Reviews for only wines that score 90 pts or more

[David M. Bueker]

Jim,

I think you are being very judgmental & unfair to David Schildknecht. Let's not forget that he is not independently wealthy & writes for the Wine Advocate to make a living for himself and his family. Giving a wine a score out of 100 is a requirement for the job. Was everything you ever did for your job exactly in line with all of your personal belief system? Everything?

Points are not the evil that some folks make them out to be. As I stated earlier, I think they are the great leveler in wine. I think that really bothers some folks.

Jim,

I think you are being very judgmental & unfair to David Schildknecht. Let's not forget that he is not independently wealthy & writes for the Wine Advocate to make a living for himself and his family. Giving a wine a score out of 100 is a requirement for the job. Was everything you ever did for your job exactly in line with all of your personal belief system? Everything?

He had a job before he got the Advocate job and he would get another in a heartbeat should he leave.
Judgmental and unfair? I think that my position is one that is shared by more than a few people who are interested in wine. When one rails against a scoring system and then gets hired by folks who use it and changes his tune, there is certainly room to question.
Please note, I did say that I might very well do the same thing were I offerred a job at the Advocate; I do not put myself above David. But I would expect controversy and criticism to follow my decision as it is obvious I am a strong opponent of the point system of assessing wine.

Points are not the evil that some folks make them out to be. As I stated earlier, I think they are the great leveler in wine. I think that really bothers some folks.

A discussion perhaps best left to another day; we seem to be contentious enough this morning.
Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.

One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.

"Shrill" you say... that's nice.

One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.

I'll buy that.
I'm a whole lot more in the "rail against" category than he.
Best, Jim

I probably could but most assuredly will not speak for those of my colleagues that I respect but let's restrict it to this one critic. I have never been in the business of selling or promoting wine and never will be in that business. My goal is to present my readers with my interpretations of wines and in that to give them both a general description (so that they will know whether the wine is to their taste) as well as a score. As I have said a zillion or more times, scores are nothing more than two (and occasionally three) digits at the end of a tastig note. They may be a summary of the quality of the wine but they say nothing whatever about whether that wine will please the reader. Only the tasting note can do that.

Agreed with Florida Jim that to some extent wineries and critics are "colleagues" and that in that we both have the same consumers. The people who buy wines are the people who read our columns. There is, however, a major difference in our roles, however- the winery making wines and selling them and the critics deciding which might or might not be worth buying.

As to publishing scores of below 90 ..... My lawyers are currently talking with the lawyers of one winery that earned scores of between 50-65 (I use the 100 point scale). True, when I write a column of recommended wines those will score anywhere from 85 and higher but when I review the wines of a given winery from a given vintage year they get the scores they deserve whatever those may be and whichever attorneys may then threaten to sue. (And no, I have never lost a case yet)

If I thought it helpful to my reader, I'd supply every possible piece of accurate information when writing up a wine. Whether there is a numerical rating attached to a TN is not of that great an importance to me, but as I have adopted a scoring system with a published set of principles and parameters, I've included below an elucidation of my 100 point scoring system to provide a useful point of reference for anyone interested in how I arrive at a particular score.

From my website:

"After much consternation and deliberation, my tasting notes .... will be accompanied by a score out of one hundred, and then, only after proper and full evaluation. My philosophy is not to hand out points with gay abandon, as, seemingly, some other scribes seem, almost compulsively, obliged to allocate. Another problem I’ve noted with an even higher number of “scorers” is the narrow range in which they score. In reality, score compaction (i.e. just about everything scores in the 85-95 point range) only proves to highlight the inadequacies of the one hundred point system - it is used (perhaps abused is a better choice of word here) for commercial propagation, fear of being ridiculed and fails to reflect the true quality of what is in the glass (not to mention the damage of the credibility of the reviewer embracing such a practice).

My primary focus will be on the detail in the tasting note and the score a reference point of where the wine may rate in relation to another. Hopefully, the table below eschews any confusion on this matter.

95-100 points - Exceptional - a wine of rare class and breed - the “Ultimate” or “Holy Grail”

91-94 points - Outstanding - exemplary wine in every respect

89-90 points - Excellent - a wine full of interest, very few, if any faults, often of impressive QPR

85-88 points - Very Good - technically sound with more than a modicum of class

80-84 points - Good - a modicum of class, perhaps with a few minor faults

75-79 points - Acceptable/Fair - “Vin Ordinaire” - very little excitement here, but should at least be drinkable

74 points and below - Poor/Faulty/Passed it"

This whole debate of "wine ratings and scoring" is like a dog chasing its tail. Subjectivity, egotism, intellectualism, rivalry, corruption, commercialism, self-propagation et al are all factors that interplay here and just serve to exacebate already very muddy waters.

Perhaps we should concentate on drinking and writing about wine we enjoy. Life is too short to drink bad wine.

My lawyers are currently talking with the lawyers of one winery that earned scores of between 50-65 (I use the 100 point scale).

Daniel,
Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?
I can think of several others that post scores in the 80 to 90 range, but not the other two standards.
It does seem odd in a system that is very much like what we used in school, that any reviewer would restrict his/her/their publishings to only those of 90 and above.
So far, the reasons I have heard for such behavior are confounding and hence, I am left to consider several alternative explanations; some fairly self-serving.
Best, Jim

My lawyers are currently talking with the lawyers of one winery that earned scores of between 50-65 (I use the 100 point scale).

Daniel,
Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?
I can think of several others that post scores in the 80 to 90 range, but not the other two standards.
It does seem odd in a system that is very much like what we used in school, that any reviewer would restrict his/her/their publishings to only those of 90 and above.
So far, the reasons I have heard for such behavior are confounding and hence, I am left to consider several alternative explanations; some fairly self-serving.
Best, Jim

Parker has.

[David M. Bueker]

Indeed, Parker used to publish all sort of low scores (I have back issues all the way to #1 that were given to me to prove it). He has stated that the number of good wines out there preclude the use of space for lower scoring bottles. As a substitute the WA staff will sometimes say that they "could not recommend" a wine, which is the narrative equivalent of a sub-80 score.

Indeed, Parker used to publish all sort of low scores (I have back issues all the way to #1 that were given to me to prove it). He has stated that the number of good wines out there preclude the use of space for lower scoring bottles. As a substitute the WA staff will sometimes say that they "could not recommend" a wine, which is the narrative equivalent of a sub-80 score.

I've got Parker's buyer's guide going back to the mid-eighties. Has anyone noticed how the scores back then, were, on average, much lower than today. Bags and bags in the low to mid-eighties; very, very few in the mid-nineties or higer. Am I right in thinking these days scores are, in general, somewhat higher? I wonder why?

Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?

Jim, Hi....

Not in the USA perhaps but certainly among the more respected critics of the UK, France, Italy and Spain.

Also worth keeping in mind that critics (even those who write books) are limited in how much physical space they can take up in their daily, weekly or monthly columns or in their books. In that one measures one's audience and then devotes that space to wines that will be of interest to those readers.

Certainly one should score wines that may not be that good from wineries that raise high expectations. Equally, from time to time one should devote time to the "junk" in order let people know what they might be in for. Ah.....if only we all had a full page or two in our newspapers on a daily basis (and of course three to five assistants to help us in posting all of those tasting notes)

I do agree (sadly) that not all critics are as ethical as they might be (we had a long discussion about that on the forum not that long ago). Then again, that is true of winemakers, wine sales people, and (would we believe) even others not at all involved with the wine trade.

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?

Not in the USA perhaps but certainly among the more respected critics of the UK, France, Italy and Spain.

Rogov - see above.

[David M. Bueker]

I've got Parker's buyer's guide going back to the mid-eighties. Has anyone noticed how the scores back then, were, on average, much lower than today. Bags and bags in the low to mid-eighties; very, very few in the mid-nineties or higher. Am I right in thinking these days scores are, in general, somewhat higher? I wonder why?

2 reasons: grade inflation (cannot hurt that poor wine's self esteem can we?) and better wine making.

One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.

I'll buy that.
I'm a whole lot more in the "rail against" category than he.
Best, Jim

Jim, I have to go along with David Bueker on this subject. I had the pleasure of breaking bread & tasting wines in a home setting with David S. on a few occasions before and after he went to work at The Wine Adcocate. He never railed against Parker, he just always seemed comfortable in his own skin and his own palate. I'm personally happy with his reviews in the Wine Advocate because I know exactly what he likes and why. I have never seen a review of his in his present job that I felt had been "influenced" by RP's preferences. I've always respected David S as a person and a wine reviewer and his stint with Parker has shown me nothing to alter that opinion. We all have our tendencies to criticize, I felt the necessity to praise when it was deserved.

Am I right in thinking these days scores are, in general, somewhat higher? I wonder why?

David, Hi...

Indeed scores are higher these days and I agree with the other David that this is true because of score inflation and the reality tht wines are being made better these days.

With regard to score inflation I find no ulterior motives - inflation of scores and grades is a normal statistical phenomenon that occurs over time. The solution is quite simple - critics being aware of this pray for one or two truly terrible or at least mediocre vintage years because that automatically allows legitimate lowering of the overall score pattern.

As to better wine-making - a phenomenon found largely in lower- and middle-level quality wines. With better methods in the vineyards and in the wineries the "average" wine has risen enormously in quality over the past twenty years. Let's put it this way - Blue Nun, Mateus rose and even Two Buck Chuck are drinkable these days. Perhaps at a certain level of sophistication not so much "desirable" but certainly drinkable.

Best
Rogov

Without getting into the merits of grading systems (I don't care for them any more, but they were once helpful to me), I'd like to address the criticism that users of the 100 point system only use the upper deciles.

When grades are given with letters instead of numbers, nobody seems to mind that these letters don't go all the way from A to Z, and stop at C or D (or thereabouts).

WS and WA, when using the 100 point system, are, in effect, giving some kind of an A to wines scoring above 90, some kind of a B to wines scoring between 80 and 89, and some kind of a C to wines scoring below 80.

Nobody begrudges schoolteachers, college professors or rating agencies for not going all the way from A to Z, so why begrudge wine critics for what is, effectively, the same thing?

Jim, I have to go along with David Bueker on this subject. I had the pleasure of breaking bread & tasting wines in a home setting with David S. on a few occasions before and after he went to work at The Wine Adcocate. He never railed against Parker, he just always seemed comfortable in his own skin and his own palate. I'm personally happy with his reviews in the Wine Advocate because I know exactly what he likes and why. I have never seen a review of his in his present job that I felt had been "influenced" by RP's preferences. I've always respected David S as a person and a wine reviewer and his stint with Parker has shown me nothing to alter that opinion. We all have our tendencies to criticize, I felt the necessity to praise when it was deserved.

Lou,
Just so we're clear; I did not criticize David's integrity, expertise or person. My only problem was when he took on the 100 point system after speaking against it. A single event, not a character attack.
And I admit that, had I been offerred the job, I might well do the same thing for such a prestigious job.
I too like David's body of work, find him to be both articulate and incisive, believe he is not under any influence and respect his palate more than most others in the biz.

I have a large problem with the 100 point system and several times have "railed" against it. Perhaps, my response here is predicated on my feelings about someone I respect (and thought was in my camp on this issue) saying one thing and then doing another.
Best, Jim

[David M. Bueker]

Jim - he is in your camp. But it's a lot like being offered a big contract by the Yankees. When the big dog calls you go.

Jim - he is in your camp. But it's a lot like being offered a big contract by the Yankees. When the big dog calls you go.

Understood.
Best, Jim

This thread. Sigh.

[David M. Bueker]

This thread. Sigh.

No reason to despair. It's been reasonably civil.

I guess to fully understand the 100 point scale you had to go to public schools in the US during the time of the “baby boomer” generation (I’m at the tail end of it). (Robin and others most of said this 100 times). The 100 point scale is basically based on a five grade evaluation system (A, B, C, D, and F). When I went to school the five grade evaluation system was used; I’m sure however there might be some variations of this grading system from state to state. In the lower grades of elementary school it was simply A for excellent; B for above average; C for average; D minimum passing grade and F failing grade. In the upper grades of elementary school the grading was basically the same, but instead of using just letters a + or – variant was placed after the letter. Basically back then all you knew was that a C+ was better than a C and a C- was worse than a C. On a 10 or 20 question quiz and if you get none of the questions right (0) or only half the questions right (50) there is no difference its still an F, so in other words the + or – variant didn’t really apply to a grade of F. In junior high school the teachers began marking quiz’s and tests with not only letters and a + or – variant but with a corresponding percentage. By now you began associating the corresponding letter grade with a percentage. An A+ was equivalent to 97-100, an A was 94-96, and an A- was 90-93 and so on. By the time I got into high school it was nothing but a percentage, except for my senior year were a percentage was given and an equivalent 4.0 GPA (Grade Point Average) score was given. Here’s how it basically broke down;
Letter Percentage GPA
A (Excellent) 90-100 3.5-4.0
B (Above Average) 80-89 2.5-3.49
C (Average) 70-79 1.5-2.49
D (Minimum Passing Grade) 60-69 1.0-1.49
F (Fail) 0-59 0.0
Now if we apply this to evaluating wines and the 100 point scale
90-100 Excellent Wine
80-89 Above Average Wine
70-79 Average Wine (Commercially Acceptable Wine)
60-69 Deficient Wine
0-59 Poor and Objectionable Wine
Of course one can also apply their own + or – variant and come up with their own descriptive terms to describe the class or category (in reality making the grading evaluation system even larger than the “original” 5). As the quality of the so called average wine goes up the + or – variant should be tighten up especially in the upper grades C, B and A. In other words at the top might be Extraordinary Wine, Extra Extra Fine Wine, Extra Fine Wine, Excellent Wine and so on. But for these scores to really have a meaning the “passing grade” should be the same. Let’s say 65 (D) or 70 (C-), would be considered a commercially acceptable wine maybe with some deficiency or fault.
This is where the problem lies; everyone has their own idea what a passing grade is. Another thing is way back when there were more vocational schools and school curriculum was way more focused a gifted and talented would be carpenter would be an A- student. Whereas in today’s day and age where the school curriculum is so much broader that gifted and talented would be carpenter might only be a C- student.

Salute

Jim, I have to go along with David Bueker on this subject. I had the pleasure of breaking bread & tasting wines in a home setting with David S. on a few occasions before and after he went to work at The Wine Adcocate. He never railed against Parker, he just always seemed comfortable in his own skin and his own palate. I'm personally happy with his reviews in the Wine Advocate because I know exactly what he likes and why. I have never seen a review of his in his present job that I felt had been "influenced" by RP's preferences. I've always respected David S as a person and a wine reviewer and his stint with Parker has shown me nothing to alter that opinion. We all have our tendencies to criticize, I felt the necessity to praise when it was deserved.

Lou,
Just so we're clear; I did not criticize David's integrity, expertise or person. My only problem was when he took on the 100 point system after speaking against it. A single event, not a character attack.
And I admit that, had I been offerred the job, I might well do the same thing for such a prestigious job.
I too like David's body of work, find him to be both articulate and incisive, believe he is not under any influence and respect his palate more than most others in the biz.

I have a large problem with the 100 point system and several times have "railed" against it. Perhaps, my response here is predicated on my feelings about someone I respect (and thought was in my camp on this issue) saying one thing and then doing another.
Best, Jim

Jim, after all these years of reading your posts I know it's not your cup of tea to make personal attacks. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my defense of David S. We agree.