Wine Ratings: What's in a Number Anyway?

Gary Rivlin wrote an interesting article in the New York Times last week about the relevance and importance of imparting a numerical and seemingly objective rating to the thoroughly subjective nature of wine. Mark Fisher followed on his excellent wine blog Uncorked with a few thoughts about scrapping the system altogether. It seems that the world of wine was abuzz last week with musings, rumblings and grumblings about ratings, numbers and systems. But all of these opinions were not about whether you can assign a numerical value to a bottle of fermented grape juice, but whether or not you should.

Well, you know what they say about opinions… But there is more to this story than meets the palate. As an information-driven website, we at Winegeeks have brought you over 1,000 reviews on wines that hail from all walks of life, all four corners of the globe and from tax brackets that range from college student to Bill Gates. With each review we have included a numerical value of that wine, based on a 10 point scale.

Right off the bat our reviews didn’t jive with the big boys. For starters, we make no bones about accepting sample bottles and refusing to taste the wines blind. We carry our integrity on our sleeve. In the end that is all we have as journalists, and as human beings. If that is not enough to provide an honest review then maybe we should be selling used cars instead.

Second, we feel that a good wine should be called just that- good. And a bad wine bad and so on and so forth. Unlike some publications where the outlook is always rosy and the wine always fantastic we feel that it is just as important to criticize the poor wines as it is to champion the great ones.

Our rating system also uses the entire scale. A vast majority of the wines reviewed by the Advocate, Spectator, et al., fall within a very small eight point range. Does this mean that all wines are within eight percent of each other in terms of quality, typicity, ability to age and style? We think not, and therefore a good wine scores a six, and a fantastic wine that deserves to be lauded like few others receives a nine. Can you tell the difference between an 89 and a 90?

As a proprietor of a wine shop I can tell you that it does make a difference. In sales, in interest from the consumer in that wine, even in the overall enjoyment of that wine by the customer. It shouldn’t, but it does. As mentioned in the New York Times article, sales are driven by wines that score 90 and above, not by the 89 also-rans.

So what is it that makes a great wine? Is it because it drips with fruit, or because it is so tannic that you can't feel your teeth after just one sip? Does it dance with the girl that brought it, or does it taste nothing like other wines from that region? Is it because it costs an arm and a leg, or just a scant few thousand Lire?

For our tasting panel at Winegeeks it is a combination of many things. We factor flavors and aromas, texture, length and balance. This is the skeleton of any wine review. But there are also more ethereal factors at play. How is the wine when compared to other wines made from the same grape variety or region? Or when compared to other wines from that vintage? What kind of life span can we expect from this wine? A wine that appears to have a 20 year run towards maturity in front of it will rate higher than a wine that lives in a 12 month window.

How does the value of the wine rate against other wines? While we have a separate category labled "Bang for the buck" the price plays a part in the overall rating of the wine. Some critics will say that this should not affect the overall score of the wine. We feel that the consumer is always affected by the price of the wine, and the price will always affect the overall enjoyment of that wine.

There are tons of other ingredients that we include as well, the most important (and hardest to quantify) being what some people call a sense of place. Does the wine speak of the region that it hails from, or is it way off base? Is it typical for a Bordeaux, or does it taste like a California Cab? This is a source of constant comment in the wine industry, an item that floats around the office water cooler as much as any sports story from the weekend. Critics argue back and forth over the validity of a wine that is from the old world that tastes as if it is from the new and vice versa. So do wine writers, store owners, sommeliers and wine buffs. Some people say it should matter not where the wine hails from, and it is the overall quality that matters. We feel that it is a little of both, and that this represents a wine's soul. How does one put a number on a soul? Other than 115, the number of James Brown albums, you can't.

This is where the very nature of wine ratings tends to bog down. This is why people who buy strictly by numbers miss the point. There is a distinct difference in a wine made from vast fields of grapes grown all over Australia and then blended together in massive tanks that hold 10,000 cases each and one crafted from a tiny vineyard on a hill in Burgundy and produced by a family that has worked the land for six generations. Put a number on that!

Ratings also make a difference in magazine sales and website traffic. Robert Parker Jr., credited as the first wine writer to employ a 100 point scale in reviewing wines, has been called the most influential critic on earth. Wines are made and broken by his numerical assessments. The futures market in Bordeaux, a series of advance sales of the wine before it is even released from the winery, is inexorably linked to his reviews among others. Poor reviews of a vintage will lower prices and retard sales. High praise will whip potential buyers into a feeding frenzy that drives prices to stratospheric heights. There is no doubt that the success of the Wine Advocate and the Wine Spectator, a publication that counts its circulation in hundreds of thousands, is due in large part to putting an easy to use system in place with a very black and white scoring system.

But is wine black and white? Is it not a mélange of color, flavor, aroma, feel, terroir, body and soul? Can one put a numerical value on taste? How would you rate the restaurant down the street with the great stir fry? Is it a 90? Is it a 90 when compared to other stir fry joints? How about when compared to a Mexican restaurant, let alone the four-star French bistro on the corner?

How about putting a numerical value on art? Does Picasso merit a 94, while Cézanne only an 89? What about Jackson Pollack? Clearly he is one of the masters of the 20th century, and I can appreciate his art, but I do not necessarily like it. If I were to apply the same sensibility to wine then perhaps I might rate big, obvious Aussie Shiraz lower than a well-balanced Burgundy, as that is a style that I enjoy more. But that would compromise my integrity as a reviewer of wine, allowing my tastes to affect my ratings of that wine, yet this is clearly what certain critics do as they have very distinct styles of wine that they enjoy. These wines are often the prize pig of the bunch in terms of ratings.

Where would we put Vincent Van Gogh, a man who failed to sell a single painting during his lifetime? His genius is evident, the quality of his work masterful and timeless. If we were to quantify his work upon their release then Van Gogh would have toiled with 60 and 70 point ratings, and been left out the publication altogether.

Which begs another question: No matter their level of experience or expertise, can anyone truly predict how a wine will age? Can one truly say that they know what will become of this wine in ten, fifteen or twenty years? Can you even tell what the wine will hold in two years after it has settled into bottle life, as opposed to the Bordeauxs tasted in barrel that fuel the futures market? Yet a large part of the final tally is based upon these Nostradamus-esque prognostications.

So many variables. And where is the validity of these tallies? It seems that everyone and their mom have a rating to offer about a wine. Even rinky-dink wine websites. One disturbing trend is the prevalence of sales outlets offering their own wine reviews. Of course if someone is selling something they are going to talk it up. But how does the consumer distinguish between those that offer objectivity and integrity and those that desire to hawk their wares? I believe I foresaw an end to the wine rating when a bottle of inexpensive Chilean red had a flashy gold disclaimer on the front proclaiming that the wine had indeed been rated 95 points. No mention of by whom, or how, or when the wine was rated 95 points, just that it had.

So after all this we at Winegeeks are at a crossroads. We feel that it is important to offer an analytical evaluation of each wine. But should this evaluation place more emphasis on the statistical, or the critical evaluation? The statistical has been given too much importance, and been diluted too thin, and corrupted too much. It is time to place the emphasis back on the critique and take it away from those all so critical scores.

In the future we will offer a new scoring system. We have many ideas and options in play, but the final decisions have not been made. A simple five point scale, perhaps a four star system. Maybe even our own version of the 100 point scale, or perhaps no rating al all, just a description as to whether the wine falls into the so-so or the so phenomenal category. Each of these options remains on the table.

It is in this spirit that we ask you, the Winegeeks reader as to where your opinion on this matter falls. We are dedicated to providing the best wine website possible, and that requires your input as well. Any thoughts on which system you think works best, or on the system as a whole would be greatly appreciated. It is after all your website as much as it is ours.

Sound off in our Discussion Board.

Comments

0 user comments. Add your comment for this article.

Winegeeks  |  Articles  |  Wines  |  Resources  |  Discussion  |  Members  |  About  |  RSS