Wine Scores: The Good, the Bad & What Nobody Admits

Hi everybody, this is Agnes from No Sediment and today we are going to discuss the good, the bad and the uncomfortable truth of wine scores. I hate giving wine scores. I hate it. I do it because people ask for them but every time I sit down for a tasting and know that I will eventually have to score the wines, I feel as though a toothache has suddenly hit me in the I know that many wine professionals share the same feeling and yet we continue to do it. I have been promising you this video for a very long time so today let us discuss some of the uncomfortable truths about judging and scoring wine. It is a dirty job but somebody has to do it. There is an enormous number of wine scoring systems. The most popular is probably the 100-point scale which was started by Robert Parker and widely used in his publication The Wine Advocate. It is based on American high school grading system where you really begin at 50 points or as Hugh Johnson says, you get 50 just for showing up. The passing grade is 70 so according to that logic, anything that is below 70 would suggest a faulty wine. The 100-point system is often explained as follows. 5 for color, 15 for aromas, 20 for the palette and 10 for the overall impression of the wine. So it really is a 50-point system. 20-point system has traditionally been more used in Britain. Personally, I feel most comfortable with 10-point scale if I absolutely have to use numbers. There are also Trebicchieri, Five Stars, Luca Marone's 3x33 point system and increasingly popular Class, Pass or Ars used by Tom Gildy. But as Andreas Larsson and I discussed in my latest podcast, the majority of wine magazines and publications have now adopted the 100-point system. Why do we need to have 100 points? Maybe then it's better to use 50-point system or 20 or 10 if you do not use the whole range of it. I'm not saying it's perfect in any way but I just try to adapt to what most people would understand. Me including after being pushed into it by viewers in the comments and my cameraman. Now let me tell you a story why points don't always work and why so many of us don't like giving them apart from those who make a living out of it. At one international wine judging competition, I discussed my score of one particular wine with one of the senior judges. We tasted the wine again together and I was asked why I had given it 94 points, a high silver instead of 95 or 96 which would have placed it in the gold medal category. I said that I liked the wine quite a lot, it was generous and rich and then I started to break the wine apart. I discussed the fruit, the mid palette and how perhaps it was a bit too opulent and that maybe a higher acidity would have made the difference of that single point. The senior judge swirled the wine in his glass, took a sip and he said, yes it is all those things but it is also a bloody delicious wine. So it got 95 points. Yes we can break wine apart, we can discuss its structural elements and how well they are aligned in the glass. Would higher or lower acidity create better balance? What about the alcohol, tannins, phenolics and after taste? And then give it a number. Or we can say that this is a bloody delicious wine and I'll have another glass. Now even if the scoring system is the same, it does not mean that every publication and every critic uses it in the same way. I think it is important to distinguish between wine judging competitions such as the Canter World Wine Awards, the International Wine and Spirit Competition and the International Wine Challenge. Wine publications such as Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiasts and individual critics. Why I think it's worth separating them? I'll give a great example from the Canter World Wine Awards. The wines are tasted blind and almost 250 judges are involved bringing different backgrounds, areas of expertise and experience. With social media and everyone putting out their own opinions, it is nice to have the Canter World Wine Awards. There are regional chairs with expertise in particular wine regions. Each panel tastes its flights and receives only broad information such as the vintage, grape variety or appellation. If there is huge difference between the judges scores, which sometimes happens, the wine will be discussed with the regional chair and senior judge could also be invited to share their opinion. So why is this important? Because no matter how well we train ourselves, we can never be completely free from subjectivity. I find balance and pleasure in different things than you might, but in the end consumer is the because all the tastes and preferences are represented. Wines that fall below certain standards are not discussed further and therefore are not included in the database of award-winning wines. Winemakers, however, do receive scores of their wines and comments from the judges of what was amiss. As I understand it, wine enthusiast also usually tastes wines blind, but there's usually an expert specializing in certain winemaking regions who will taste the wines. The wine advocate, on the other hand, does not always taste blind and then we have ratings published by individual wine critics, James Suckling, for example. Although we see his name, it is actually team of tasters, which makes sense considering the enormous number of wines being assessed and the wines are usually not tasted blind. And we have discussed this several times on my YouTube channel. If you want to follow scores, you should really find a critic and publication whose taste aligns with your palate. It is so funny, one of my colleagues now knows my palate so well that when we taste together, he can already predict which wines I will prefer and why. And I can see similar patterns among some of the wine critics as well. In my recent video where I respond to some of your most controversial wine opinions, there was a comment that said, I think some of the wine experts are biased by labels. They can smell 100 descriptors and rate a wine very good or outstanding just because it says Champagne or Barolo on the label, even if everyone else thinks it's crap. I explained that the majority of international and regional wine competitions are usually conducted blind. There are, of course, many advantages to blind tasting and we know them quite well. It essentially removes bias. This is where smaller producers, less discovered appellations and grape varieties can truly shine because the judge is not influenced by the label. But some critics argue that certain wines should never be tasted blind because they do not perform well in a blind setting. Initially, that sounds outrageous. If wine fails in a blind tasting, it must be a bad wine, right? For one, some judges place great emphasis on typicity. I have judged alongside people who would score a wine poorly simply because the appellation or grape variety had been aged in oak. According to that particular judge, the grape should have never been placed in oak and therefore it is not typical and therefore low score, despite the fact that it was a bloody delicious wine. We have to understand that winemakers are also artists and they leave their own signature on a wine. Think of Picasso's line drawings. Once you know the artist's name, the period and the story behind the work, the experience changes completely. If you are looking for not only great quality wine but also great experience, then the label starts to play a significant role. Blind tasting isolates the liquid. Open label tasting captures the whole experience. You can have a beautiful sparkling wine in your glass and enjoy it. But the complete Dom Pérignon experience can only happen when you know you are drinking Dom Pérignon. In one of my recent videos, a viewer commented that Robert Parker and his wine advocate used to give wine scores of 60 points and 70 points. Being the skeptical and very empirical person that I am, I immediately replied I'll believe it when I'll see it. And despite the viewer not providing any real evidence, I could not sleep. So I searched for it myself. And aha! I indeed found those scores. And if I'm being honest, I understand a little better why Burgundy cancelled Parker. If we really follow the idea that the 100 point scale resembles the American high school grading system, then scoring 1983 Chambertin from Domaine Armand Rousseau, just 67 points, means that the wine has failed. Was it a flawed bottle? Or is this indeed one of the greatest examples of an individual wine critic's palate influencing the score more than the quality of the wine itself? As for other publications, we have already discussed decanter. Wines that do not receive recognition are simply not included, so we don't see them. We could argue that consumers would want to see this information and know which wines to avoid. But for a winemaker, it is much safer to enter wines knowing that they can only gain recognition, awards, awareness, prestige, orders. There would be far fewer entries if producers risked losing everything they had built around their name. I could guess that other publications might do the same, but I am only speculating now. Today, a wine scored 82 points can only lose. And I have been to wine competitions, not international ones though, where the owner of wines that scored poorly requested that all of them be withdrawn, so there would be absolutely no mention in the final publication that they had ever been part of the judging. And if the memory does not fail me, the poor score was actually a bronze medal, so 86 to 89 points. Like Michael Jackson sang, I am looking at the man in the mirror. I am starting with myself. Why do I have so few wines scored in the low 80s here on my YouTube channel? The truth is, I rarely taste or score wines on no sediment that would score that low. That is not to say that I never taste such wines in my everyday professional life. Just recently, for example, we received some samples from Sicily, affordable wines, but none of them would have scored higher than 82 or 84 in my book. They were diluted, astringent, and very short, although they were not technically faulty. Wines I have tasted on my channel, such as Mayomi Pinot Noir, Kylie Minogue Rosé, and wines from Prisoner's Range, they were all better. But this is where the greatest issue lies. I buy all of my wine myself, and that should make me feel quite comfortable reviewing them. However, recently I was having lunch with a friend from the industry, whom I have known for a very long time. Amongst other things, we discussed my YouTube channel, and I was warned to be careful what I say on my channel, because otherwise I might not get invited to certain events. And now you, my dear viewer, might think, oh well, you don't need them. But no, I really do. Not only do I get to meet industry people, winemakers, other wine professionals, and opinion leaders, but I also learn. At these promotional events, important topics are often discussed. Trends and threats, challenges and opportunities, the latest developments, and future plans. If you want to remain relevant in your field of expertise, you really must attend these tastings. Speak with producers and listen to panel discussions as often as possible. So to finish this up, I am aware that I am part of the problem. Sometimes though, I calm myself down and say that perhaps this is not that serious of a problem. We are not discussing concerning questions within NATO, wars, or economic issues. We are tackling one of the most pleasant parts of civilization, food and wine. And does it really matter if one critic scores a wine 92 points and another critic gives it 87? It is just a number. The experience, the deliciousness, the desire to reach for a second glass matters. But then I think, if all wines are scored highly, what is the point of scoring wines anyway? Thank you very much for watching this video. Let's continue the discussion in the comment section below. Let me know your thoughts on wine scores, on 100 point system, and whether or not you follow it, and whether or not you think there should be something new in the world. If you like this video, I would appreciate if you also subscribe, because that really helps enormously. And meanwhile, make sure to watch this video next.