Wine Scores Over The Short Term???

On my bike this morning, my mind tends to wander into various crevases and cubbyholes; ignoring the body's cries of pain & agony "why are you doing this to me":
Since I'm a mere amateur and nobody gives a rip about my opinions on a wine; I don't bother to give the wines I taste a 100-pt score. But the professional wine critics can taste a wine and give it an accurate/reasonably infalible score, based on that one brief taste. We are assured that that score applies to the wine sometime down the road when it reaches the peak of its maturity; not what the wine would score at that point in time when they taste it. These professional wine critics have vastly more wine experience than I and I don't question their ability to do this. That's why they're professionals.
However, many of us have experienced wines (usually older ones but not necessarily) over the short time period of hrs or a day or two when the wine will often change dramatically in the glass or decanter has it breathes, afore it turns to vinegar in a day or two.
So I'm sorta curious. When these professional wine critics take that one taste of wine and spit it out and assign their scores, does that score apply to that wine at that point in time, does it apply to that wine when they think it will peak, or does it apply to that point out in time as the wine breathes in the glass that it reaches its optimum peak with breathing.
When I pour a glass of wine and try it, I'm usually clueless as to what it's going to taste like an hour or two or five down the road with breathing, so (if I scored the wine) it could change by 5-10-15 points over the period of hours or a day that I taste it and as it breathes. Or are these professional critics so good that they can accurately predict what a wine's score will be at its optimal breathing peak?
That is to say...if a professional wine critic assigns a SQN Syrah a 96; this score applies to the wine at its optimal maturity 8.34 yrs down road. But does that score apply to the wine when it's breathed for 1, 2, 5, 8, 23.9 hrs in the glass or decanter?? Presumably, the 96 points apply to when its breathed the optimal number of hrs. Yet these professional critics never/seldom share what that optimal breathing period is.
I'm just a little bit befuddled by these scores. Man...I'm glad I'm a mere amateur and don't gotta worry about these things.
Tom

Great question Thomas H. IMHO I think evaluating a wine as it “stands” in front of you in the glass (this might not be fair) is a lot easier than trying to evaluate it when it “hits peak”. Heck if this was really that easy I guess we will start seeing “best to drink by” dates on wine bottles. But then again when it comes to age-worthy wines someone’s estimated “drinking window" might not correspond to my “drinking window”.

Salute

Tom
A very fine question, which in some cases may open up the proverbial can of worms.

I recall Aussie critic James Halliday used to say he marked the wine as he saw it on the day - yet on some occasions he might say the score of a later wine included an element of prediction of how it would be in 5 years time, on others he would say he expects a higher score 5 years into the future.

It always sounded like he got his logic confused (at times).

Personally I prefer how some apply the star system e.g. **(**) meaning they thought it delivering 2 stars of enjoyment now, but up to 4 stars of enjoyment at peak. This perhaps is a clearer way of expressing your view.

The other question I've not considered here is consistency, which even if the critic is consistent (e.g. each wine gets rated over an hour or 15 seconds), do wines open up in the glass in a consistent way? I don't think they do personally.

Which just adds more salt to the pile of pinches required to put a wine rating in context (IMO)

regards

Ian

All of the Above. Plus a few you forgot to include.

I'm a lot amateurer than you are, TomHill!
Yet, I go haring off to Sonoma County on an expedition to refill my mysteriously depleted cellar a couple or three times a year. Of course I base my buying decisions on a totally unarticulated formula that probably is as changeable as the fog coming through the Golden Gate.
However. Harrumph!
When I'm tasting, I try to think about not only whether it's good now, but whether it has some hints as to whether or not it will become more to my taste in a year or two or five.
What are those hints? DamifIknow! I suspect they're the usual suspects, often delineated as "structure", "balance", "strong fruit" as opposed to "stewed" or "green" or "tomatoey" (which I equate to "stewed".
I've found I'm right about half the time or maybe somewhat less. Or maybe quite a bit less, if the criterion is to be more discerning than "enjoyable in five years or so". I've had some Real Winners, and rather more Sad Losers.
I don't perceive a strong correlation between Price Paid and Winner/Loser.

John

Great troll, Tom. This should be good for a few dozen posts here, but far more if you posted it in eBob too. I think that the issue is best summed up in erstwhile WLDGer SFJoe's riposte to Thomas Mathews (Editor of Wine Spec) on Eric Asimov's "Pour" blog in the last 1-2 years: a numerical score is a scalar variable that these people are attempting to quantify a time-dependent entity (wine) with. No matter what answer people provide you with, the dimensionality is just plain wrong. It reminds me of some of the mind-numbingly awful conversations I've had with biochemistry students: "What is the concentration of this solution?" "It's 25 milligrams" "That's not a concentration; it's a mass" "Huh???"

I will read with interest other responses to your troll.

Mark Lipton

When I pour a glass of wine and try it, I'm usually clueless as to what it's going to taste like an hour or two or five down the road with breathing,

I think many of us are with you there Tom. I am no longer a scorer so am interested in what others will say. I have to be honest and say that I do not think that far ahead but then I am not usually drinking claret or a Burgundy, for example!! Most of the wines I consume have seen enough time in the cellar so they are a-go!!

For me, the score earned by a wine is a composite of "what it is and what it will be". That is to say, what is it now (even though possibly too young to fully appreciate at this stage) and what it will be as it reaches its peak (regardless of whether that peak is three or thirty years away).

As to the value of the score – none whatever without the tasting note. The note of a wine receiving a high score might, for example state: "almost searingly tannic at this stage now but showing fine balance and structure that bode well for the future"; or "approachable now but best 2012-2018".
The note of a wine receiving a low score might indicate: "with wood and tannins decidedly out of balance and hiding the fruits" or, "one dimensional".

I have the "feeling" that my response may raise more questions than it answers, but I'm willing to give a try at other questions that arise.

Best
Rogov