tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post8493420148366066350..comments2024-03-02T00:28:05.502-05:00Comments on Wine -- Mise en abyme: Proposed New Wine-Scoring MethodologywineORLhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06163150468541915038noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-20868346072941996182010-03-07T23:20:16.548-05:002010-03-07T23:20:16.548-05:00Yes it was fun, lets do that. I enjoyed your pers...Yes it was fun, lets do that. I enjoyed your perspective.robert goulethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648215407554761566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-28030172796733363842010-03-07T19:01:11.924-05:002010-03-07T19:01:11.924-05:00Interesting discussion. Thanks for providing the v...Interesting discussion. Thanks for providing the vehicle for facilitating same. I think a lot more room for discussion which I hope will continue in the future as we continue with similarly themed posts.wineORLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163150468541915038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-20508286668911974132010-03-07T17:12:02.186-05:002010-03-07T17:12:02.186-05:00I respect your opinions and all are valid so let m...I respect your opinions and all are valid so let me see if I can articulate what I've done so I do not sound like an idiot.<br /><br />Honestly, I always felt with some tweeking one can judge future development with less than ten stars.<br />Rough example: <br />1 point: short term drinking, <br />2 points: short to medium term, <br />3 points: medium term, <br />4 points: medium to long term, <br />5 points: long term.<br /><br />With drinking windows added if needed for the collectors. I have no experience in that arena.<br /><br />I did think about all the downscaling I did on each category. What reinforced it for me are critics like Dacanter or the de Groots who critics for dutch magazine Perswijn. They apply an overall wine score based on a minimal five star scale. I know many respect Decanter ratings.<br /><br />So I felt downscaling the scoring variables would not water down the magnitude of each individual category. Plus if need be, you could add half stars which would further help delineate.<br /><br />In addition, I did specify creating your own scoring model to suit your style. I doubt whether my model is an improvement over Parkers. The wine world is constantly changing and evolving, so I figured hey, why not the scoring model?<br />I hope this helps.robert goulethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648215407554761566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-57178772536291620972010-03-07T14:50:56.549-05:002010-03-07T14:50:56.549-05:00Ok, let's get down to brass tacks. Parker'...Ok, let's get down to brass tacks. Parker's categories are color, bouquet, palte and future development. By providing scoring ranges for each of these variables he is implying a weight for each category. For example, color, with a maximum score of 5 is half as important as future development which has a score of 10. By saying half as important I mean that future development has twice as graet an opportunity to be a meaningful contributor to the final score as does color. In your model, you have reduced the contribution (weight) of bouquet, palate and aging to equip this new variable caled overall flavor profile. First off, I can see some value in breaking down the palate feel into its constituent parts but I cannot se the rationale for dialing back the overal strength of the category vis a vis its neighbors. What is the rationale for taking down bouquest and why the specific point allocation? AS a coector, the aging potentia is extremely important to me yet you assign it the same potential as color. Help me.wineORLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163150468541915038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-67480893197977821802010-03-07T12:40:53.711-05:002010-03-07T12:40:53.711-05:00I thought of this intially, but I feel these 3 new...I thought of this intially, but I feel these 3 new variables are more about feel than to the overall flavor profile. I added these to address more of the roundness/completeness of the wine not to the overall flavor profile. <br /><br />The overall flavor profile speaks more to your wheelhouse flavors. Mine are leather, asian spice, cocoa, creme de cassis, black currant, black cherry and slate.<br /><br />I even toyed with the idea of an acidity rating, but I felt that overlapped with the aging potential variable.robert goulethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648215407554761566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-54319760969082449312010-03-07T12:23:00.658-05:002010-03-07T12:23:00.658-05:00I understand. On another point, could there be som...I understand. On another point, could there be some overlap in the flavor profile, as defined by Parker, and the threenew variables taht you have introduced in your system?wineORLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163150468541915038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-57829902592595812672010-03-07T09:29:41.971-05:002010-03-07T09:29:41.971-05:00Ha ha, yes arguing about what makes a wine 95 poin...Ha ha, yes arguing about what makes a wine 95 points is childish, since all tastes are different. It's an arguement that can not be won. I did mention and encourage each wine consumer to create their own scoring system to fit their personal style. Whether it is a number or a general guide is fine. Yes, all systems are flawed I did address that. As for my system I to expressed it does not escape fallibility. What your system does that a numerical score does not is that it encourages and promotes wine discussion. Parker has done something similar, seen below.<br /><br />96-100:<br />An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety. Wines of this caliber are worth a special effort to find, purchase, and consume.<br />90 - 95:<br />An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.<br />80 - 89:<br />A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.<br />70 - 79:<br />An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine. <br />60 - 69:<br />A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors. <br />50 - 59:<br />A wine deemed to be unacceptable.<br /><br />Maybe Parkers mistake was applying a numerical value to each rating category. <br />Unfortunatley, it is what it is. I think we're stuck with what we have. Because even if we do away with Parkers System, then we still have every other critic out there pushing their own. It's too much a fixed part of our wine culture, collector and the investment community. I feel the best thing we can do without scrapping the entire formula is to improve upon it. Are you with me?????!!!!<br />Ah, probably not.......robert goulethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12648215407554761566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1080161909822087430.post-29010367521013320552010-03-07T06:35:33.105-05:002010-03-07T06:35:33.105-05:00Attempting to refine a bad idea cannot help but ac...Attempting to refine a bad idea cannot help but accentuate the problems associated with the original bad idea. The overall concept of assigning numerical precision to an innately qualitative process such as wine tasting is the original bad idea. The problems are numerous and have been noted ad nauseum in the past so I will not go into them here. In relation to the approach detailed herein, is it possible to add two additional variables, with associated ranges, and fit the results into a 100-point system without degrading the relative contribution of the initial variables. And, if that is the case, which are the variables that take the hit. On a personal level, I would much prefer a rating system with the following categories: Exceptional, Very Good, Good, Average, Mediocre, Code Red. Such a scheme is less nuanced and allows us to get away from the ridiculous argument of what is a 95. We can all agree that a wine is exceptional and then proceed to a discussion of what makes it so.wineORLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06163150468541915038noreply@blogger.com