Weekly Article
Sydney Time
Copyright © Ric Einstein 2008
That Old Hoary Chestnut Again (Sept 15)
There was no original intention of writing this story; it came about in response to Adair Durie, a supposed mate of mine who never stops giving me a hard time about my rating system and is worse than any Mormon knocking on your door trying to convert you to some religion you don’t want to know about. Like any gullible person, I ”let him in the door” by answering his first e-mail and the (friendly) war of words commenced. In short, Adair “has found religion” and besides trying to inflict the “hundred point belief” on me, he is just as deluded in thinking that the TORB Rating System can be effectively converted to the hundred point system; something he refuses to recognise is not the case.
In order to understand my response, first one has to understand the inconsistencies in the hundred point system, let alone the shortcomings and completely hollow foundation upon which it is grounded. In terms of inconsistencies, one only needs to look at a few people’s hundred point definitions. Up until a few years ago, Halliday used the hundred point rating system outlined below. Notice, it was primarily based around the Australian Wine Show system which is evident by Halliday’s definition of each points bracket.
Halliday’s old system
98 - 100 “perfection which exists only as an ideal.”
94 - 97 “as close to perfection as the real world will allow.”
90 - 93 “excellent wine full of character; gold medal standard.”
85 - 89 “very good wine; clear varietal definition/style; silver verging on gold medal standard.
80 - 84 “good fault free, flavoursome; high bronze to silver medal standard.”
Below 80 point wines are normally not reviewed.
About two or three years ago, Halliday quietly changed his rating system from one that was based on the Australian Wine Show system to one that appeared to be closer to the world’s most influential user of a hundred point system, Robert Parker.
Halliday’s new system
94 - 100 Outstanding. Wines of the highest quality, usually with a distinguished pedigree.
90 - 93 Highly recommended. Wines of great quality, style and character, worthy of a place in any cellar.
87 - 89 Recommended. Wines of above average quality, fault free and clear varietal expression.
84 – 86 Fair to good. Wines with plenty of flavour (usually varietal) and good balance; free of technical faults.
80 – 83 Everyday wines: price is particularly relevant; under $10 will represent good value.
75 – 79 Also tasted: usually wines with some deficiency, technical or otherwise.
In 2004, Jeremy Oliver who had previously used the Australian wine shows 20 point system started converting his scores to the hundred point system, and freely admitted factoring in Halliday’s system as the basis of his new hundred point system. So in theory, the basis upon which they both score wine should be very similar and on the surface, that may be the case, but when you scratch below the surface, it is not as consistent as it may first appear.
Sure the word “Outstanding” is used in both their top brackets and there is only one point difference in where they start this bracket. The critical difference comes in the descriptions used after the word “Outstanding”. Halliday refers to “highest quality” whilst Oliver refers to a gold medal standard, so Oliver has based his around the Australian Wine Show system, yet Halliday’s new system walked away from mentioning the Australian Wine Show standards. Under Halliday’s old system, a gold medal standard was 90 to 93 points but now under Oliver’s new system, it is 95+ points. The inconsistencies between these two points systems don’t end with just gold medals and the top bracket. The comparison to the Australian Wine Show system goes all the way down to 85 in Oliver’s system, in which it is equivalent to a bronze medal; yet under Halliday’s original scoring system 85 points was basically worth a silver medal. So Halliday moved away from the show system as his basis, yet Oliver bases his system on it, but uses Halliday’s system as a comparison check point; confused? In reality it is not that confusing; it just illustrates some of the inconsistencies in the hundred points system
Oliver’s 100 point scoring
95+ Outstanding – Roughly equivalent to a gold medal 18.5 and above
90 - 94 Highly recommended, genuine class and character, silver medal.
87 - 89 Recommended, above average, without fault, solid bronze medal
84 – 86 Reasonably good, free of technical faults, uncomplicated, just above or below bronze medal status.
80 – 83 Everyday wines
75 – 79 Something went wrong.
If you examine the bottom number in the rating chart used by Halliday, Oliver and other Australian writers, you will notice the bottom score is 75 and that is given for wines that are “deemed to be defective;” so the reality is you have a 25 point scale, not a hundred point scale. Now in theory, Parker’s original hundred point scale was based on the US school marking system where exams were out of a hundred. As you can see from the Parker scale (below) wines containing noticeable deficiencies score between 60 and 69 points; anything that “calls itself wine” automatically gets 50 points just for the name. When I went to school, (and yes, despite my spelling and grammar I did actually attend,) anything below 50 points was regarded as a failure. Under the Australian system, you only need less than 80 points to be regarded as a failure. Does this make sense? If it t does; it makes about as much sense as the rest of the shortcomings of this system!
Finally, let’s examine the hundred point system on which all others are supposedly based.
Parkers System
96 –100 Points are “extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety.”
90 - 95 Points are explained as “outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character.”
80 - 89 Points are deemed to be wines that are “barely above average to very good.”
70 - 79 Points are described as “average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made.”
60 – 69 Points are described as “a below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies.
In Australia today, by volume about 50% of the wine consumed comes out of a cask so the higher quality cask wines would by definition, be deemed to be average, and in theory, would be awarded 70 to 79 points using the Parker scale. Yet under Oliver’s or Halliday’s scale this same cask wine would be 80-83 points. But then when it comes to points, not many people care what points cask wine is awarded anyway; and whilst this is not important to those that drink quality wine, it does underlie one of the baseline inconsistencies between hundred point rating scales. More importantly, for the serious wine drinker if you examine the top end points, for a wine to be “Outstanding” on Parker’s scale it would be a 90 to 95 point wine, yet under Halliday scale the wines would need to be a minimum of 94 points, and under Oliver’s 95 points and above. This perfectly illustrates that not all hundred point scales are the same, even when they are theoretically based on the same system.
I have purposely avoided going into detail about the folly of trying to pin an objective absolute measurement on the completely subjective personal taste involved in assessing wine.
So why is the 100 point system so popular?
If you ask many in the industry, they will tell you it is because consumers want it and whilst that is true, in some ways it’s a cop-out and a lame excuse. The industry loves the 100 point system for one simple reason; it enables them to prostitute the system and market the hell out of points. Some retailers have come up with their own point system and invariably many of their ratings are higher than even the most lenient scorers amongst the prominent wine writers. The hundred point system enables retailers and wineries to sell product, it certainly does not have the consumers’ best interests at heart. Those selling wine will look for a review with the highest points and “market” the heck out of those points.
If you ask a number of professional wine critics why they use the 100 point system they will tell you it is what the consumer wants, but more importantly, their bottom line is impacted if they don’t use it. That sounds fair enough doesn’t it, but there is another side to this coin.
The majority of these professionals are part of the industry and those that use the 100 point system as a matter of convenience (or to survive) are proving two things. Firstly, they are “part of the problem” not part of the solution, and secondly, most of them are using the 100 point system to make money rather than out of ideological conviction. Consumers need to realise, that as much as most of these professionals like to profess their independence and impartiality, they rely on the industry to make a living and without the industry quoting their point scores, their chance of economic survival is slim.
If consumers “want points” as those in the industry state, they are getting them “big time,” and whilst people are getting both what they want and probably what they deserve, that may not necessarily be what is best. That will sound condescending too many readers, but one brief example and the logic will quickly become evident.
People want to save time by buying take-away (in many cases junk) food, but is that food as nutritious as a home-cooked meal using healthy, fresh ingredients? Probably not! Take away may be fine, and it certainly does have advantages, especially as a short-term occasional thing, but it is generally not as good as a real home cooked meal. So what is more important, a quick fix or a better solution that takes a bit of time and effort?
Consumers will make up their own mind and do what they want to do but that does not mean there is not a better way.
Finally, as far as my mate Adair’s proposition that the TORB System can be converted to the 100 point system, the only way that would happen was if the 100 point system started at zero and good cask wine was worth 50 points. Even then, with the lesser number of possible ratings in the TORB system, the equivalent 100 point score would always be a range rather than a single number.
Copyright © Ric Einstein 2005
