Measuring the immeasurable

The following is the editorial that appears in the February issue of WINE magazine. It is repeated here to take advantage of the Internet as a forum of debate. Please also note the poll on the subject that appears on the WINEmag.co.za homepage.

A new producer recently approached me for an opinion on his as-yet-unreleased maiden vintage Merlot. I tasted the wine and was impressed: I told him that I would have given it 16 on the 20-point scale, equivalent to 4 Stars.

The producer was, however, underwhelmed. “That’s less gratifying relative to the feedback I’ve been getting from international writers and buyers,” he confessed. “If I were to convert 16 out of 20 to a score on the 100-point scale, then my wine ends up with 80 – I must admit I would have preferred higher.”

I had to explain that, when it interpreting my score, it was not simply a matter of multiplying it by five, as the 20-point scale and the 100-point scale are calibrated differently. 16/20 is equivalent to a rating of 4 Stars, defined as “excellent, wine of distinction”. The equivalent score on the 100-point scale would be 90 – 95, typically defined as “outstanding, exceptional” by those who use it.

The 100-point scale was developed by US critic Robert Parker at the beginning of the 1980s and quickly adopted by US wine publications, notably Wine Spectator. It has become the international standard and it’s not difficult to understand why, as it makes selling and buying wines very easy: clearly a grade of 98 is good and 73 is not good, regardless of how little or how much you know about wine.

There is, however, a fundamental shortcoming to the 100-point scale, namely that it suggests a level of precision that simply cannot be achieved by fallible human beings when it comes to evaluating wines. A rating system that draws a distinction between a Chenin Blanc scoring 90 and one getting 89 implies an absurdly fine distinction of sensory judgment.

There are a number of other regrettable outcomes that the 100-point system has brought about. For one thing, it has undoubtedly pushed the prices of the most desirable wines up. The current global recession notwithstanding, speculators and trophy hunters who base their purchases almost entirely on the ratings of a few influential critics have led to the global fine wine market trading at a level far higher than it might have otherwise. The 100-point system might be understandable by all, but they are now very few who can afford to drink the likes of Latour and Cheval Blanc.

There is also the concern that some producers care too much about obtaining a high rating from Parker or Wine Spectator. It often appears that Parker and his ilk have a preference for wines in a more powerful and weighty style, and therefore winemakers who covet 90-plus scores fashion their wines accordingly. What true wine lovers fear most is that this will bring about a homogenisation of wine.

At WINE magazine, we use the 20-point system only as a means of arriving at a rating on the 5 Star scale. We also use a five-person panel, which means we arrive at a series of scores, rather than a single-number rating rendered by an individual working in isolation. Of course an averaging effect is at work, but we believe that this is as much a strength as it is a possible weakness: if all five members of our panel are in agreement that a wine is worthy of a rating of 5 Stars then you, the reader, can be pretty sure that it’s the real deal.

We do, however, acknowledge that there are many who find the 100-point scale useful, so from now on, for ease of reference, the magazine will carry an explanation of how it is calibrated relative to the 20-point scale as a standard part of our ratings definitions. Thus, we have:

5 Stars/18 points or more: superlative, top class; a masterpiece (96 or more on 100-point scale; “extraordinary… profound” – Robert Parker)

4 Stars/16 to 17 points: excellent, wine of distinction (90–95 on 100-point scale; “outstanding… exceptional” – Robert Parker)

3 Stars/15 to 15½ points: good to very good; fine character and style (80–89 on 100-point scale; 80–84 “above average”, 85–89 “very good” – Robert Parker)

2 Stars/14 to 14½ points: average, appealing (70–79 on 100-point scale; 70–74 “average”, 75–79 “pleasant, straightforward” – Robert Parker)

1 Star/13 points: acceptable, ordinary (60–69 on 100-point scale; “below average… of little interest” – Robert Parker)

Also Tasted: unacceptable or faulty, no redeeming attributes (50–59 on 100-point scale; “unacceptable” – Robert Parker)

WINE magazine also awards half a star, as in 2½ Stars, 3½ Stars, 4½ Stars.

By Christian Eedes