I've been browsing through Suckling's book tonight and came across a page entitled Port Vintage Chart, 1900 to 1987. This page lists all of the vintages between these years which Suckling tasted during the research for his book. A total of 61 vintages are quoted out of a possible 88. If we exclude the first 2 decades we have 54 out of 68.
The definition of the Wine Spectator 100-Point Scale is given at the foot of the page:
Classic (95-100)
Outstanding (90-94)
Good to Very Good (80-89)
Average (70-79)
Below Average (60-69)
Poor(50-59)
Interesting to note that:
13% are scored as Classic
7% are scored as Outstanding
35% are scored as Good or Very Good
22% are scored as Average; and...
23% are not rated, presumably because they were not tasted by Suckling
None of the vintages listed were scored as Below Average or Poor. A statistical impossibility
Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red" Ernest H. Cockburn
He was rating in comparison with all wines or all Port wines. As Vintage Port is the top of the tree you shouldn't have many below average. Ask him to rate Cruz and Cockburn's rubies.
The Americans have this problem with the word Average, taking it to mean 'acceptably poor' rather than it's correct definition as a generic term for Mean, Median or Mode (Julian will probably now correct me..)
The American educational establishments thought it was unkind to give thicko's a test score of zero, so they hit on the idea of marking out of 50 and then adding another 50.
Honest, you couldn't make it up..!
The 100 point scoring system for wine 'Parker points' has now descended into farce - Suckling actually dared to rate some wines with scores in the 70's - but that was seventeen years ago.
'Grade creep' is alive and well, and even Parker himself has had to address the problem of scoring a wine that was clearly better than one he'd already given 100 points to...
If I actually try to score using the Parker system as described in his books, I never come within five points of the consensus, and am usually around ten below.
For Port, the 100 point scoring system is utterly meaningless - from tasting a young, immature vintage port you can only make a broad guess as to whether it's going to grow up into a classic or not.
To ordain young ports as 90's 91's 92's etc.. is no more than pretentious self-delusion.
A person tasting a wine can rate it for immediate gratification, and make an informed guess as to where it's going - but no more!
Tom
I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I shall be sober and you will still be ugly - W.S. Churchill
