done would be, well, really complicated. It'd be easier simply to say: gosh, I like it a whole, whole lot. That Meurseault was almost as good as my Muscadet....

But that leaves point two. Can we agree that there are perfect light crisp wines for summer days and perfect wines for contemplation that show different qualities? If so, can we find rose in the second group, or are we then asking roses to do something they really aren't suited to do?