The worst thing about the scoring system is that everyone reading the TN summarizes everything written to the points. Most people dont even read the TN, just take the scoring points and base their buying strategy by this.
I do score for myself but normally do not publish it. It is a kind of an educational thing. Look towards France. Im so happy that there is no RP in Port, meaning that he is not the leading authority, because the price level would be totally based on his scores. A big proove that it would be that way are the Taylors and Fonseca 94, which are undoubtetly outstanding VPs, but the price level is twice as high as for a Vesuvio, Grahams or Dows, which score somewhere between 95 and 97.
So put the points aside and concentrate more on the TNs.
Axel
Scoring Ports
-
Overtired and emotional
- Taylor’s LBV
- Posts: 152
- Joined: 14:19 Sun 14 Oct 2007
- Location: Bolton England
My biggest fear is that one day everyone will realize they like port and we'd see the astronomical increases in release prices that we see in bordeaux.Axel P wrote:A big proove that it would be that way are the Taylors and Fonseca 94, which are undoubtetly outstanding VPs, but the price level is twice as high as for a Vesuvio, Grahams or Dows, which score somewhere between 95 and 97.
So put the points aside and concentrate more on the TNs.
Axel
But I digress. The point of my topic was how do "YOU" score port.
I totally agree with alot of posters that relying on other scoring systems isn't necessarily always ideal. Tasting notes to me are very important and I love the descriptive and unique styles of the different posters on TPF.
If the 94 Fonseca scores in your book only a "92" (Blasphemies I know) no matter what parker or suckling gave it, you'd wouldn't buy it at the crazy prices.
Reading everyone notes, I'd say certain vintages of Noval Nacionals are perfect examples of this. You have a port that costs you 500+$/bottle. Reading the notes gives you an idea of the port's profile and sticking a point next to you shows the conviction of whether or not you loved it.
Just for fun, here are the average scores for each of some of the top shippers for wines declared between 1927 and 1987 as scored by James Suckling:
Fonseca and Graham appearing at the top do not surprise me as, I think, they are generally regarded as being the most consistently outstanding houses in living memory. Whereas Taylor sitting below Niepoort, Sandeman and Dow are a huge surprise as it would traditionally be percieved as ranking alongside the top two.
Something to set the mind to work is the fact that the most expensive Sandeman or Dow you could find would probably be around the same price as the cheapest of the Nacional's. From within the timespan used here around 80% of the vinatges from those two "lesser" houses would come in at between £30 and £100 with the Nacional equivalents being between £150 and £5,000. Is this really representative of a 2 point gap
As I said at the beginning, this was just for fun, but I do think it makes a mokery of using just points to decide what to buy
Derek
- Fonseca (14 wines) Ave. Score = 92
- Graham (16 wines) Ave. Score = 92
- Niepoort (15 wines) Ave. Score = 90
- Quinta do Noval Nacional (15 wines) Ave. Score = 90
- Dow (17 wines) Ave. Score = 88
- Sandeman (20 wines) Ave. Score = 88
- Taylor (15 wines) Ave. Score = 87
- Cockburn (18 wines) Ave. Score = 86
- Croft (13 wines) Ave. Score = 85
- Quinta do Noval (21 wines) Ave. Score = 85
Fonseca and Graham appearing at the top do not surprise me as, I think, they are generally regarded as being the most consistently outstanding houses in living memory. Whereas Taylor sitting below Niepoort, Sandeman and Dow are a huge surprise as it would traditionally be percieved as ranking alongside the top two.
Something to set the mind to work is the fact that the most expensive Sandeman or Dow you could find would probably be around the same price as the cheapest of the Nacional's. From within the timespan used here around 80% of the vinatges from those two "lesser" houses would come in at between £30 and £100 with the Nacional equivalents being between £150 and £5,000. Is this really representative of a 2 point gap
As I said at the beginning, this was just for fun, but I do think it makes a mokery of using just points to decide what to buy
Derek
"The first duty of Port is to be red"
Ernest H. Cockburn
Ernest H. Cockburn
-
SimonSaysDrink
- Fonseca Bin 27
- Posts: 73
- Joined: 07:26 Thu 03 Jan 2008
- Location: poop, Germany
g-man...Rolling Stones does rate music, but I think it's with stars or something, no? Not the 100-point system so frequently in use amongst the wine cognescenti. I don't know how exactly they arrive at their scores and find a great deal of them to be flat-out wrong, but hey, that's the subjective nature of it, no? Fortunately for us, the music industry can't respond to a five-star Rolling Stone rating and jack the price of the latest Jet CD to, say, 100+ Euro. Imagine!
Additionally, the assumptions that one or another aspect of a wine can be assessed objectively is slightly erroneous. To say that a redder wine is a wine better stored, and--to guess your intended meaning--thus better, subtracts substantially from those wines that frequently grow tired and tawny simply by virtue of their already subtle nature. Pinot Noir comes to mind. PN is also a good example of wine that frequently comes across as light-to-medium bodied but packs a whallop of flavor. Should its score be slighted by the nature of its 'weight'? Hardly. The examples could go on forever I suppose. But this is splitting hairs, by no means what I intended to do over such an admittedly subjective topic.
When it comes to scoring Port--to answer the question--I do my absolute best to analyze the wine according to my own tasting experience, and relate those flavors that are familiar to me and that would likely be familiar to most other users of TPF. To give a more or less reasonable and 'accurate' score is maddeningly difficult for me, and I'll generally only give one when I think it merits serious attention, if indeed it's a wine not everyone may know. When I give Port a score--I can think of only a few to which I've given scores--it usually merits in my mind a 94 or better. Seems like a pretty lame system I know. I think Uncle Tom's scoring method is probably the best of any when it comes to Port. But to forego a description of the wine in addition to the score is almost criminally negligent.
Additionally, the assumptions that one or another aspect of a wine can be assessed objectively is slightly erroneous. To say that a redder wine is a wine better stored, and--to guess your intended meaning--thus better, subtracts substantially from those wines that frequently grow tired and tawny simply by virtue of their already subtle nature. Pinot Noir comes to mind. PN is also a good example of wine that frequently comes across as light-to-medium bodied but packs a whallop of flavor. Should its score be slighted by the nature of its 'weight'? Hardly. The examples could go on forever I suppose. But this is splitting hairs, by no means what I intended to do over such an admittedly subjective topic.
When it comes to scoring Port--to answer the question--I do my absolute best to analyze the wine according to my own tasting experience, and relate those flavors that are familiar to me and that would likely be familiar to most other users of TPF. To give a more or less reasonable and 'accurate' score is maddeningly difficult for me, and I'll generally only give one when I think it merits serious attention, if indeed it's a wine not everyone may know. When I give Port a score--I can think of only a few to which I've given scores--it usually merits in my mind a 94 or better. Seems like a pretty lame system I know. I think Uncle Tom's scoring method is probably the best of any when it comes to Port. But to forego a description of the wine in addition to the score is almost criminally negligent.
'The quickest way to end world hunger is to make fast food faster.' - William & Harry's Polka-Bot Explosion, Planet Earth's First Touring XBox 360 'Rock Star' Band