Home > Winedoctor Scores

Winedoctor Scores

Scores are now universally accepted in the description of wine. Whether the scale is a five star system or numerical, awarding marks out of 100 or 20 - the two most commonly encountered schemes - the object is the same; it is a method for ranking wines. This is very useful within a tasting, where it quickly demonstrates which are the more favoured wines, but it has merit when used for individual or unrelated wines as well, provided one has some sort of benchmark for the scores. With this in mind, I have added this long overdue guide to my 20-point scoring system.

Before I continue, a brief aside. Writers who call for a globalisation of scoring systems to fall in line with the American 100 point scale are insulting the intelligence of their readers; all systems have merits as well as detractions, and I think the basic meaning behind each scheme is clear. I hope, however, that this guide will provide an even more transparent interpretation.

The dismal and dull
Some wines are just plain bad. With careful purchasing, it is not too difficult to avoid these wines, but I still encounter a few at tastings or in boxes of samples. Preferable to those that are bad, are those that are merely dull.

11 - 11.5: Atrocious but fault-free wine. Perhaps dilute, over-cropped and watery. Unusual and unappealing flavours; perhaps not made from favourable grape varieties. Perhaps not even made from grapes? Without a clothes-peg, undrinkable.
12 - 12.5: Dull, disappointing but fault-free wine. Showing no interest, texture or indeed any desirable features at all, although it may at least show a little of its viticultural origins. At this level we still turn away in disgust.
13 - 13.5: Still dull at this level, but approaching drinkability. Not necessarily out of choice, but in the absence of anything else at all, and with the help of a refrigerator for the whites, and a very open and forgiving mind for the reds, these wines can be consumed.

The drinking window
These are the wines that I can actually drink. Wines climb the ladder, from drinkable but unexciting at the 14 or so, to interesting wines that I have no regrets purchasing, and may even go back for more, at 16 and 16.5.

14 - 14.5: Drinkable wine, although not one that you would ever be bothered drinking again. It has some merits; fresh acidity, flavour, perhaps a little texture and structure, but probably not greatness or typicity. But correctly made and lively enough.
15 - 15.5: Better wines, showing a little character, a little texture, refreshing style, perhaps showing a little typicity, at a stretch. Pleasing wines, which are perfectly acceptable for unfussy drinking. With this caveat, these may be worth purchasing, at the right price.
16 - 16.5: This is where things start to get interesting. These are good wines, ones that give pleasure without reserve. They are not great wines; they may not linger in the memory for long, but they have typicity, freshness, character and more. They may even, especially at 16.5, be worth a repeat purchase.

The desirable
And here we have the wines we are all really looking for; wines that excite, entice, and enthral. From fine examples of the type at 17, through excellence, to the world's greatest, most enjoyable wines at 19 and above.

17 - 17.5: These wines are very good indeed; this score implies a wholehearted recommendation. These are wines that have a wholeness, a completeness, and a firm typicity. They are wines with which we would all like to fill our cellars.
18 - 18.5: Excellent wines, the pinnacle for many winemakers. Such a score implies the wine has something special; exquisite balance, perhaps, or a seamless texture, but it must be complete and free of flaws.
19 - 19.5: Rarely encountered wines; the grandest, most outstanding examples. Iconic, benchmark styles by which other wines shall be judged. These should be sought out and consumed with wanton pleasure. Only the occasional ridiculous price tag will stand in your way.

Perfection
Does such a wine exist? According to some critics it does, if they are to be judged by the perfect scores assigned them. I dispute this, although the argument highlights just one of the many flaws in the practice of scoring wine; surely no serious tasting note would ever suggest perfection in a wine?

There are flaws, of course. How can one reduce the experience to an absolute number? One doesn't rank Turner, Botticelli, Puccini, Verdi or any other sensorial experience that depends so much on individual taste and preference, so why wine? Is there really a perfect wine? Can we really be so absolute in the description of wine? Is 18.979 really appreciably better than 18.799? And so on. Accepting (or ignoring) the imperfections in the system, I have used scores, alongside my tasting notes, for some years now. Used sensibly, they are a useful gauge to how the wines stack up against one another, which ones are worth seeking out again, and which ones should be avoided. I've heard no complaints, as I am certain Winedoctor readers are fully informed of the imperfections in any such system, and in a manner most un-ovine, use them appropriately. (7/4/06)