Let’s get straight to the point, shall we.
The debate over rating wines — whether it’s the widely used 100 point system (an invention of the Wine Advocate’s Robert Parker) or the 20-point system or the five-star system or three bottle system or two thumbs up system — has been raging for quite a while now.
It often boils down to “new school” vs “old school.” A new way of thinking is that assigning wines a numerical value (or stars or bottles or smiley faces) cheapens the review of the wine. Can we reduce a wine to merely a number? Of course not. It’s just a number assigned by an individual about how he/she feels after tasting it. That little number is just two characters in a review that includes a writeup of exactly how that writer feels about the wine — in WORDS. It’s an aid for the reader, a quick reference that’s easily understood.
Rating wines is required by most wine magazines, newspapers and printed reviews of wines. It’s a decision that is made by the editors of those publications, those with the power to enforce such a decision and change it if they want to.
The writers, generally freelancers or paid staff, have a choice, of course. Assign a value to the wine, or simply refuse and go find work at another publication (or write your own blog) that doesn’t require a number with the review.
I just don’t get the outright anger toward Robert Parker and his 100-point system. His reviews and ratings are still the most powerful on earth and can make or break (rightly or wrongly) a winery’s success. Is that his fault? He developed the system, made a career out of it and a crapload of money to boot. Some would call that success. If wineries rushed to make wines that suited his palate, the wines he rated in the high 90s, so be it. That is their prerogative. If consumers don’t like Parker’s 95-point wines, don’t drink them and, for heaven’s sake, don’t buy them. It’s not rocket science.
OK, that’s a long-winded way of saying we’re changing the way we rate wines at WinesInNiagara.
Many of the wines rated on this site are repurposed to various magazines as part of freelance writing gigs, and nearly all those freelance assignments require some sort of rating, usually a number out of 100.
I have always disliked the five-star rating system that was insisted upon by my previous employer, where quite a few of the Niagara reviews that appear on this website were destined. With a limit of five stars, it was really a three-point system — 3.5 stars = 85-87 points, 4 stars = 88-90, 4.5 stars = 91-93, 5 stars = 94+. How silly is that? I have only ever given a wine 5 stars five times. They weren’t 100-point wines but, in my opinion, there were better than 93, so they were assigned the perfect score of 5. And since I just didn’t review wines under 3.5 stars (85 points), I never used 3 stars as a rating.
The five-star system is just nasty. So I’m switching to the 100-point system. Parker haters be damned. A score out of 100 provides plenty of leeway for subjectivity — which is exactly what a rating is: a number assigned to a wine from one’s personal taste, however he or she comes up with it. It’s just a number, something extra devised to entertain you, to enrage you, to get you thinking. Or, simply ignored.
So, going forward, wine ratings on this website will rated out of 100 points. I’m 88 on that, mate!
We have similar debates when reviewing music. The deficiencies of the 5 star system (which Punknews.org currently utilizes) are exactly as you’ve described. Using a highly granular measure leads to far too many blurred lines, particularly when multiple writers are each applying different internal reasoning. It’s worse since we’re community driven and editorially decentralized; we just produce way too many 5 star reviews to have the quantitative ratings hold any meaning.
Using 5 stars means you agonize far more over the boundaries than otherwise. The jump between 93 and 94 becomes far more pronounced than the gap between 92 and 93 because 94 jumps you into the upper star bracket.
While I’ve always said publicly that I dislike quantitative ratings of subjective things in general, given our information overload these days I can’t deny that they certainly serve a purpose.
In the wine world, though under critical scrutiny is some circles, the gold standard appears to be the 100-point system. As you clearly point out, it does give a bit more wiggle room at the top of the scale (less important in the lower spectrum). Thanks for your comments.
Personally, I dislike putting numerical rankings on wines at all. It really hasn’t served me well personally. Case in point – if Parker likes a wine and scores it well (i.e. a high number), there’s a really good chance I won’t like it.
I think consumers would benefit from a more informative, less judgemental system.
Jeff, point taken. But I’m not sure the wine consuming world is in agreement.