I think LinkedIn's reactions could could offer a starting point for rating wines. Consider: Like (thumbs up), Celebrate (clapping hands), Love (heart), Insightful (lightbulb) and Curious (puzzled face emoji). 100 point systems, whether it's wine or school grades is damaged from the start as the difference between an 89 and a 90 is only one 1 point, and yet no one wants an 89, whereas who cares if you get a 90 or 91. Same 1 point difference, but the perceived gap is vastly different.
Yeah, the dreaded 89 used to be known as the "kiss your sister" score. I could go on and on about how the 100 point system is at best a 10 point system, and actually close to a 5 point system where only wines rated 90 - 94 are 1) desirable and 2) affordable and 3) obtainable. But I won't trouble you with more ranting...
I have complicated feelings about the 100-point system, too, as you know, Paul. I think the worst aspect of it is it fetishizes high scoring wines among some consumers, and for that reason, incentivizes bad actors among reviewers to jack up their scoring. Looking at you James Suckling, Antonio Galloni, and others. But I see the utility of the 100-point system, still, despite this major flaw. Like I said, complicated. I'm more aggrieved by the "other 100"--the so-called "Top 100" lists published by the big wine magazine (WS, WE especially)--I think those lists are poisonous and unfair to both consumers and producers.
I'll have more thoughts on the "Top 100" lists when I do my own annual wrap up. Meanwhile see my note on the odd choices made by W/E as far as NW wines are concerned.
I think LinkedIn's reactions could could offer a starting point for rating wines. Consider: Like (thumbs up), Celebrate (clapping hands), Love (heart), Insightful (lightbulb) and Curious (puzzled face emoji). 100 point systems, whether it's wine or school grades is damaged from the start as the difference between an 89 and a 90 is only one 1 point, and yet no one wants an 89, whereas who cares if you get a 90 or 91. Same 1 point difference, but the perceived gap is vastly different.
Yeah, the dreaded 89 used to be known as the "kiss your sister" score. I could go on and on about how the 100 point system is at best a 10 point system, and actually close to a 5 point system where only wines rated 90 - 94 are 1) desirable and 2) affordable and 3) obtainable. But I won't trouble you with more ranting...
I have complicated feelings about the 100-point system, too, as you know, Paul. I think the worst aspect of it is it fetishizes high scoring wines among some consumers, and for that reason, incentivizes bad actors among reviewers to jack up their scoring. Looking at you James Suckling, Antonio Galloni, and others. But I see the utility of the 100-point system, still, despite this major flaw. Like I said, complicated. I'm more aggrieved by the "other 100"--the so-called "Top 100" lists published by the big wine magazine (WS, WE especially)--I think those lists are poisonous and unfair to both consumers and producers.
I'll have more thoughts on the "Top 100" lists when I do my own annual wrap up. Meanwhile see my note on the odd choices made by W/E as far as NW wines are concerned.