Understanding the numbers – part one – the 100 point system

There is a multitude of wine rating systems around. The two most common that you are likely to come across are the 100 point system and the 20 point system. This journal will explain the differences between the two systems and then show why these numbers are not all they are cracked up to be.

Lets examine the 100 point system which is used by many and made famous by Robert Parker. Under the Parker system the first point (bad pun intended) that readers need to understand is that in reality it is not 100 point system at all. A wine gets 50 points for just showing up. Wines judged between 50-59 are deemed to be unacceptable and wines between 60-69 are deemed to “containing noticeable deficiencies.”

70-79 Points are described as “average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made.”

80-89 Points are deemed to be wines that are “barely above average to very good.”

90-95 Points are explained as “outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character.”

96 –100 Points are “extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety.”

First problem, not all hundred point scales are the same, for example James Halliday’s 100 point scale is described as follows:-

Below 80 point wines are normally not reviewed.

80-84 points “good fault free, flavoursome; high bronze to silver medal standard.”

85-89 points “very good wine; clear varietal definition/style; silver verging on gold medal standard.

90-93 points “excellent wine full of character; gold medal standard.”

94-97 points “as close to perfection as the real world will allow.”

98-100 points “perfection which exists only as an idea.”

Whilst the differences between these two 100 point systems are subtle they are there but it gets more confusing. There are other 100 point systems that are totally different and judged differently. The reader has to understand the parameters of each 100 point system and not all of them are the same. Robert Parker rates them “vis-a-vis their peer group.” Wine Spectator uses a different 100 point system but “ratings are based on potential quality: how good the wines will be when they are at their peak” Some systems base the ratings on the wine now, or even base them on wines from the same vintage! Were the wines judged blind or open, these all can have an impact on the score.

Most readers will not understand that a 97 point Halliday wine is not necessarily a 97 point Parker or a 97 Wine Spectator wine because the basis on which they are judging wines may be very different.

Some 100 points systems in reality are not 100 point systems at all, they are 30 point systems as wines deemed to be “Average” start at 70 points. Why is the 100 point system popular? Because people can understand it! Is it a good system? In my opinion the answer is a resounding no.

The assessment of wine is a completely subjective analysis so why assign an objective score to the result? Using the first example that popped into my mind I went to Winepros and did a search on Noon Wines. Halliday rated the 99 Shiraz at 85 points and Parker rated it at 96 points.

If you extrapolate Halliday’s points to his description the wine is “very good wine.” On the other hand Parkers extrapolation would rate this as “extraordinary wine of profound and complex character.” Just a bit of difference of opinion there. But what can you tell from these scores? Not a huge amount. Here are the two tasting notes.

James Halliday “Dense red-purple; a massive, voluminous bouquet with concentrated earth, dark berry and alcohol aromas are inevitably followed by an equally massive palate with dark berry, chocolate and earth flavours. 15.2º alcohol; Best Drinking: 2004 to 2009”

Robert Parker “The hugely extracted, massive 1999 Shiraz Reserve tips the scales at 15.2% alcohol. An opaque blue/purple color and a knockout nose of blackberry liqueur intermixed with spice box, pepper, asphalt, and licorice soar from the glass. Opulent and viscous, with tremendous palate presence, beautifully integrated acidity, tannin, and alcohol, this superb, larger-than-life wine is a tour de force for a lighter weight vintage such as 1999. Anticipated maturity: 2003-2020”

Notice there are some very similar elements in the tasting notes, yet Parker’s 96 makes it “profound” and Halliday’s 85 makes it “very good.” If you just compare the points in this situation you may well be very confused because they don’t begin to tell the story, but if you read the tasting notes, you should have a good idea about the wine.

This example, which is just one of many, illustrates the futility of relying solely on points based on the 100 point system. More on this subject next week.

Cheers

Ric