Leafing through my notes today, I found a wine scoring system I had
made up 2-3 years ago, and thought - why not share it here? Hope at
least one person finds it useful, or food for thought. It is a 10 point
system:


0 - Not wine. Doesn't mean it is bad. Water has score 0.

1 - No longer wine. Again, doesn't mean it's bad. Vinegar has score 1,
as well as stuff in ancient amphorae they recover from the seabed.

2 - Undrinkable wine. Badly damaged by heat, starting to turn into
vinegar, etc. No redeeming qualities.

3 - Barely drinkable wine. Exhibits defects in most or all of its
features (acidity, sugars, flavor etc.) and their combination. Can be
drunk only by very undiscerning persons, or winos. Bum wines belong
here, as well as some batches of some jug or box wines.

4 - Flawed wines. Have at least one noticeable defect (too sweet, too
sour, corked, and so on). Domain of the box and jug wines, some cheap
bottle wines here too.

5 - Quaffing wines. Have no noticeable defects, but no outstanding
features either. Domain of the cheap to low-priced bottles; some box and
jug wines belong here too.

6 - Average wines. Have no defects, and at least one noticeably good
feature, or good combination of features.

7 - Better wines. More than one feature noticeably good, but still some
of the features (or the combination) is average.

8 - Good wines. All features are noticeably good, but nothing is
exceptional.

9 - Very good wines. Some of the features are exceptional, others could
be better.

10 - Exceptional wine. Could not be better. All features exceptional.


The numeric grades have (DaleW) letter grades and mnemonic correspondences.

1: F, fubar class.
2: E, eww class.
3: D, Dr Pepper class.
4, 5: C- and C, Coke class.
6, 7: B and B+, Bravo class
8, 9 and 10: A-, A and A+, Ahh class.


The reason why I decided to have this system are clear, I hope - easy to
grade, and attempting to be objective. It has only 4 decision points -
flawed, neutral, good and exceptional, and the lowest decision
dominates. It is, to me at least, a system where different scores
represent real, and not imagined, or controversial difference. After
all, more often than not, the difference between e.g. 82 and 86 point
wines (in traditional wine mag scoring) is imaginary, and might not be
reproduced by the same graders on a different tasting. While for my
system, each taster would give the same score to the same wine on
different tastings (I hope , while the scores on the same wine might
still be different across tasters, but that's OK.

--
You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

On Aug 4, 5:18 pm, Patok > wrote:
> Leafing through my notes today, I found a wine scoring system I had
> made up 2-3 years ago, and thought - why not share it here? Hope at
> least one person finds it useful, or food for thought. It is a 10 point
> system:
>
> 0 - Not wine. Doesn't mean it is bad. Water has score 0.
>
> 1 - No longer wine. Again, doesn't mean it's bad. Vinegar has score 1,
> as well as stuff in ancient amphorae they recover from the seabed.
>
> 2 - Undrinkable wine. Badly damaged by heat, starting to turn into
> vinegar, etc. No redeeming qualities.
>
> 3 - Barely drinkable wine. Exhibits defects in most or all of its
> features (acidity, sugars, flavor etc.) and their combination. Can be
> drunk only by very undiscerning persons, or winos. Bum wines belong
> here, as well as some batches of some jug or box wines.
>
> 4 - Flawed wines. Have at least one noticeable defect (too sweet, too
> sour, corked, and so on). Domain of the box and jug wines, some cheap
> bottle wines here too.
>
> 5 - Quaffing wines. Have no noticeable defects, but no outstanding
> features either. Domain of the cheap to low-priced bottles; some box and
> jug wines belong here too.
>
> 6 - Average wines. Have no defects, and at least one noticeably good
> feature, or good combination of features.
>
> 7 - Better wines. More than one feature noticeably good, but still some
> of the features (or the combination) is average.
>
> 8 - Good wines. All features are noticeably good, but nothing is
> exceptional.
>
> 9 - Very good wines. Some of the features are exceptional, others could
> be better.
>
> 10 - Exceptional wine. Could not be better. All features exceptional.
>
> The numeric grades have (DaleW) letter grades and mnemonic correspondences.
>
> 1: F, fubar class.
> 2: E, eww class.
> 3: D, Dr Pepper class.
> 4, 5: C- and C, Coke class.
> 6, 7: B and B+, Bravo class
> 8, 9 and 10: A-, A and A+, Ahh class.
>
> The reason why I decided to have this system are clear, I hope - easy to
> grade, and attempting to be objective. It has only 4 decision points -
> flawed, neutral, good and exceptional, and the lowest decision
> dominates. It is, to me at least, a system where different scores
> represent real, and not imagined, or controversial difference. After
> all, more often than not, the difference between e.g. 82 and 86 point
> wines (in traditional wine mag scoring) is imaginary, and might not be
> reproduced by the same graders on a different tasting. While for my
> system, each taster would give the same score to the same wine on
> different tastings (I hope , while the scores on the same wine might
> still be different across tasters, but that's OK.
>
> --
> You'd be crazy to e-mail me with the crazy. But leave the div alone.

I like this! See if I can hunt down Robert Parker's email address and
you can send your theories to him!

wrote:
> On Aug 4, 5:18 pm, Patok > wrote:
>> Leafing through my notes today, I found a wine scoring system I had
>> made up 2-3 years ago, and thought - why not share it here? Hope at
>> least one person finds it useful, or food for thought. It is a 10 point
>> system:
>
> I like this! See if I can hunt down Robert Parker's email address and
> you can send your theories to him!

Nah. He won't like it. It will take away all of his sophistication
pretense. Plus, it was only done for my own use, to keep track of what I
thought about wines when I tried them.