ThePortForum.com

The man is possessed. Have you seen how many tasting notes he's posted? I fear for his reason, or at least his keyboard.

LGTrotter wrote:The man is possessed. Have you seen how many tasting notes he's posted? I fear for his reason, or at least his keyboard.

He's actually asleep. Elizabeth sets him into TN mode and he can just type through the night.

But surely some of you who know him well should go and reason with him. I am sure he thinks he can take it or leave it, but I have seen such obsessions grow to over master even the strongest willed.

His thoroughness, and sharing thereof, is commendable. Please encourage it.

jdaw1 wrote:His thoroughness, and sharing thereof, is commendable. Please encourage it.

And it is a very moderate obsession. The man is a professional.

I suppose I must accept your views, but I knew a chap once... Well never mind. Suffice it to say that I would hide everything sharp.

Your comment "he thought he could take it or leave it" reminds Rachel not of Alex, but of Uncle Tom, and his antique silver cow-creamer.

djewesbury wrote:Your comment "he thought he could take it or leave it" reminds Rachel not of Alex, but of Uncle Tom, and his antique silver cow-creamer.

check out the big brain on Rachel. Spot on. The earlier part of the thread was more inspired by 'The Duchess of Malfi', the most horrifying part of which was Andrew Vine droning on.

LGTrotter wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Your comment "he thought he could take it or leave it" reminds Rachel not of Alex, but of Uncle Tom, and his antique silver cow-creamer.

check out the big brain on Rachel. Spot on. The earlier part of the thread was more inspired by 'The Duchess of Malfi', the most horrifying part of which was Andrew Vine droning on.

Rachel looks up from her origami and laughs.
Do you mean Andrew Marr? Or Jeremy Vine? He does drone on. I didn't watch it because I had to do some work. Was it worth it?

A bit Malfi-lite. When we did it at our girls school it was a bloodbath. Daniel de Basola was fantastic, the duchess seemed a little flat for such a complex character, her brother did a good frothing madman. Glad I watched it. I think I mean Andrew Marr, but I am endlessly getting famous people mixed up, much to Emma's hilarity.

LGTrotter wrote:The man is possessed. Have you seen how many tasting notes he's posted? I fear for his reason, or at least his keyboard.

I am hoping to catch up on my tasting notes from the last two weeks over this bank holiday weekend. Being merely an amateur consumer I have to fit writing and posting tasting notes into those fleeting moments between work, manual labour (aka gardening with EAB) and watching mind improving broadcasts from the BBC. (I missed the Duchess of Malfi, I was making do with a performance of the rather more up to date The Man of Mode instead).

Only another 40 tasting notes or so to go. I hope to get those posted before I drink any more port.

Does anyone want tasting notes on Rioja?

AHB wrote:Does anyone want tasting notes on Rioja?

Yeah go for it. Knock us out.

More this evening. Knowing AHB as well as I do I suspect this is now a game to wind-up Owen. We will be drip-fed TNs for days and possibly weeks to come.

Good work AHB.

I'm still waiting for those Rioja notes, all notes from Alex are welcome, he is one of the names I look out for in the tasting notes as the style and opinions suit me. I do worry about the hundred point system though. Go Alex!

I am now up to date with my port tasting notes - at least until June 3.

I need to type up my wine tasting notes from the last 6 weeks, and will post when ready.

And I rather like the 100 point system as it gives me 20-25 points of range to score port - rarely, if ever, do I score below 75 but I do tend to use the whole of the range above that.

I have noticed that critics who use the 5* system basically use a 6 point system (being **(*) up to *****); those who use a 20 point system tend to use an 11 point range (15-20 in 0.5 point steps). I like the 100 point range since it gives me a slightly wider active scale to play with.

That sounds reasonable. I think that rather a lot of tasting notes tend to go between the 86 to 92 range which is pretty marginal.

LGTrotter wrote:That sounds reasonable. I think that rather a lot of tasting notes tend to go between the 86 to 92 range which is pretty marginal.

I think that's true, but that still a 6 point range for the peak of the bell curve when using the 100 point scale compared to 2-3 for the star system and probably 2-3 when scored using the 20 point system.

You can tell that the 20 point system is straining when Decanter post their tasters' average scores to 2 decimal places...

LGTrotter wrote:That sounds reasonable. I think that rather a lot of tasting notes tend to go between the 86 to 92 range which is pretty marginal.

On the contrary, 86-92 ranges from "very good" to "excellent" according to most explanations of the 100-point scale.

People are just so used to seeing high scores that they've become numb to anything that isn't mid-90s. Mid-90s is meant to mean something very special; something beyond excellent.

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:That sounds reasonable. I think that rather a lot of tasting notes tend to go between the 86 to 92 range which is pretty marginal.

On the contrary, 86-92 ranges from "very good" to "excellent" according to most explanations of the 100-point scale.

People are just so used to seeing high scores that they've become numb to anything that isn't mid-90s. Mid-90s is meant to mean something very special; something beyond excellent.

Hmm... well I read somewhere the deconstructed Parker ratings which make my point better than I can. The point being that the 88-89 was just being a bit coy and chicken, not quite wanting to commit to a 90. 90 is a good wine no question and the marginal tinkering upwards to 91 and 92 merely assert the assurance the taster has it is a good 'un. Often one sees 88-90 which seems to me to be paltering with opinion, ie I'm not quite sure if this will turn out to be good or just OK. I also think that having a 100pt system gives an air of precision which it does not possess any more than a scale of 20 or Tom's system. I appreciate this is well trodden ground but I can't help myself sometimes.

I also think we are in danger of having a proper conversation rather than meaningless drivel, which is good.

LGTrotter wrote:

Glenn E. wrote:

LGTrotter wrote:That sounds reasonable. I think that rather a lot of tasting notes tend to go between the 86 to 92 range which is pretty marginal.

On the contrary, 86-92 ranges from "very good" to "excellent" according to most explanations of the 100-point scale.

People are just so used to seeing high scores that they've become numb to anything that isn't mid-90s. Mid-90s is meant to mean something very special; something beyond excellent.

Hmm... well I read somewhere the deconstructed Parker ratings which make my point better than I can. The point being that the 88-89 was just being a bit coy and chicken, not quite wanting to commit to a 90. 90 is a good wine no question and the marginal tinkering upwards to 91 and 92 merely assert the assurance the taster has it is a good 'un. Often one sees 88-90 which seems to me to be paltering with opinion, ie I'm not quite sure if this will turn out to be good or just OK. I also think that having a 100pt system gives an air of precision which it does not possess any more than a scale of 20 or Tom's system. I appreciate this is well trodden ground but I can't help myself sometimes.

I also think we are in danger of having a proper conversation rather than meaningless drivel, which is good.

Ah, but now you're venturing into public opinion and marketing territory. Here there be dragons. Don't blame the scale for inappropriate use thereof.

Parker has apparently revised the words that go with each numerical range, because in looking it up just now they no longer match the descriptions on which I based my scale. He now says that 96-100 is extraordinary, 90-95 is outstanding, and 80-89 is "barely above average to very good." I guess that's not too different than before.

My scale, which to be used correctly is done by picking the word while you taste, then figuring out the number in that word's range later:

100 - Perfect. Rarely given, and rightly so.

97-99 - Magnificent. Attaining a rating in this range requires something beyond merely good winemaking. The sum must be greater than the total of the parts. This is where the magic happens. These aren't intellectual ratings, these are more visceral. You feel these ratings in your soul. If you have to think about it, it isn't in this range.

94-96 - Outstanding. Something beyond "merely" excellent. No nits to pick. Not even any subtle flaws. The only flaw, as it were, is that there's no magic taking it to the next level. The difference between a 94 and a 96 is likely personal preference regarding style. These might also be called "technically perfect" wines. These (and above) are virtually guaranteed to get finished at a tasting.

90-93 - Excellent. Complex, subtle, well-rounded... just all-around great wines. Would probably finish the glass at a tasting.

85-89 - Very Good. A wine you'd be happy to drink, but might not seek out on your own. Or you might, for the right price. Might or might not finish the glass at a tasting... likely depends on what else is available and how many glasses have already been finished (alcohol tolerance kicks in).

80-84 - Good. AKA "drinkable." You wouldn't turn down a glass, but you likely wouldn't ask for (another) one either. It's a solid glass of wine, but there's better stuff readily available. Probably wouldn't finish the glass at a tasting.

75-79 - Fair. As-in, "if I'm being fair this is an okay wine, but in hyperbolic internet-speak this is terrible." Wouldn't finish the glass at a tasting.

< 75 - Poor. Don't bother. Virtually guaranteed not to finish the glass at a tasting unless it's 100+ years old, and only then out of respect for its age.

An excellent and fulsome response which I shall digest at leisure, however;

Glenn E. wrote:if I'm being fair this is an okay wine, but in hyperbolic internet-speak this is terrible.

This may be where we part company, I make no claim that my way is better but I do think that a bit of hyperbole in vinous natter is not just a good thing but imperative to my style. This may be shallow attention grabbing but so be it. I find prosaic descriptors and comparisons to the taste of other things (fruits, flowers etc) do little to transmit the experience of wine which is above all emotional. Emotions are big things, driving us hither and thither and as such are not contained in blackcurrants or vanilla.

LGTrotter wrote:An excellent and fulsome response which I shall digest at leisure, however;

Glenn E. wrote:if I'm being fair this is an okay wine, but in hyperbolic internet-speak this is terrible.

This may be where we part company, I make no claim that my way is better but I do think that a bit of hyperbole in vinous natter is not just a good thing but imperative to my style. This may be shallow attention grabbing but so be it. I find prosaic descriptors and comparisons to the taste of other things (fruits, flowers etc) do little to transmit the experience of wine which is above all emotional. Emotions are big things, driving us hither and thither and as such are not contained in blackcurrants or vanilla.

We do not disagree, though you will find more emotion from me at the upper end of the scale.

Glenn E. wrote:We do not disagree, though you will find more emotion from me at the upper end of the scale.

Don't we? Then we shall have so much less to say to each other.

Should we deduce from this discussion that 90 is a chocking point for professional critics - as in, 87, 88 or 89 - no one will care too much which I chose, but if my score begins with a 9 people will take notice and expect greatness?

If that is true it suggests to me that the gap between 89-90 is far wider than 88-89 or 90-91. That is very important if it is true.

I would generally categorise my scores as follows:
100, 99, 98 - difficult to imagine any wine ever being any better
94-97 - really very, very impressive wine. One to seek out and buy if the price is good.
90-93 - very good wine
87-89 - good wine; wine which I will happily buy and serve to discerning friends
84-86 - good wine; quality wine which I will happily serve to less discerning friends; perfect wine for general entertaining and parties
80-83 - pleasant wine which I will happily drink if served a glass by others, but unlikely to be wine I seek out to buy
75-79 - just adequate wine, which is not flawed is seriously lacking at least one component of what is required for a better score. Producers rarely knowingly make wine of such poor quality as it will be very difficult to sell!
70-74 - poor wine; wine to avoid
<70 - surely flawed or defective