ThePortForum.com

Here RonnieRoots rates an awful bottle of port as 70 points. It raises a question for me though - what would justify a score between 0-70 points, or whatever your minimum rating is?

Ronnie: This is in no way intended as a criticism of you or your approach to scoring. Intended as a hypothetical question from someone rarely brave enough to profer a score.

My limited understanding of te 100 point system is that any wine gets 70 points for turning up. If it's less than 70 it isn't wine. Which seems pointless.

Why not a 0-30 range then?

Imagine this scenario:

Someone decides to hold a competition to find the best turnip in the world. They devise a complex scoring system based on weight, size, colour, length of root, height of leaves and revolting taste. The top turnip is to be awarded 100 points.

A bannana turns up and enters itself in the competion. It is the best looking banana in the history of the world.

Should it be given 69 points in the turnip competition?

I would suggest it should get 0 for not being a turnip. 1 point would represent the worst turnip you could imagine. If a scale of 0-100 is deemed suitable for scoring turnips, all scores should be used in the range I would have thought? (Perhaps at this stage we need a non-logical female brain to interlude

No offense taken Ben.

I use Wine Spectator's 100 point scale, which is basicly a 50 point scale, because wines are merited 50 points as a minimum. Let's say that the fact that someone managed to turn grape juice into a liquid that contains alcohol.
The scale looks like this:

Wine Specator wrote: * 95-100 Classic: a great wine
* 90-94 Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style
* 85-89 Very good: a wine with special qualities
* 80-84 Good: a solid, well-made wine
* 75-79 Mediocre: a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws
* 50-74 Not recommended

I gave this particular port 70 points (i.e. "Not Recommended") because it was very bad for what it was. It was still drinkable, if you like cheap ruby, but it had nothing to do with Vintage Port.

Whether or not scoring (or more in particular the 100 point scale) is useful, I don't know. I like to attach scores to wines, and it helps me put them in perspective for myself, but I guess they can be completely useless for others. The tasting note is always most important.

DRT wrote:My limited understanding of te 100 point system is that any wine gets 70 points for turning up.

RonnieRoots wrote:I use Wine Spectator's 100 point scale, which is basicly a 50 point scale, because wines are merited 50 points as a minimum.

My understanding was limited as predicted.

DRT wrote:Imagine this scenario:

Someone decides to hold a competition to find the best turnip in the world. They devise a complex scoring system based on weight, size, colour, length of root, height of leaves and revolting taste. The top turnip is to be awarded 100 points.

A bannana turns up and enters itself in the competion. It is the best looking banana in the history of the world.

Should it be given 69 points in the turnip competition?

Same question, but this time the banana only gets 49 points

DRT wrote:Same question, but this time the banana only gets 49 points

No, because only a wine is given 50 points by default under Robert Parker's 100-point system. (I believe I have seen somewhere Robert Parker explaining that anything not worthy of the default 50 points would likely be vinegar and therefore not worthy of rating as a wine.)

Ergo, a banana would not receive any points on the 100-point DRTurnip Scale because it is not a turnip.

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:Same question, but this time the banana only gets 49 points

No, because only a wine is given 50 points by default under Robert Parker's 100-point system. (I believe I have seen somewhere Robert Parker explaining that anything not worthy of the default 50 points would likely be vinegar and therefore not worthy of rating as a wine.)

Ergo, a banana would not receive any points on the 100-point DRTurnip Scale because it is not a turnip.

So that means 0-49 are completely redundant in the 100 point scale and don't need to be there. Surely these could be used to grade how far removed from the definition of a "wine" that would score 50+ points. So wine vinegar might score 45-49 points, unfermented grape juice might score 40-44, but bleach would score 0.

Just to bring a bit more clarity: If only turnips could score 50 or more, a good-looking banana could perhaps score somewhere in the high 30s for being a fruit, which is nearly a vegething. However, a Rhinoceros would be unlikely to score more that 18 points.

DRT wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

DRT wrote:Same question, but this time the banana only gets 49 points

No, because only a wine is given 50 points by default under Robert Parker's 100-point system. (I believe I have seen somewhere Robert Parker explaining that anything not worthy of the default 50 points would likely be vinegar and therefore not worthy of rating as a wine.)

Ergo, a banana would not receive any points on the 100-point DRTurnip Scale because it is not a turnip.

So that means 0-49 are completely redundant in the 100 point scale and don't need to be there. Surely these could be used to grade how far removed from the definition of a "wine" that would score 50+ points. So wine vinegar might score 45-49 points, unfermented grape juice might score 40-44, but bleach would score 0.

I believe that bleach would not rate, as it is not even remotely related to wine. However wine vinegar and unfermented grape juice could, in theory, be rated on the 100-point scale as both are part of the wine spectrum.

Glenn E. wrote:I believe that bleach would not rate, as it is not even remotely related to wine. However wine vinegar and unfermented grape juice could, in theory, be rated on the 100-point scale as both are part of the wine spectrum.

But I've tasted wines which were not as pleasurable as drinking bleach? Surely tasty bleach would score more highly than really bad wine?

AHB wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:I believe that bleach would not rate, as it is not even remotely related to wine. However wine vinegar and unfermented grape juice could, in theory, be rated on the 100-point scale as both are part of the wine spectrum.

But I've tasted wines which were not as pleasurable as drinking bleach? Surely tasty bleach would score more highly than really bad wine?

I think tasty bleach could be in the 5-15 point range, whereas tasty Rhinoceros could score 17-23 points. (or 105 - 113 points on the BBQ scale)

All of this is leading me to appreciate more the wisdom of the (non-commercial) Uncle Tom system!

benread wrote:All of this is leading me to appreciate more the wisdom of the (non-commercial) Uncle Tom system!

How would bleach and vinegar rate on the Uncle Tom scale?

Glenn E. wrote:

benread wrote:All of this is leading me to appreciate more the wisdom of the (non-commercial) Uncle Tom system!

How would bleach and vinegar rate on the Uncle Tom scale?

They wouldn't because they are not wine and it is a system for rating wine.

Since when has Derek started eating turnips? Oh dear this is not good.

As for rhinoceros, well, please, we just don’t want to be told. Really.