Rating wine

One of my new year's resolutions was to develop a ratings system for the blog (and for me professionally) so that reading the blog will make a little more sense, and so that when I taste wine I have a recorded measure of (objective) quality. I tend to have a pretty good memory for the sensory components of the wine but often forget what I thought of the wine on the whole. There are a wide variety of systems (summed up for me here) and a number of more esoteric ones such as the 109 point system used by the Kiwi Wine Fan Club.

In theory I like the three star system a la Guide Michelin, but under this system I would end up mentioning a lot of wines without giving them stars because the threshold for awarding stars is so high (for example, I could taste 100 wines but only give stars to 20 of those). I think that this system comes into its prime when applied to vineyards and producers as Clive Coates does. I would like to see or write a book of this sort on New Zealand wine, rather than one based around what is essentially an economic model. I find that quite often my palate disagrees with the market - something I am quite proud of - and would like to ask how many 'classic' and 'super classic' wines are worth this designation when they are judged purely in terms of quality and value, and how many are trading on their name and reputation alone.

An 100 point system is definitely not for me, not because I have a fundamental objection to the system and its practitioners (which I don't), but because I feel that I am hardly qualified to judge wine on such an absolute scale.

For me a five star rating system doesn't quite have enough scope, especially when it comes to average/boring and poor wines and those that are truly exceptional; furthermore, I am loath to give half stars (why not use a ten point system) and for some reason disagree with the ten point system for some bizarre aesthetic reason (just don't ask me why).

As for the twenty point UC Davis model, I find it a little passe and, to quote the chart mentioned before:

Although it is still used, its criteria is now widely considered obsolete as it comes from a time when making defect free wine was the primary concern. One widely voiced criticism is that a fairy ordinary wine can easily score 17 points.

The next issue I face is one of objectivity vs. subjectivity; of course any rating system like this is inherently subjective. But what I am talking about is the conflict between the objective and subjective within the system. Do I disregard cost and rate every wine along the same scale as per Robert Parker, or do I look at it realistically and acknowledge that I cannot fairly rate a $10 wine against a $100 or $1000 wine. That, to me, is just not right. As always, I think the answer lies somewhere in between.

The two ends of my 7 point spectrum will be absolutes: on the one hand we have the worst of the worst which, for our purposes, will be designated "Undrinkable Swill" and on the other the best of the best "Close to Perfection" (true perfection being more or less unattainable or in the very least indescribable). My argument for this is that at either end of the spectrum price no longer is a factor.

In the middle however subjectivity reigns - why? Well it just makes sense. The one which I judge, say, a $10 aussie shiraz is very different to that on which I judge a first growth Bordeaux. Simply being an easy to drink, juicy, spicy wine with good balance between the different components and one that was true to both region and variety but which would, 'objectively', be otherwise unremarkable may be very good or even great because it represents excellent value for money whereas a first growth Bordeaux that may, 'objectively' be very good if not great may only be good or even adequate because it simply does not have the X-factor to justify its price tag.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that the hardest thing about any wine rating system is the balance between judging the quality and the value of the wine and, personally, I find both very important.

This is emphatically not a numerical system; that said numbers 1 - 7 can easily be substituted for each level of quality, as can their abbreviations in parenthesis. The system is as follows:

1 - Undrinkable Swill (US)
Seriously faulty wine or simply really bad, the name says it for itself.

2 - Bad/Poor (P)
Probably unenjoyable if not extremely poor value wine probably but not necessarily faulty.

3 - Adequate (A)
Drinkable but on the whole rather bland - the kind of thing you would drink at someone else's barbecue or at a gallery opening. Tastes cheap but is unlikely to have faults.

4 - Good (G)
Enjoyable wine but nothing special, you wouldn't be disappointed if you bought it but would not buy again. Very unlikely to have serious faults but minor things such as VA or bret may be acceptable. This should be a wine that is true to the variety and the region where it comes from.

5 - Very Good (VG)
Extremely enjoyable and good value wine, would buy again if there was a good deal going/nothing better to drink. Extremely unlikely to have any faults. A wine with personality (and as they say - personality goes a long way).

6 - Great/Excellent (E)
Speaks for itself really, a truly excellent wine that one would happily pay money for time and time again. Faultless but lacks the requisite X factor that would make it something truly sublime it nevertheless is one that is evocative of both the grape variety and the terrior - not simply the region but the vineyard(s) and the grower. Wine that not only has a personality but has a voice and something to say.

7 - Close to perfection (P)
An excellent wine that has that unquantifiable superiority, only wines from the best producers on the best sites in the best vintages can achieve this. And as to that illusive 'perfect' - 100 point/10 out of 10 wine, I don't think it exists (I have tried 3 RP 100 point wines and none, in my opinion were perfect) Maybe it is my Anglican upbringing but to me man (and all wine makers are human - no matter what they or the press may say) is not perfect and what is more is hardly in a position to recognize that perfection. Perfection is something better left to God or the gods and as I am an atheist and believe that neither exists therefore think that it should follow that perfection doesn't exist either. I suppose what I am trying to say is that we chase perfection but can never achieve it.

As you can see from my system faulty wine is not necessarily a problem until you get into the top two classifications - I firmly believe that wines can have minor faults (excess VA, brettanomyces, overly reductive or oxidative wine making technique...) and still be, all in all, very good wines. This is simply a matter of taste and perception and takes into account of the fact that some people dislike certain qualities more than others. I, for instance am more likely to mark down a wine that is oxidative, even if it is intentional, than one that is heavily reductive or high in volatile acidity.

I also reserve the right not to rate particular wines, especially older wines (and wines that are too old) and those I have little experience of (and thus feel unqualified to do so) if I believe it would be a disservice to the wine to do so. In this case I will use the notation NR for not rated and OTH for over the hill - in other words a wine that is simply too decrepit to rate genuinely. I will also use the notation Y for a wine that is too young to get a real feel of and to indicate that the rating that follows is a guesstimate on the potential of the wine - the same is true for BS for barrel sample.

Not too complicated I think...