Scoring Ports

[g-man]

was just wondering hwo you guys score port.
I haven't quite grasped uncle tom's scoring system yet.

I use the
50 pts for being there
10 for color, looking for clarity and
15 for taste
10 for nose
10 for finish
5 for wow

[jdaw1]

Uncle Tom’s system is a simple ranking.

• 0 for the worst 5%;
• 1 for those between 5%ile and 15%ile;
• 2 for those between 15%ile and 25%ile;
• 3 for those between 25%ile and 35%ile;
• 4 for those between 35%ile and 45%ile;
• 5 for those between 45%ile and 55%ile;
• 6 for those between 55%ile and 65%ile;
• 7 for those between 65%ile and 75%ile;
• 8 for those between 75%ile and 85%ile;
• 9 for those between 85%ile and 95%ile;
• 10 for the best 5%.

The weakness is that the Universe of ports, from which the %iles are drawn, isn’t tightly defined.

[Overtired and emotional]

I know my views are old hat, but why score? Does one really buy a 92 over a 91? Do you refuse to drink the latter? Are today's drinker's so incapable of expressing themselves in clear English that they can better describe a wine by pseudoscientific numbers rather than words which convey the feelings of the drinker?

There are many views to express on how we describe wine, but my argument is that the greatest wine admits of but few words properly to describe it. Numbers are inadequate. Too many words are used to imply fictitious flavours.

Is there not an argument for sitting there quietly pondering the beauty of the wine and reflecting that there is some joy amidst this vale of tears? Alternatively, I think most New World Shiraz tastes like overextracted rat's piss. Express that numerically.

[DRT]

I think most New World Shiraz tastes like overextracted rat's piss. Express that numerically.

89pts

[g-man]

I think most New World Shiraz tastes like overextracted rat's piss. Express that numerically.

89pts

a shot at the uncle tom system. 7-8

[KillerB]

I am rotten at scoring so I don't do it. Because I don't do it I am rotten at it.

I also find myself disagreeing with people due to tastes, like last week when I would rather have had a Gigondas than a Cali Grenache whilst Greg thought exactly the opposite.

[DRT]

I think most New World Shiraz tastes like overextracted rat's piss. Express that numerically.

89pts

a shot at the uncle tom system. 7-8

g-man,

No. The UT scoring system is 2 dimensional, unlike the ?/100pts system.

The first score is based on immediate gratification - i.e. out of all the port you will drink in one year how does this one rate? The second element is a guestimate of how the port will age over 10 years.

So, if you taste a port that is fabulous for drinking now it might score 8-10, but if it is at its peak and not likely to improve further it might score 5-6. So, a Fonseca 1963 might score 10-7 whilst a Fonseca 1985 might socre 8-10.

Derek

[g-man]

I think most New World Shiraz tastes like overextracted rat's piss. Express that numerically.

89pts

a shot at the uncle tom system. 7-8

g-man,

No. The UT scoring system is 2 dimensional, unlike the ?/100pts system.

The first score is based on immediate gratification - i.e. out of all the port you will drink in one year how does this one rate? The second element is a guestimate of how the port will age over 10 years.

So, if you taste a port that is fabulous for drinking now it might score 8-10, but if it is at its peak and not likely to improve further it might score 5-6. So, a Fonseca 1963 might score 10-7 whilst a Fonseca 1985 might socre 8-10.

Derek

it's okay if you don't like austrailian rat piss =)

[g-man]

I am rotten at scoring so I don't do it. Because I don't do it I am rotten at it.

I also find myself disagreeing with people due to tastes, like last week when I would rather have had a Gigondas than a Cali Grenache whilst Greg thought exactly the opposite.

I'd rather have had the Pride cab franc to any of them.

Or even the champagne =) ...
or the grahams 94
or the sauternes..

sorry, but i think both grenaches were 80 pters =) 6-4?

[10Anos]

There are many views to express on how we describe wine, but my argument is that the greatest wine admits of but few words properly to describe it. Numbers are inadequate. Too many words are used to imply fictitious flavours.

I totally agree with this statement. Giving scores and elaborate descriptions are fun to do, but they can only tell you what I thought about a wine. It may give you some clues as to what to expect, but that's about all it can do for you.
The beauty about all this is that you need to experience everything for yourself and then share the fun...

[g-man]

I disagree tho

take Margaux 1900

Wine is like poetry. You have tons of people who critique a poem and perhaps interpret it in various ways. The learning comes from reading the poem yourself and seeing what other people also thought of it.

Then you can have an engaging conversation![/url]

[KillerB]

Wine is like poetry.

In which case I give "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" 83/100 or 6/4 in Uncle Tom scoring.

[g-man]

Wine is like poetry.

In which case I give "The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner" 83/100 or 6/4 in Uncle Tom scoring.

Water, water, everywhere,
Nor any drop to drink.

clearly a smart ancient mariner woulda brought some port along!

[Conky]

I can see I'm in the minority (Maybe of 1 !), but I like scores. I would love to sample all Ports and find out for myself what they are all like, but if I'm faced with 3 strangers on the shelf in front of me, and only enough money for one, I'd pick the highest score. Thats not the scores from a commercial venture, but from you guys.

It's no guarantee, but something I'm happy to do.

[g-man]

i l ike scores personally, it helps put prices in perspective.

[Alex Bridgeman]

I like scores and I like descriptions. I find one without the other loses something. I like to be able to look back at my notes from the past and remind myself of the dominant flavours and of what I thought of the flavours and texture of the port but then also to understand where I rated it alongside some of its fellow ports - was it better than X but not quite as good as Y?

I also struggle with the Uncle Tom scoring system as I find it really, really hard to rate a port as being in the 15-25th percentile as opposed to the 25-35th, for example. But I keep trying and hope that with practice I will get there.

Alex

[SimonSaysDrink]

This issue is probably the most perplexing aspect of wine appreciation, for me at least. I think that when considering (high) quality wine, we're primarily evaluating it as a work of art, perhaps only slightly more than as a work of science. I think this is collectively a safe assumption. With that in mind, one should reflect on how often they've gazed on J.L. Gerome's 'Golgotha' and said, 'Definitely a 95+.' I've even wondered to myself (often) whether there's a legitimate possibility of starting my own music rating magazine: 'Wave Rater' or 'Tune Score' or anything equally pathetic. I'd certainly give the new Feist album 'The Reminder' a 93 or 94. There are a few songs on the album that I'd rate even higher, probably maxing out at about 98. The new Cormac McCarthy novel 'The Road' is, to my taste, only an 88, which is to say, it was a good book, even well above average, but totally (and intentionally, no doubt, which further complicates the score-giving process) devoid of any rich, redemptive palette. Unequivocally, all of these artforms incorporate to some degree the work and application of science--language even has its forms, equations, laws, theories, history. Yet how many people are rating the newest discovered element, the dark matter recently isolated, the antimatter created in the latest atom smashing? Certainly I can stop at this point, the dislogic being clearly evident. One cannot rate such things objectively. It's all completely subjective and thus relevant within only the smallest of circles, like one or two or three people who may all appreciate wines of the same intensity and nuance. If there is any redemption in a quantitative score, it lies in the very system so many of you use from day to day: the Uncle Tom score. It is a system which yields to the subjective nature of 'appreciation', and yet retains that degree of objectivity with which we can all relate: potential. (Next post)

[SimonSaysDrink]

Now. NOW. Here's the rub: The world of wine aficionados is inundated with those for whom points are of utmost importance. I don't think this is inherently a bad thing. For many of us, the greatest ports we've ever drank are extremely high scorers, mostly 95+. Certainly we're not searching out these wines based on scores; many of us already know who these vignerons are, the quality of which they're capable. But for many people the score is the single guiding light in the whole process, a beacon that points many a wine lover to new, uncharted territory, to wines that may actually be worth the extra (-vagant) money. One cannot question the importance of points; not only are they here to stay, but they've effectively changed the entire face of the wine world, perhaps, some would say, even forever altering the face and methods of some of the world's most entrenched and historic producers and regions. Some of this change has been accepted by some, abhorred by others. But the fact of the matter is, rather, a question: Who doesn't want a better score? Knowing that with a better score often comes a better possibility of moving inventory, and with that all the other opportunities that come with improved sales. And so, thousands upon thousands of producers have breathed fresh life into their wineries, improving cleanliness, decreasing chemical applications, enhancing processes, reducing winemaker intervention-- taking everything to the max, and frequently netting spectacular results. -Results that we all apparently love, for as we know, the demand is increasing, the supply decreasing (reduced yields, market expansion), and the prices are increasing accordingly, not only on account of supply/demand mechanics, but also due to energy, currency and commodity inflation. To say it all boils down to scores is naive, but to say scores weren't an integral factor in the sweeping change is equally ignorant. Now, all this aside, I offer my own explanation for why I believe, as AHB does, in the importance of offering a score, but always providing an explanation: I don't want anyone to miss out on the opportunity to experience a wine because there wasn't a score associated with a wine's description. If I feel a wine ABSOLUTELY has to be tried, I throw a score out there to lure the eye...that's all. My scores are generally exactly what I think they should be, but some might find them inflated. Nevertheless, I think it works. Who wouldn't read intently the tasting note for a 95+ point wine? I strongly believe this is an internal philosophy--a by-law even?--for the folks at Wine Spectator, who practice this sort of 'luring' from time to time, and--methinks--for the self-same reasons I mention in my justification above (think: 2005 Q.d. Crasto Old Vines Reserva: 95 pts; worth it? Probably not. But an absolute MUST TRY?--You bet your arse). Honestly, any 90+ point wine gets my attention. The score works because it's a quick and easy-to-comprehend guide through a world full of wine land-mines. We don't want to waste our money on what scores 85 points, when for the same price, we can get a wine of (apparent) 92-point quality. This is the guide, the beacon we're looking for in this murky sea of wine. Do we need the score? Certainly not. But is the wine world better, ultimately, for what 'the Score' has brought? Certainly. But, as a matter of art, this is a subject open to dissent and liberal discussion, and I welcome the opposing view points many of you will have. How boring this would be if we weren't all full of passionate opinions.

[DRT]

I agree with AHB, but don't intend using as many words as SSD

I like the Uncle Tom system because it is two dimensional and allows you to judge wines of different ages against the same criteria. This is blatantly missing from the 100 points, 20 points and 5 star systems, altough it could be argued that Broadbent's stars with brackets notation gives a similar result as Toms system in that it judges the here and now and the potential.

That said, I do turn my head when I see a high 90's score in a TN, particularly from people here. I never use the 100 point system myself but am happy to take recommendations from it from people who do.

Descriptions are a very subjective thing. I don't do and rarely get the very detailed flavour and smell descriptions and prefer those that are more sensory than overly detailed. I accept that others (a) have the ability to produce and (b) enjoy using the style of notes that are produced by AHB and others but I do find them less useful to me than something that says "Fruity nose, thick, chewy, very smooth, no alcoholic burn and a long mouthwatering finish"

Derek

[SimonSaysDrink]

Sorry A sensitive subject for me, this scoring business. I wish I could get to the point a bit quicker like you Derek. I wholeheartedly agree with the comment you made about notes that are incredibly descriptive and precise. While being interesting and very helpful--I myself attempt to write my notes in this way--I've found that in rapid-fire tastings and more social settings, logging the sensory impression of the wine is more appropriate, quicker, less taxing, and yields more or less the same result...that is, when I've set out to buy a wine again based on my sensory TN, I've never found the wine to be opposite of what I've written, and it was always delicious.

[mosesbotbol]

I like scores and I like descriptions. I find one without the other loses something.

I agree.

I like a general description of what it tastes like, what it looks like... the nose, but I also want a qualitative score is a final judgement. This can be difficult with port as the my score changes as the port evolves in the decanter. Several times my preference on a 3 bottle tasting can flip flopped when re-evaluated an hour later.

I like the 100 point scale. The most people can relate to it. I find I keep low balling my scores than I was a year ago. Maybe my expectations keep growing.

[10Anos]

I like a general description of what it tastes like, what it looks like... the nose, but I also want a qualitative score is a final judgement. This can be difficult with port as the my score changes as the port evolves in the decanter. Several times my preference on a 3 bottle tasting can flip flopped when re-evaluated an hour later.

I like the 100 point scale. The most people can relate to it. I find I keep low balling my scores than I was a year ago. Maybe my expectations keep growing.

I largely agree to this. I only think that tastes are too different to give a reliable score. What you might score 85 I might consider worth 92 and vice versa. That's probably why I still would to try both... And if faced with the you-can-only-choose-one situation I'd probably choose the one of which the description seems to agree most with my own preferences.
Having said that, I will admit that I do score ports in my personal notes in a coarse way (10 points scale, increments per 0.5). And I too often find myself adjusting the score I gave first.

[g-man]

I agree with you on many points SSD.

I've even wondered to myself (often) whether there's a legitimate possibility of starting my own music rating magazine: 'Wave Rater' or 'Tune Score' or anything equally pathetic. I'd certainly give the new Feist album 'The Reminder' a 93 or 94.

Rolling stones already does this =)

Yet how many people are rating the newest discovered element, the dark matter recently isolated, the antimatter created in the latest atom smashing?

Well, wine is like a combination of Art and Science like you said. And being such it can be rated objectively and subjective.

Take the element Gold.
Objectively I can say the 79th element with an atomic number of 79.
Melting Point of 1064.18 ºC
compare it with Silver
47th element and melting point of 961.93 °C.
Objectively I can say gold is heavier then silver and has a higher temperature.
Subjectively I can say Gold has a prettier yellow color. Add on a few more subjective reasons why Gold should be worth more and we see in the market Gold trading much higher then silver.

I see that in the same way as wine. You can break down the components objectively in comparison. Ie. a brown color is different from a red color. Knowing that the redder the color the "better" stored or kept the port is. I can objectively give it a score.

But you do have me thinking.. .perhaps I should start quoting in attributes.

Color 1-5 : 1 being old - 5 being fresh.
Body: 1 being light - 5 being heavy.
Nose: 1 being simple - 5 being complex.
Finish: 1 being short - 5 being long.

Taste would always have to be subjective but descriptions might help.

Using a system like that we can hav ea combination of subjective objective rankings.

[Overtired and emotional]

Having just skim read this thread, I think we all maybe need to get out more.

On the theme of linking scores and descriptions, I think that one of the few people who can manage both is Robert Parker. However baleful one may feel his influence or, perhaps, effect to be, his scores seem to be well constructed, and his descriptions, well, descriptive if a little purple. The combination does convey something, but it reakky is something you should not try at home.

If you ask where numerical scores lead, it is still to provide a means of inflating prices and a flip means of comparison. I wonder how many people have drunk a 95+ which they have hated, just because it was 95+? How many have affected to despise an 83 which they would otherwise have liked?

[g-man]

If you ask where numerical scores lead, it is still to provide a means of inflating prices and a flip means of comparison. I wonder how many people have drunk a 95+ which they have hated, just because it was 95+? How many have affected to despise an 83 which they would otherwise have liked?

I can honestly say I've never hated a wine I put 95 pts to =)

[Axel P]

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

[Overtired and emotional]

Could not agree more.

[g-man]

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

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.

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.

[DRT]

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 (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

Now, before anyone starts telling us they don't agree with Sucklings scores, the point here is that we have a summary view of one persons scores without the benefit of written descriptions over a range of vinatges spanning 60 years. There are some surprising and some unsurprising things that fall out of this list:

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

[SimonSaysDrink]

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.