Sound and Fury

In the past, I haven't given numerical ratings to wines in my blog entries. Rather, I've gone with often-blurry descriptive phrases that relate quality and value.

There are many reasons for this. At first, it had to do with confidence. I started writing about wine about a year ago, and had read very no wine criticism. Today, I read a half-dozen or so wine blogs. I still have never picked up a trade periodical with an often-quoted hundred point scale.

I also really dislike the idea of the 100 point scale. It bugs me. I won't be using it. To a large extent, the problem is one of dynamic range. Good wine lives in the 80+ range, with really good wine being 90+. I've never seen a wine rated at less than 70, which leads me to believe that at least two-thirds of the dynamic range of the scale are reserved for drawing fine distinctions between different degrees of total plonk.

Alder, over at Vinography rates wine on a 10 point scale, with half-points. And sometimes there are slashes, such as 9/9.5, which I can only interpret as being somewhere between the two (ie, 9.25). So really, if we are to stick to integers, Alder uses a 40 point scale. But again, I've never seen a rating below a 7 (or 28 on a 40 point scale). I suspect that he simply doesn't write about bad wine, but that doesn't fit my tasting-report style of wineblogging. And again, too much of the scale is reserved for wine we don't talk about.

One of the food blogs I read regularly reviews wine on a semi-regular basis. Kate has a three point scale. In her words, "3 being I'd search it out, 2 is that I'm indifferent to it, one would be a 'oh- god-I-need-to-avoid-putting-this-in-my-mouth-in-the-future'". This appeals to me much more than anything else I've seen. But it lacks dynamic range. My responses to wine are more nuanced than a three-point scale can represent.

So, until further notice, I'll be using the following subjective scale:

1. Blech! Wine I won't drink.


2. Hmph. Wine I would drink to be polite, but would probably not enjoy.


3. Meh. Wine I would buy a glass of if it were the only thing I trusted on the wine list. Better than a shot in the dark. Wine I can drink and enjoy.


4. Hmm. Wine I would pay a bit extra for in preference to Meh level wine. Good, solid wine with decent balance but not a lot of complexity. Solid value wine goes here.


5. Mmm. The good stuff. Wine I would actively seek out.


6. Wow. Wine that I would work to find, or pay more for. Balance, complexity, and a good match to my style preferences.

The scale is open-ended, so as to allow fine distinctions of good wine. It should also be noted that the scale is entirely subjective. I'm not going to attempt to rate wines; rather I'm going to rate my reaction to wines. I'll leave that to the pros for now.