On Aug 4, 5:18 pm, Patok <crazy.div.pa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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!
|
