Jakson Wine Scores Explained: What Do They Really Mean? täydellinen litterointi

$15. 00:06:27.505 --> 00:06:37.882 Head to corkandfizz.com, scroll down to the bottom, and there'll be a little section where you can join the mailing list. I send out a weekly newsletter filled with wine tips, recommendations, special offers, and so much more. 00:06:38.331 --> 00:07:58.601 Now let's get back to the show. Now, the famous Judgment of Paris, if you've ever heard of that, this was a judging, I guess you could say it was a competition that happened. Uh, it was in 1976 and it was put together by an English wine merchant, and he wanted to prove to the Europeans that US wine, and specifically California wine, was just as good as the wines of France. So he put the Chardonnays of Napa Valley up against the Chardonnays of Burgundy, and the Cabernet Sauvignons of Napa Valley up against the Cabernet Sauvignons of Bordeaux. And then the judges scored each of the wines, and they scored the wines on a 20-point scale. So they tasted All four of the different wines, different types of wines, and from different producers. They did it blind, so they didn't know where it was from, and they did it on a twenty-point scale. But there was no rubric. They didn't give them like here's how to come up with your points. The judges kind of had to go off their own personal criteria and experience. So one judge could you know taste a wine, and you know the most important thing to them was the finish of the wine. How long did the wine last? Or Maybe, you know, did the wine have good potential? Like it had good aging potential. And one judge might go off of that, whereas another judge was like, did it taste good on the palate? 00:07:58.649 --> 00:08:28.048 Like, was it something I wanted to drink right now? And so what's kind of crazy is that, yeah, it was a 20-point like scale, but everybody was going off their own rubric. In case you haven't heard of the Judgment of Paris, what happened was that the California wines actually took first place over the French wine. So it was a bit of a scandal at the time. Going back to our points though, it wasn't until 1978 when the now popular 100-point scoring system was first introduced. 00:08:29.105 --> 00:10:16.999 And this was, this was news to me. I was very surprised. It was introduced by a man that didn't have any formal wine education. Now, as somebody who has very little formal wine education, but I still feel qualified to talk to you about wine, and I hope you feel the same because you're listening to this, I'm not saying that formal wine education is needed, but this man, his point system became synonymous with deciding if a wine was good or amazing or not good at all. So kind of crazy that he didn't have any formal wine education. Now, of course, I am talking about Robert Parker. Robert Parker was a lawyer from Baltimore, and he wanted to describe wine using simple and direct writing. Something that was different from what was used in the wine world. He wanted to make it easier for wine novices to know if a wine was good or bad. He also designed the system to counter what he believed to be confusing or maybe even inflated ratings by other wine writers, many of whom he accused of having a conflict of interest. So he felt like these wine writers had financial interest in the wines that they rated. And so of course the ones that they, you know, had an interest in somehow got a higher rating and he wanted to remove this from the rating process. So he introduced a 100-point scoring system and it was based on schools' grading systems. So again, this was kind of news to me. I always knew it was a 100-point scoring system, but that means all scores were between 50 to 100 points. You couldn't actually have a score that went below 50. So same as like, you know, in school you would get a, a letter rating, right? 00:10:17.191 --> 00:11:14.327 And the lowest you could go was an F, and an F was like 50 to 59. And then from there, you know, it would go, go up. And so even though it was a 100-point scoring system, there were only 50 different points that could be awarded. The score itself was determined based on color, aroma, flavor, finish, and the potential of the wine, though Parker himself has admitted that emotion does play a part in the scoring system, and he was also known as being a very fast taster. So he would taste wines and maybe have them in his mouth for as little as like 4 seconds before providing a rating. So I think it's interesting to think about, you know, there are these things that you're trying to be impartial about the wine, but there are aspects that, you know, emotion and personal preference might get in the way. Now, why did, you know, Robert Parker and his rating system become famous, right? 00:11:14.633 --> 00:11:51.640 Why, why did we decide to listen to this lawyer from Baltimore? What happened was he predicted against all of the popular critics that the 1982 Bordeaux vintage would be great quality, and it was. So I guess we all just decided that, hey, this guy knows what he's talking about. We like it. Let's listen to him. Let's, let's Follow his rating system, and so Parker he shared his scores in what was first called the Baltimore Washington Wine Advocate, but was later shortened to just the Wine Advocate. The Wine Advocate still exists today. 00:11:51.995 --> 00:12:00.327 Parker is not involved anymore. He sold it to a group in Singapore, I believe. But then. 00:12:00.857 --> 00:12:23.352 Michelin, so like the Michelin star system ended up, like Michelin stars for restaurants, ended up purchasing it later on. And now I believe they, they purchased a majority and now they own all of it. Parker stayed on for a while as just somebody who rated the wines, not somebody who owned The Wine Advocate, but then he recently retired. So he is no longer part of it, but his system still remains. 00:12:24.267 --> 00:12:42.357 Now, there was certainly some pushback to Parker's point system, which we'll talk about later. And some wine critics,

especially those in Europe and more traditionalists, choose to use a 20-point system instead. This system uses half points and like plus-minus modifiers. 00:12:42.936 --> 00:14:04.326 Jancis Robinson, if you've heard of her, she's a very famous wine writer and judge and gosh, just so many things in the wine world. She uses this system and she also is very specific about scoring wines In their, like, in a wine category rather than universally. So like, we're not gonna compare a Loire Valley Cabernet Franc, or no, let, let me think of a better example. We're not gonna compare like an Oregon Pinot Noir to a red Burgundy just because the wine regions have very different histories, right? Burgundy has been around forever. And the wine program in Oregon, as great as it is, is still really young. And so it doesn't make sense to, you know, score these and have these in the exact same category and have it be universal. Same thing with like the amazing, you know, champagne houses versus, you know, a sparkling wine from South Africa, right? It just doesn't make sense to score those on the same scale. Now, that said, with there are being some critics using the 20-point system, By 2000, the 100-point system became the industry default. Other rating systems do still exist, and it's also important to know that not every 100-point system is exactly the same. 00:14:05.361 --> 00:14:09.065 That said, let's dive a bit deeper into these rating systems. 00:14:09.490 --> 00:14:12.452 So let's start with Robert Parker's 100-point system. 00:14:15.859 --> 00:14:19.234 I think I've officially found my new favorite way to buy wine. 00:14:19.653 --> 00:15:04.346 It's called Full Pull Wines and I've already bought at least 12 bottles since I joined their mailing list, and that was last month. The concept is super simple. You receive a daily email from Full Pull owner Paul highlighting a wine or 2 or 3 that he's excited about. These wines range from classic French wines to small production Washington wines and everything in between. It's basically like getting an email from your most enthusiastic wine friend who just found an amazing deal on a bottle of wine and wants to share it with you. If you love wine and wanna discover amazing bottles without spending a fortune, join the Full Pull mailing list for free at fullpullwines.com. That's F-U-L-L-P-U-L-L-wines.com. 00:15:04.586 --> 00:15:07.000 It's free to join, so why not check it out? 00:15:10.405 --> 00:15:17.264 What's interesting here is that he and his tasters don't taste blind. They actually have a whole thing about this on their website. 00:15:18.096 --> 00:17:26.316 And it's interesting, they note that they believe that professional wine tasters can be impartial. That while there are some benefits to blind tastings, and it can be fun to show off your ability to, to taste wine and determine where it's from, they think that blind tasting can get in the way of actually tasting the wine. And they believe that a professional taster should not Take something like Grand Cru written on the label as something that affects the taste of the wine. I'll admit, I think that's a little, I don't know, I just, it goes against psychology, right? Like, if we're told something is gonna be good, like we kind of think it's gonna be good. It's kind of hard to like go against our own psychology, but you know, they're the experts. So maybe, maybe that's true. Maybe the professional tasters can be impartial. They also have a really strict code of ethics, and this is also what allows them to not blind taste and then still feel like they have very fair ratings. They're very, very strict, especially about ensuring that there's no connection, like no financial interest in any of the wines. Now, there have been some controversies that some raters for Robert Parker and for The Wine Advocate do have connections in buying and selling wine. But in particular for the ratings, the Wine Advocate itself will cover all travel, accommodation, and sustenance costs associated with reviewing wines for the Wine Advocate reports. The reviewers are not allowed to accept any gifts or gifts in kind from wineries. And furthermore, the Robert Parker Wine Advocate and the website are subscriber funded and supported and will remain that way. They do not permit any advertising in their publication, so With all of that, they feel like they can be impartial, even if they know exactly what wine and exactly the cost of the wine that they're rating, which is kind of interesting. As for the scale, like I mentioned, it is a 100-point scale, but it starts at 50. 00:17:27.006 --> 00:18:19.400 So think 50 to 59 is unacceptable. Apparently just not good. We don't want that. 60 to 69 is below average and deficient in some way. Once we get to 70, 70 to 79 is average. It's soundly made with little distinction, but it's, it'll do. I feel like it's kind of the way to look at it. 80 to 89, now we're getting to above average, very good. But interestingly enough, you still won't see a number 80 to 89, I feel like, on very many wine labels unless it's like a really low-cost wine. But this means the wine is Very good, solid craftsmanship, no flaws. Like those things all sound very good, but it's not until we get to 90 to 95, and this is outstanding, superior character and exceptional complexity. 00:18:20.153 --> 00:18:28.240 And of course, 96 to 100, what every winery is trying to get, extraordinary and classic wine of profound complexity. 00:18:29.299 --> 00:18:57.991 Again, really interesting thing to note. I just think it's so fascinating that like. A score between 80 to 89 is considered very good, yet wineries aren't really gonna like boast or like brag about that score. It's like they have to get something between 90 to 100, even though those are outstanding and extraordinary. And like, if something's outstanding, like there can't be a lot of them, right? Because then everything's outstanding, and then is it even

outstanding anymore? I don't know, I digress. 00:18:58.455 --> 00:19:13.185 That is the Robert Parker Wine Advocate style of rating. Now there's also wine Spectator. They also use a 100-point scale. However, they use a blind tasting methodology. Now, they don't do a full blind tasting. 00:19:13.362 --> 00:20:02.061 Testers can know vintage, grape, and region or appellation of the wine that they are tasting, but they will not know the producer or the price. Each tasting will begin with a previously rated wine, which is tasted non-blind as a reference point. So essentially they'll bring in a wine and say, okay, This was the you know this is from Domaine Da Da Da Da you know 2022 I don't know and it was rated 89 and so it gives them a reference point because all of the ratings reflect how highly the tasting panel regards each wine relative to other wines so it's not just meant to be kind of a point scale or like a a point given to the wine on its own it's how it tastes compared to the other. 00:20:04.160 --> 00:20:19.372 Wines that they are tasting. They will also throw in other previously rated wines into the blind wine tasting to ensure consistency. So basically making sure that like, hey, you previously rated this wine an 82. 00:20:19.836 --> 00:20:27.451 If you give it a 92, we're gonna be concerned. Like, make sure it's about similar to what you rated it before. 00:20:28.461 --> 00:20:43.932 Their scale is gonna sound super similar to Robert Parker's, so 50 to 74 Is not recommended. 75 to 79 is mediocre. It's a drinkable wine, but it might have some flaws. 00:20:44.912 --> 00:20:52.205 80 to 84, good. It's a solid, well-made wine. 85 to 89, very good. 00:20:52.462 --> 00:21:03.740 This is a wine with special qualities. 90 to 94 is outstanding, a wine of superior character and style. And of course, 95 to 100, Is given the. 00:21:04.446 --> 00:22:21.557 What's interesting is it goes from outstanding to classic. Like that's the best you can get from Wine Spectator. Like if your wine is called classic, that is the best it can be. That is considered a great wine. I mean, it also goes to show that like the way that they're trying to rate these, they are trying to rate them against what you should expect from that region, which. I feel like is a good and a bad thing, right? Like we do want the wine to be as we expect it to be, but should we punish a wine that does something a little different, even if it's still really good? I don't know. And I'd be curious if the, the points actually show that as well. Now, as I mentioned before, Jancis Robinson, she uses a 20-point scoring system with her ratings. So here is what her scale is. And interestingly enough, it also looks like her scale does not go all the way down to 1. She only gives titles to, the lowest number is a 12. So 12 is faulty or unbalanced. Now, why they don't just do like, I don't know, these are, how many numbers are here? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Like, why aren't we doing a 9-point scale? Like, why are we doing a 20-point scale and starting at 12? I don't know. I don't get it. 00:22:21.990 --> 00:22:32.381 I don't get it. Okay. But we are, that's what we're doing. So 20-point scoring system. A 12 is faulty or unbalanced. 13 is borderline faulty or unbalanced. 00:22:32.525 --> 00:22:39.237 14, deadly dull. I love that. I just love that. I love that that's the description of it. 00:22:39.991 --> 00:22:50.285 15 is average, a perfectly nice drink with no faults, but not much excitement. A 16 is distinguished. 17 is superior. 00:22:50.974 --> 00:23:13.439 18 is a cut above superior. Now get ready, 19 is a humdinger. That's a whole humdinger of a wine you got there. And 20 is truly exceptional. Jancis Robinson is British. I have a feeling humdinger is not as like country sounding to a British person as it is to me, but I, I do truly love that winery. 00:23:13.872 --> 00:24:04.884 Is trying to aim to get their wine to be a humdinger or truly exceptional. Uh, one thing with Janson-Robinson's 20-point scoring system, they will occasionally give a plus or a plus plus to suggest that they think, but they're not 100% sure that the wine will improve. And if a score comes with a minus attached to it, it means that it has a drawback, something that they'll probably note in the tasting notes. And again, here they're very particular about not rating 2 wines against each other that it just doesn't make sense to. So for example, when reviewing New Zealand Pinot Noirs, they score those in context of other New World Pinot Noirs rather than on the same scale with like red Burgundies, which have a much longer history and a longer time of making wine. 00:24:05.974 --> 00:24:35.556 Now, beyond the point scoring systems. There's also the system of competition medals. Medals are a totally different game from a critic score. You know, a bronze at one competition needs 86 points, which I think as we've learned, if you saw that on a label, you'd kind of go, nah, that's like an okay wine, I suppose. But if you saw a bronze medal on a wine, that sounds pretty exciting, right? Totally messes with our heads. 00:24:35.619 --> 00:25:29.923 It's crazy. So. Let's dig into, I've shared my opinion a lot already. I keep in mind, this is, this is my podcast. I'm going to share some opinions. Not everything is going to be just purely factual, but I think it'll be pretty obvious what's factual and what's my opinion. So let's dive into what are some of the, like the case for wine scores? Why are wine scores a good thing? The main thing is they do solve a real problem. A shopper who is facing hundreds of unfamiliar labels needs a fast comparable signal, and a number from a known critic is the quickest one available, right? It's a lot easier to just see, you know, if you see 20 wines in front of you and each of them has a number, you know, likely between 80 and 100, it makes it a lot easier for you to pick out which one you think will be the best rather than having to

read each of the tasting notes or Each of the back labels. 00:25:31.079 --> 00:25:42.015 Now, this was also the 100-point system, or whatever scoring system was originally pitched to protect consumers. It was moving away from critics that had financial ties to the wine they reviewed. 00:25:42.545 --> 00:25:53.784 They wanted to remove the bias. And then, as I mentioned, scoring can be incredibly rigorous. Wine Spectator tastes blind to producer and price so that they can kind of stay unbiased. 00:25:54.267 --> 00:25:57.664 In 2012, I know this is an old stat, but stick with me. 00:25:58.067 --> 00:26:39.099 They reviewed over 17,000 new releases of wine and they gave zero perfect scores. So I guess they're kind of picky too. Now there are some problems with wine scores. The main thing is that a score looks objective. Like it looks like we're saying, okay, a professional gave it this score and they are completely unbiased. But the thing is, a score describes one person's reaction on one day. That person might be a professional wine taster, and so it's probably less biased than a non-professional, but it's still their reaction on one day. 00:26:39.853 --> 00:27:06.095 And research even shows that trained judges struggle to repeat their own scores. So for example, there's some major US wine competitions. This was back in between the years 2005 and 2008. Judges were secretly served the same wine 3 times. Only about 10% of those judges scored all 3, again, they were the same wine, within one medal band. 00:27:06.576 --> 00:27:17.271 So like gave them all like a point that fit for like the bronze or all for silver. Another 10% of them gave the same wine anything from bronze to a gold. 00:27:17.944 --> 00:27:25.048 So again, it's hard to be Super consistent when you're tasting so many different wines. 00:27:25.865 --> 00:27:40.182 Also, score inflation. I've mentioned this multiple times, but nowadays 90 is kind of a normal score and 86 feels like a fail, even though both Wine Spectator and Wine Advocate notes an 86 as a very good wine. 00:27:41.336 --> 00:28:03.438 There's also something called Parkerization, and this was a lot of people's main argument against Robert Parker's 100-point scale. The thing is, is that it felt like wineries started to make their wine to please a single person's palate, Robert Parker's palate in particular, rather than letting the wine speak for itself. 00:28:04.288 --> 00:28:20.013 It became clear fairly quickly that Parker liked riper, oakier, bolder wines. These wines stood out in side-by-side tastings. If you're tasting hundreds of wines in a day, You're going to notice the ones that are bigger and bolder. 00:28:21.219 --> 00:28:32.023 You know, that makes sense. You'll see that many wineries started going that way with their wines. They started making riper, oakier, bolder wines. Coincidence? 00:28:32.923 --> 00:29:05.839 I think not. So they started making their wines to fit his palate in order to get a high score because higher scored wines Could sell for more money. Now, one way you can kind of take advantage of this flaw, right, of it—you know—the score only represents one person's palate—is that you can find a rater that has a similar palate to your own. You'll see lots of different raters today. It is not just Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, right? There's the Wine Advocate, but there's also the Wine Spectator. 00:29:05.983 --> 00:29:09.770 There's also Decanter. James Suckling is a popular wine rater. 00:29:10.092 --> 00:30:22.654 But there are so many more than just those few. So my recommendation is not to just look at the number that the wine is given. Look at who gave it that number and start to pay attention to wines that you like and see if there is somebody who is consistently giving those higher ratings. And also don't forget that many low scores go unpublished and there are so many wines that never get rated at all. So just because a wine Doesn't have a rating doesn't mean that it's not good. All right. I'm curious, what are your thoughts on wine scores? What questions do you still have about wine scores? Reach out to me on Instagram@corkandfizz or email me hayley@corkandfizz.com. I would love to know what you think. Personally, I'm not usually one to purchase a wine based on its score. However, I can recognize the validation that many wineries feel when they receive a high score on a wine. It does mean something to them, so it's not completely worthless, but I'm still hesitant to, to call it something that is a good thing to use to purchase wine. Hopefully that makes sense. 00:30:24.049 --> 00:31:18.190 All right. I hope you enjoyed this episode of the Cork and Fizz Guide to Wine podcast. If you loved it as much as I did, I'd love it if you take a quick second, rate it, leave a review. I know I ask you this every time, but if you're still listening right now and you haven't left a review, I would so, so appreciate if you could go on Apple Podcasts and just say what you like about the, what you like about the podcast. And of course, if you know a wine lover in your life, please share this with them. And if you'd like to show additional support for the show, you can become a patron. Click the link in the show notes and become a monthly supporter for $10 or less a month. You get a shout out in the next episode I record. Plus, if you choose the$10 a month option, which, come on now, that's like a drink or two from your local coffee shop, you'll get to choose a topic for a future episode. In next week's episode, I'll be sharing my favorite alternatives to Cabernet Sauvignon. 00:31:18.750 --> 00:31:25.484 Thanks again for listening. Bye. And if you wanna learn more about wine, come follow me @corkandfizz on Instagram. Cheers!