LeDomduVin: My Wine Scoring Way - The Wine Scoring Dilemma

The Wine Scoring Dilemma
by ©LeDomduVin 2020

My Wine Scoring Way

The Wine Scoring Dilemma

Who still believes in wine scores? You do? 

Personally, I'm sitting on the fence. I'm not necessarily against it, but I'm not necessarily for it either.  

And, this post comes "très à propos" (very appropriately, if you prefer), as all the Wine Critics and Wine Magazines are releasing their BEST OF and/or TOP 100 Wines of the Year 2020 ⁽¹⁾.  

I'm on the fence because, first of all, tasting wine is very subjective. 

And, secondly: Wine is alive! This means that wine continuously changes and evolves while ageing in the bottle and even reacts to its immediate surroundings and storage conditions. 

Like any living being, amongst other things, a wine goes through phases and can rapidly change in terms of aspect, aromas/flavours and taste, depending on:

• The intrinsic quality of the wine itself (if it is a bad wine to start with, it usually won't get better),

• The age and the intrinsic potential of ageing (some wines are not meant or not able to age well), 

• The quality of the vintage, of course (not all vintages are good or able to age well), 

• The vineyard management and the vinification process (it all starts in the vineyards, then in the cellar, if wrong decisions are made, they will always affect the quality of the wine, one way or another),

• The quality of the winemaker too (sorry to say, but some winemakers are quite bad, and they don't even seem to be aware of it, or simply have bad taste or maybe they never try the wine they make?), (...it is a bit harsh, I know, but it is true, some winemakers/producers never fail to make bad wines, year in, year out... to the point that you've lowered your expectation so much, that the day you taste a good wine from them, it is like a miracle... and the worst part is that some them are quite expensive and therefore disappointing for the price... but, I won't name any..), 

• The storage temperature and overall conditions (too hot, too cold, too humid, not well-ventilated enough, mouldy, etc..), 

• The service temperature (too hot or too cold) and conditions (dirty decanter, wrong glasses, etc...), 

• But also the outside temperature (too cold or too hot?),

• And the overall climate conditions in general (rain, storms, etc..),

• And last but not least, the tasting conditions and the potentially influential factors coming to play during the tasting 
• Will the wine get the same score if tasted at a public tasting, an office or at the winery/chateau itself? 
• How about if the owner, producer or winemaker is a friend? Etc... 

• Etc...

And, if you want to go even further, as everything on this earth is, one way or another, influenced by, affected by, and/or even related to various forces and energies here on earth (but also by/with those influenced or directly emanating from the moon, the sun, the other planets of our solar system and even, to a certain extent, the cosmos), we could even say that, as per the lunar calendar (organic/biodynamic), better consider tasting and drinking wine on "Flower" and "Fruit" days, rather than on "Root" or "Leaf" days.   

That's already a lot of reasons and factors that may alter and/or influence the subjectivity and objectivity of the taster (i.e. the Wine Critic, Press, Oenologists, etc...) and the "genuity" of the given score, isn't it?   

Therefore, it is essential to put things back into context and understand that "scores" only represent the olfaction and tasting bud's primary reaction of a particular individual (i.e. the taster: Wine Critic, Press, etc..) to a particular wine, tasted within particular conditions, on a very particular day, and with all the possible potentially influential factors imaginable.     

That is a bit reductive, but it sums up the situation quite well. 

Fortunately, the Wine Critic or Journalist's experience and palate's skills and accuracy come to play a major role in this equation. To a certain extent, they moderate these influences and "usually" ensure that the score/rating given to a tasted wine is genuine and representative, not attributed due to these potentially influential factors.    

Yet, always remember that the dependability of a wine scoring system rests on those who set, moderate, and give the scores to the wines (i.e., Wine Critic, Press, etc..). 

And, even the most accurate and skilful Wine Critic (or any experienced wine professional tasting and scoring wine, for that matter, including me) is vulnerable when faced with, affected by or influenced by any of these factors. It is a very human condition. Our mind is not as rigid, impermeable and impartial as the CPU of a computer, a robot or artificial intelligence.   

It is true. You have to admit it. It is always more difficult to taste and give low or bad scores to the wine of a property or a winemaker you've loved or even known and "tested" for years. Or worst, the wine of a friend, colleague, old acquaintance, family, or anyone else you've shared memorable moments with. More especially if the wine reveals great features. 

On the contrary, if/when the wine is not as good as it could have been or should have been (depending on the vintage, the history of the wine or even the brand) and many other reasons, then hesitation and indecision will come to knock on the wall of your brain, interrogating and questioning your mind and senses. And no matter how genuine and well-intentioned you wanted to be, and despite all your self-discipline and rigorous methodology, you might still give that half a point or even a point more to that wine...      

Because, in certain conditions and circumstances, it is difficult to separate things, measure the euphoria, control the joy, and prevent or attenuate the infatuation while trying to maintain the needed and necessary detachment and neutrality to remain impartial and keep your integrity. 

More especially when you taste a wine that shines with all the energy and passion a winemaker has placed in it. Even more, especially if you are acquainted with or know that specific producer/winemaker and/or have loved his/her wine(s) for years.    

It is difficult to badly score or write about wine made by your friend or a winemaker (you know and like his/her wines), especially when the wine is good, great or even brilliant, or worst, if, on the contrary, the wine is not that good, without arousing suspicion of collusion with others. Hence the reason for being as impartial as you can be and keeping your integrity as much as possible, remain neutral and distant to erase the assumptions and interpretations of others. 

But God only knows how difficult it is, as not only taste, relationship, acquaintance or friendship, come to play in this equation, price too.  This means that wines of high pedigree and price always influence or even command high scores (in most press and wine critics' minds). 

Although the price of a wine is usually/normally/supposedly directly related to the quality (the greater the quality, the higher the price) and/or the quantity (the lower the production, the higher the price), always remember that great wine doesn't have to be necessarily expensive. High price does not always make the wine either. I will not give any examples or names, but I know a lot of expensive wines that are not as great as they should be to command such a high price. 

And that said, even if Wine Critics or Press know all of the above "All too well", it seems their ratings cannot help but be influenced by the price somehow (I guess it is part of the game). Meaning that it is rare to see an expensive wine get a bad or low rating. While in my opinion, it should get a low or bad rating if it is bad or not up to the quality or reflects the price it commands. And the same goes for renowned high-end Châteaux/producers/brands. 

Consequently, I will say, "Choose the Wine Critic or Journalist that you want to follow" well and preferably select the one (or the few) who you feel are "genuine" (as per your point of view) and that you can trust, and maybe have a comparable or similar palate and taste as yours. 

For example, when I was working in NYC in the early 2000s, my boss was a Robert Parker Jr "groupie" (he was a man, but still...), while my director was more a James Suckling follower, and personally, I had already figured out that my palate and way of scoring was closer and more similar to Stephen Tanzer with its International Wine Cellar's wine rating system on a 70-100 point quality scale. 

That said, I never understood and still don't understand the point of rating below 88pts? - or at the most below 85 pts - as it does not serve anyone to rate a wine that low. If below 85pts, it might be better not to score the wine and let people make their own opinion.       

As I always say: 

"When a wine is bad, the wine is bad! No matter the pedigree, history, classification, rank or price! Better not to score it than tarnish its reputation. It does not serve anyone." - LeDomduVin    

No matter what you think about all the things I've said above, directly or indirectly, ALL of these intricate factors are unarguably and undeniably related and greatly impact a Wine Critic's final score on a particular wine. Everyone knows it.

How about the "En Primeur" tasting? 

The worst, in my opinion, is the "En Primeur" tasting in Bordeaux, where Critics and Journalists, as well as professionals, connoisseurs and amateurs, come to taste and evaluate unfinished wines, some that have been blended specifically for the occasions and may not even reflect the final products in the bottle. 

Sorry to describe this way, as it is a very graphic metaphor, but in my opinion (and I'm not the only one to think that way), tasting "En Primeur" is like taking the baby out of his mother's womb at 3 months old, when it is only a fetus, to check and determine in which conditions it is, evaluate it and rate it, then put it back into the womb to finish the remaining 6  months it needs to fully develop. It is like rating a kid and predicting his/her future while he/she is not even born yet.      

Some critics and journalists are cautious and clever enough not to give an "En Primeur" wine a definitive score but rather a score range, for example, "90-92", "94-96", or even "95-100", which makes more sense in my opinion, as an "En Primeur" wine may change between the time of the "En primeur" tasting and bottling, due to various factors: oak treatment, final blend, etc...  

Difficult to compare a wine that has spent only a few months in barrels compared to a finished wine that may have spent between 12 and 18 months (or more) in barrels.  More especially if the final blend ends up not being the same for diverse reasons. 

Which makes me think: how can we trust a definitive score given at en "En Primeur" tasting? More especially, if that same critic or journalist changes his/her score 2 years later when the wine is bottled? I will let you ponder on that.    

I know that as a Bordeaux native, grandson of a winemaker, Sommelier and Wine Buyer, I should not speak like this of such an institution.  And frankly, I have nothing against the "En Primeur" tasting.  On the contrary, I think it is a good way of having somewhat of an idea of the quality of the vintage (even if it is a bit early in the wine's life, in my opinion).  As you probably understand, it is the "definitive score" I have a problem with when rating "En Primeur" wines.

However, I'm just a Sommelier, not a critic or a journalist, so I should be more tolerant and accepting, yet it has driven me crazy for years, and I had to vent out and say it once again.   

       

LeDomduVin's 5-Star Wine Rating Scale
by ©LeDomduVin 2020

My own wine-scoring way

And that is the reason why I'm on the fence with scoring wine, wine scoring and wine scores in general, and also why, long ago, as a young Sommelier and Wine Buyer, I had to develop and use my own wine scoring way: a personal wine rating scale more adapted and suited to my wine buyer's needs, and to be used for big tastings and events mainly. 

Therefore, please understand "my way of scoring" is a "Wine Buyer Scoring Scale" rather than a "Wine Critic or Journalist's Scoring Scale". I use it to quickly assess a wine's intrinsic qualities without spending too much time tasting it or dissecting every detail of it. It allows me to make quick buying decisions during a tasting.    

It is a 5-star rating scale that I can easily understand and that is solely based on my taste bud's immediate reaction. I had to develop it, especially for big tastings and events, to be able to focus only on the good wines, go fast and differentiate my ratings from the other rating systems to prevent their influence on my buying decisions (which was critical when I was a wine buyer for restaurants and retails back in the days, and even till these days).       

Meaning that I usually approach all wine tastings the same way: with essential knowledge and information about the region(s) and vintage(s) to be tasted. And, eventually, about the featured wines to be tasted too (if I saw the list prior to going to the tasting or if the list was provided at the beginning of the tasting), but not necessarily, as I usually prefer to go to a tasting with a clear head, uncluttered of unnecessary thoughts or ratings/scores that I could possibly have seen or known about some of the wines.     

So, I created my own custom "5-Star Wine Rating Scale" scoring method and adopted this tasting approach to assessing the wines as they are and for what they are. Assess their respective intrinsic qualities, as well as their quality/price ratio, the most simply and efficiently I could possibly put it, with a "Wine Buyer" minded attitude and mannerism (meaning not like a "Wine Critic" or a journalist): 

0 - NO (I dislike it, won't buy it, next !!!)

1 - OK (I don't dislike it, but I'm not a fan either, probably won't buy it unless the price is low)

2 - MAYBE (It is interesting but may present flaws or angularities, I may buy it if the price is good)

3 - LIKE IT (I will buy it, especially if the price is good)

4 - LIKE IT A LOT (I definitely need to buy it, especially if I can get a discount for 10 cases or more)

5 - LOVE IT (A must-have! How many cases can I buy? When can I have the wine? )    

As you can notice, on any five-star scale, regardless of the bottom rating, 3 stars are often the lowest positive rating, and it is the same on my scale too. Though judging on a purely mathematical basis, 2.5 stars should be the dividing line between good and bad on a 0-5 scale, but I skipped the 1/2 (half star) to make it easier and went straight to the upper point. After all, I created that 5-Star Wine Rating scale to prevent having to bother with too many details and make fast wine-buying decisions, so no half-star!   

Prior to going into more detail about my "own way of scoring", complemented with my "LeDomduVin's Tasting 5-Star Wine Rating Scale" Table explanation in the paragraphs further below, I would like to come back and extend my thoughts a little more, on the "Wine Scoring" and "Wine Scores" Dilemma.    

 

The Wine Critic Tasting Notes Paradox
by © LeDomduVin 2018 

The Wine Scoring and Wine Scores Dilemma

Like most wine buyers, over my nearly 30 years career in wine, I was forced to adapt and adopt many different ways of scoring wines and rating scales depending on the critics, journalists, magazines and websites I was reading or following (e.g. 3 stars, 5 stars, 10 points, 20 and/or 100 points scales). 

I had to do it to compare my personal tasting notes and descriptions with those from the "professionals" but also in order to comprehend and read through their scores and the lines of their tasting notes, which can be pretty confusing sometimes.   

By "reading through the lines and the scores" (of the Wine Critics and Journalists), I mean trying to understand what differentiates an "88" from a "90", or even a "92, or a "94" from a "98" in THEIR language and way of scoring. And trust me on this, it is not always an easy task! 

More especially if, like me, you prefer descriptive and detailed wine-tasting notes/descriptions that have a meaning and clearly indicate that difference, which is far from always being the case, depending on the wine critic. 

Some of them only give short and undescriptive tasting notes/descriptions that are fairly similar or sometimes nearly identical, yet with different scores, making it really difficult to understand why there is such a difference in scores. 

Let's take, for example, a very confusing situation where the respective descriptions of two different wines (from the same appellation, same grape varieties and same vintage) are almost the same, or sometimes even identical, but somehow generate two drastically different scores. 

The following is a great example. I wrote it and put it into an illustration for a previous post (2) (see also my illustration above), but I'm re-using it as it is perfect to illustrate that kind of situation: 

In the illustration above, there are two wines, "Y" and "Z", with a fairly similar descriptions, yet scores that are strangely quite distant for no apparent reason: 

WINE "Y"

"Black fruit, good acidity, polished texture, good structure and balance, long persistent finish" - 89

WINE "Z"

"Black fruit, refreshing, smooth texture, combining structure and balance, long-lasting finish" - 96  

Do you see what I mean? It is definitely not easy to understand why one commands an "89" and the other a "96" while the descriptions are so very similar, isn't it? I think you get my point.  

Consequently, that is why, in my opinion, "wine scoring" and "wine scores" have always been a huge dilemma (for me and most people I know in the industry). 

Moreover, what to choose? Which scale? 100 or 20-point scale? (or even a 10-point scale back a long time ago...). And beside points, what else? 3- or 5-Star scale? Or even a 3- or 5-Wine-Glasses scale? 

Depending on which side of the globe you're on, rating scales are different and their understanding and meaning too. Sometimes what could or should seem to be logical isn't! And it is very frustrating! 

That is why I came up, long ago, with a "Wine Scoring Scales Comparison Table" that has always helped me better comprehend and read through the different scales (see the Table in the paragraph further below). 

That is also one of the main reasons why more Wine Critics, Wine Magazines and other Wine Media have, in recent years, adapted and changed to the 100-point scale in order to "globalize" the scoring/rating scale for a better understanding of the scores and their significance.  

I even recently realized that various well-known wine-scoring websites use the 100-point scale and the common 5-Star scale together (for each wine on their site) to adapt and appeal to a broader range of readers and attract larger and younger audiences. 

However, as if it wasn't complicated enough already with the various scales to choose from, the other question is: Who to follow? 

Robert Parker? James Suckling? Jancis Robinson? Antonio Galloni? Yves Beck (Beckustator)? Jeb Dunnuck? Neal Martin? Tim Atkin? Jamie Goode? Tim Gaiser? Wine Advocate? Wine Spectator? Wine Enthusiast?  Decanter? The Wine Cellar Insider? La Revue des Vins de France (La RVF)? Bettane & Desseauve? Le Guide Hachette des Vins? Gilbert & Gaillard? Gambero Rosso? Guía Peñin (Guide Penin)? Snooth? Vinography? Cult Wines? The Wine Wankers? Vine Pair? Wine Folly? LeDomduVin? and so many more... (I had to include myself, too...😁) ...etc... (4)

Just to name a few, and there are so many more... It is a dilemma, isn't it? (At least, it is to me...)

This is a dilemma, even more so, as, nowadays, thousands of professionals and non-professionals (who could eventually be added to the above list) are now surfing the growing wave of wine vloggers and wine influencers on social media, posting thousands of wine descriptions, pictures and even streaming media and live videos everywhere on Social Media (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Tik-Tok and even LinkedIn now, and surely on all the other social media and networks I do not know, or I'm not registered with). 

Thus, it is more fun and interactive now, isn't it?... Sure! 

Yet, it makes it even more difficult to choose who to follow and who to listen to now. 

Yet again, surprisingly, and it is an excellent surprise (like most wine bloggers, like me, at the beginning of "blogging" back 10-15 years ago), nowadays, Wine Influencers speak with their guts and passion for what they like and love. They do NOT use any rating or scoring scale. 

They just use their own words to translate and transcribe what they have in their minds to convey a passionate and animated message to the world, free of "too-short-to-mean-anything" descriptions and "often-incomprehensible-and-weirdly-attributed" scores. And I looooooooooove it!!! I find it soooo refreshing!   

Just to name a few among some of my favourites that I have been following on Instagram (some more recently than others) (mostly French Wine-Influencers, sorry) 

• Margot Ducancel at https://www.instagram.com/rougeauxlevres/?hl=en
• Leila Wine Lover at https://www.instagram.com/leila_winelover/
• Gabrielle Vizzavona at https://www.instagram.com/gabriellevizzavona/?hl=en
• Allison Uncorked at https://www.instagram.com/allisonuncorked/?hl=en
• Alex Anderson at https://www.instagram.com/wine.with.alexx/?hl=en
• Andrea Zigrossi at https://www.instagram.com/trotterwine/?hl=en
• Emmanuel Delmas at https://www.instagram.com/emmanueldelmas/
• Nicolas De Rouyn at https://www.instagram.com/nicolasderouyn/
• Fabien Lainé at https://www.instagram.com/creativefabien/
• Laurent le conteur du vin at https://www.instagram.com/les_vins_du_capitaine/?hl=en
• Etc...

You can also browse the Feedspot Top 200 Wine Instagram Influencers most followed in 2020 to see if some of the people you follow made a list.  

So, although I just wrote all the above and could still talk about this fascinating subject for hours, I have already long debated and detailed the subjects of "Scoring Wines" and "Wine Scores" in two of my previous posts, here and here. Therefore, I did not want necessarily to write another post about it. So, why did I? 

What prompted me to write today's post?

So, what prompted me to write today's post (about "wine scoring", "wine scores" and "wine critics"), was the reaction of a friend who, a few days after the tasting of the Union des Grands Crus de Bordeaux (UGCB) Bordeaux 2017 Vintage, in Hong Kong (November 25th), asked me to send him a list of the wines from this tasting with "scores".  

As I was trying to finish my previous post on that specific UGCB Bordeaux 2017 Vintage tasting (read it here), I told him that as soon as I finish the post, I will send him the link, so he can see and read about the wines I liked/loved from the tasting, based on the various pictures and tasting notes included in the post. 

But, he replied (to me): 

"I thought you would give me (or even put) your scores out of 100pts on your post, on your blog, but it is probably too divisive, although I don't know, maybe you can still express yourself and put up the scores without the Chateaux having griefs against you". 

To which I replied (answer edited for this post): 

"I usually never rate on a 100-point scale. More especially during big wine tastings or events. I just use my own rating scale and put stars when I taste: 3 Stars (I like), 4 Stars (I like it a lot) and 5 Stars (I love it), based on the quality of the wine first, and I also try to take into consideration the  "quality/price" ratio when I award stars while tasting. Other than that, I'm only writing tasting notes (which I find more interesting and more descriptive than rating the wines anyway). However, I'll try to convert my stars to try to rate the wines on a 100-point scale, for you, based on what I wrote during the tasting, then send it to you. Yet, I probably won't put those ratings out of 100pts on my blog, so as to not receive any criticisms or comments from the properties." (FYI: I do not put my stars on my posts on my blog either, for the record). 

To which, I immediately added: 

"I developed this method while working in the US, in New York, when I was a buyer for wine & spirits retail stores. So, it's a wine buyer's method, not a wine critic rating scale system. During tastings, there is usually no time to assess the lesser wines (not to say "mediocre" or "bad"), so, if not good enough, no star and I move on to the next one. As for the ones I gave 1 and/or 2 stars, I usually revisit them at the end of the tasting to be sure (and if I have time too). After re-tasting them, unless I made a mistake, the 1-star wines end up being discarded from my selection. And the 2-stars wines are kept only if the quality/price ratio is interesting, but still only remain considered as "Ok" (instead of "Maybe"), and probably won't be bought. They often end up being discarded too."

So, there it is! This is my "Wine Scoring Way". Everyone seems to have one. This one is mine: my customized Wine Buyer's "5-Star scale" wine rating system. 

My Scoring Way (suite): the conversion from my 5-star to 100-point and 20-point scales

Yet, you see, now that I had told my friend (the one who wanted me to send him the list of the 2017 Bordeaux with 100-point scale scores) that I would try to convert my stars system into 100pts scale, I had to come up with a plan, a conversion strategy or methodology that made sense, not only for me, but also for him, and eventually, if/when needed, for my colleagues, partners, clients and customers. 

Fortunately, it was an easy task as I have a "comparison table" (or "equivalence table" if you prefer) I made long ago that I have been using to convert/compare my 5-star scale into/with 100-point and 20-point scores/rating scales, which came pretty handy on numerous occasions in these past 2 decades.   

So, (as I said in the conversation above), I probably won't post the list of my favourite Bordeaux 2017 vintage from that UGCB Tasting in this post, or maybe? Hmm... It could be interesting, but I will have to face the reaction of the wineries and winemakers and maybe, other Bordeaux Grands Crus wines-related people like some of the Brokers and Negociants. Tough decision to make...    

Anyway, you can just read the post on that subject here (UGCB 2017 Vintage) to see and read about all the wines I liked/loved, including pictures and tasting notes. 

But there are NO scores, as I only write about wines I like or love in my posts. No point in showing disappointing scores and/or writing about the wines I disliked (or even found really "awful" for some). It would not serve me nor the Châteaux/wineries. 

NB: And, at the end of the day, there is enough misery in this world, so, better to write only about good wines and positive things, keeping the mood light and on a high note, with a smile and positive attitude. 😁     

Therefore, what I wanted to share with you (today, in this post) is my Wine Rating Scales "conversion" table comparing my 5-Star rating scale with the 100-Point and 20-Point scales, as well as the common 5-Star/Point scale (which is different than my customized 5-Star scale). 

And between you and me, I have never really understood why we need a 100-point scale as most published scores and ratings (by the critics and other wine media) never (or so rarely) go below 85pts, and the same for the 20-point scale, it never really goes below 12.5pts...  So, what's the point?.... 

Go figure!!!

I guess it was to "uniformize" or even, as we say in France "mondialise" ("mondialisation"), meaning globalize (globalization) the wine rating scale system for everyone to have a better understanding and be able to compare. 

The 100-point scale is widely used on the planet to rate exam results at schools or other products than wine, it makes sense, and it was probably the best thing to do anyway.  

And don't get me wrong, I also occasionally use the 100-point rating scale scores (I'll explain a little more on that further down this post).    

Without further ado, and because a visual is worth a thousand words, here is my Wine Rating Scales comparison table. 

LeDomduVin's Wine Rating Scales Comparison Table 

Wine Rating Scales Comparison Table
by ©LeDomduVin 2020

So, as you can see, there is nothing complicated about this comparison table. It is just pure logic and common sense, after all. 100pts (in the 100-point scale) = 20pts (in the 20pts scale) = 5 stars/points (in the 5-star/point scale). Only my 5-star rating scale is a bit tricky, as it was not created for the common understanding but rather for mine only. 

But, once you'll understand the fact that my customized 5-star scale is a "Wine Buyer" rating scale, not a "Wine Critic" nor a Wine Magazine" rating scale, then the comparison will start to make more sense to you and become easier to digest and accept. 😄  

As quite a lot of people in the world still use the 20-point scale and even the common 5-star scale (which is different from mine), I believe that, after all, the first 3 columns of this table (that I created long ago and been using for the past 2 decades) might prove quite useful to many of you.   

As you can notice (in this table above), any wine I estimate the potential score to be below 88 points (on the 100-point scale) or 14 (on the 20-point scale) or 2 (on the common 5-star scale), gets a "0" star from me. That means that the wine is immediately rejected or discarded or immediately put aside, and, obviously, considered as "unworthy" (either because of its taste or because of its quality/price ratio, yet, most of the time, both).   

And, I can hear you say, isn't it a bit harsh? No? 

Well, as stated previously, I developed this "customized 5-star scale" rating system for myself long ago (as a Wine Buyer), to be mainly used during big tastings/wine events while working in New York, as Wine Buyer for "niche" boutique wine and spirits retail stores, in order to 

• spend less time on the bad wines and focus on the best wines

• make a quick and accurate first selection of the best-tasted wines based on my first impression and immediate reaction to the wine's intrinsic taste, characteristics, character and style  

• not be influenced by and effortlessly differentiate my scores from the others (tasters, including wine critics/wine magazines and media in general)

• and, thus, make my final selection and buying decision quickly and efficiently based 
• on the intrinsic quality of the wine according to its place and terroir of origin (appellation, region, geography, topography, local climate, etc..), its rank, grape variety(ies), the quality of the vintage, etc..., first, 
• then, based on its quality/price ratio (if or when I know the cost price and/or the estimated average market retail price). 

Therefore, and I never repeat it enough, it is a "Wine Buyer scoring scale", not a Wine Critic or a Winepress "100-Point or 20-Point scoring scale".   

What does that mean concretely? 

It means that when you are a Wine Buyer and need to quickly assess lots of wine during big tastings and wine events, it is essential not to waste your time on wines that are lesser in quality and lesser in quality/price ratio to really focus on the good ones. 

A Wine Buyer thinks pleasure (quality/taste) and business (quality/price ratio) at the same time, with a selling-point-oriented manner and mindset that will benefit both the seller (retail, restaurant, supermarket, etc...) and the buyers/consumers.   

This is the opposite of a Wine Critic, who usually must take the time to taste to carefully assess and describe the wines in order to rate them and give them a score. A Wine Critic also thinks about pleasure (quality/taste) and also take into consideration the quality/price ratio at the same time, but not necessarily in the same mindset or business-oriented manner, but rather in a buyer-consumer-oriented manner.      

The main purpose of a wine buyer is to buy "good to great" wines at "good to great" prices in order to increase sales, have a rapid turn-over of the products on the shelves and make decent-enough profits to be able to buy more wines, grow the business, pay the bills and the other employees and please the boss. 

Personally, when I was a Wine Buyer for niche boutique Wine & Spirits retail stores in New York while attending big tastings and other events in the city, I had neither the time nor the luxury to "fuss about" with the complete intrinsic characteristics and other details of the wines I was tasting. I had to be focused, accurate, fast and precise (and get back to work). So, any wines that were not good enough were immediately disregarded/discarded. And the 5-Star scale (I created and used, and still do) help me a lot to succeed in that task back then. 

LeDomduVin's 5-Star Wine Rating Scale for Tastings and Events

A visual may work better for you to grab and understand the concept, so here is my personal and customised 5-Star Wine Rating Scale with explanations (to make it clearer): 

LeDomduVin Tasting 5-Star Wine Rating Scale 
by ©LeDomduVin 2020

You have to understand that, in the US, when you work in a wine retail store (or any business for that matter), time is money and "good-to-great" business is solely based on the quality of the goods and the rapid turn-over of what you put on the shelves. Therefore, you can't really afford to put bad wines on the shelves, you only want to buy wines that you (and your team) feel confident to sell, and that will please your customers (as well as you and your team too). 

It is obviously harder to sell wines you or your team don't like, so it is important to always involve some or all, of your team when you taste and make decisions to buy wines.   

Consequently, when we had 3 or 4 sales representatives and/or distributors coming to the store to do a tasting presentation of 5-10 wines each, we (the team and me) had the time (and we were taking the time) to "fuss about" the interesting features and the intrinsic qualities of the wines we were tasting. 

We could discuss and hear each other's opinions, laugh and have a good time, and even buy wines that were not necessarily pleasing the majority but that one of us was sure that he/she could sell to our customers. And that was fine. It was a team job, taken and dealt with as such when tasting at the store.       

However, when we were attending big tastings or wine events in the city, or worst when we were going to Bordeaux to attend the various tastings organized by the Negociants, the Chateaux or the Appellations during the "En Primeur" campaign (late March/early April), each year, and that we had to taste, for example, 300 Crus Bourgeois at 9 am in the morning, I can tell you that my customized "5-star wine scoring scale" came very handy, to go through the 300 wines in the most efficient and expedited manner.  😊  

We were assessing 300 wines in a few hours, while a Wine Critic might take the whole day to taste 300 wines. The job is not the same, that's all.   

In the End 

In the end, I have a profound respect for Wine Critics and their job too. Even if I don't always agree with their scores/ratings. And, even if I know that they (we) are not machines and are all influenced, one way or another, directly or indirectly, by external factors, sometimes out of their (our) control. 

And also, the fact that to always remain genuine and impartial by keeping the needed and necessary consistency, integrity, distance, neutrality and perspective, to not be influenced by any of these factors cited above, at some point or another, must be really difficult. 

I admit that I'm influenced or let myself be influenced sometimes, occasionally, by some thoughts, preconceived ideas, misconceptions, misinterpretations, "A Priori", wrong information, lack of information, or, on the contrary, too much information and knowledge too. 

A good example was the Hong Kong UGCB Bordeaux 2017 Vintage tasting I attended in late November. I went to the tasting with no real excitement or expectation as I knew already that 2017 is a difficult vintage in Bordeaux (in general) and that the wine will not taste great and probably not show its full potential either. 

Maybe I was wrong to go to a tasting with that mindset. But that is the main problem we face every time. Whether you're a Wine Buyer (like me) or a Wine Critic (or any other type of wine professional, amateur or connoisseur going to a tasting), the more knowledge you possess about a region, an appellation, the places/vineyards/parcels that are more auspicious to produce better wines and which properties are on them, the various styles of the wines for each property, and the style of the winemaker, and, moreover, if you have followed the evolution of or read abundantly about the vintage and already have a fairly precise idea of what the wines will be and taste like (prior to tasting them), then, you cannot prevent going to a tasting like this one with preconceived ideas and mindset. 

And, unfortunately, the tasting proved me right. To put things in context, what else could one expect from such a difficult vintage? The wines were hard, dry, and astringent on the tannins, showing little to no structure or even little to no texture for some. They were light and lacking in complexity and depth for most of them.  

And to be honest, I'm shocked to see that some of these Bordeaux 2017 wines (that I tasted and did not find good or pleasant) made it to most of the TOP 100 Wines of 2020 ⁽¹⁾  ... very surprising... and that's why I sometimes question if the intention behind the such choice is genuine or interested? (3)

The 2017 Bordeaux, as I mentioned above, are mostly tight, hard, and tannic, with poor structure or texture, with hollow mid-palate and short finish (at least for those I tasted at the UGCB Bordeaux 2017 vintage tasting and on other occasions), rare were the few good ones.  And not only that, but 2017 Bordeaux are expensive too. 

Not that I want to do some Bordeaux bashing, as I'm from Bordeaux and I have been promoting Bordeaux wines for 30 years, but the combination of "lesser in quality", "low in production", "little quantity", and "high price" does not seem very attractive to me. Don't say you did not know, as you had been warned.    

That said, not all the Bordeaux 2017 vintage that I tasted were bad. Some of them were actually really good. The proof is my previous where you will see and be able to read about all the ones I liked and even loved during that tasting. (here)

Therefore, understand that 2017 for Bordeaux is a vintage where you have to look for good quality/price ratios. Otherwise, it's not worth it. Why? Because the wines are expensive and not really that good, so might get very disappointed paying a high price for a wine that does not worth that much.  Which explains some of my ratings and notes. (3)

So, understand my surprise to see that so many of them have made it to some of the "TOP 100 of 2020". Are the wines really that good? Or, is it a commercial stunt to help Bordeaux sell their wines, as the 2017 and 2018 sales were down for various reasons?  (e.g. Trump administration Tariff in the US, COVID-19 everywhere, direct sales and export to China have slumped since early 2019, Chinese cellars are still full with 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Vintages that are not selling, etc...).  

I let you be the only judge of that. However, in my true and honest opinion, and as a business-minded Wine Buyer and wine lover too, Bordeaux vintage 2019 is much more attractive for both its taste and price and much cheaper than 2018 and 2017 too, if you compare the quality/price ratio. There is definitely some good business to be done with 2019. And although 2018 is a bit more expensive, it is not bad either. 2017 is a pick-and-choose vintage that requires both knowledge and tasting skills.  

That is also one of the reasons why I hesitate to put this list (3) on my blog because these 2017 Bordeaux wines were tested here, in Hong Kong. Therefore, the bottles travelled, one or two were corked, and some did not present themselves well. 

That said, the bottles tasted the way they did because it is also the particularity of this vintage, with little homogeneity and a lot of inconsistency due to the errors made (date of the harvest, lack of maturity and ripeness of the grapes, etc ...) and the climatic characteristics of the vintage that were disastrous too. Not an easy vintage to make wine either.  

So, please take my opinions, notes and ratings with a grain of salt because they correspond to my impressions of these particular bottles of wine tasted on that particular day. It is very possible that some of these wines will reveal themselves a little more in a few years. Who knows? However, in any case, the price/quality ratio is not there (IMO), so proceed with caution and make your selection carefully not to end up with stocks you'll have difficulty selling.  

And, as a last reminder, these are Wine Buyer scores and notes, not Wine Critic scores and reviews.  I'm a Wine Buyer, not a Wine Critic.  

Thank you for reading my post, and until next time, be strong, be safe and take good care of yourselves and your loved ones. 

Cheers! Santé!

LeDomduVin (a.k.a. Dominique Noël)

Sources and Links

(1) - BEST OF and/or TOP 100 Wines of the Year 2020 

- Jeb Dunnuck Top 100 Wines of 2020

- Wine Spectator Top 100 of 2020

- James Suckling Top 100 of 2020

- Robert Parker Wine Advocate Top 100 Wine Discoveries of 2020

- Decanter Top Wines of the Year 2020

- Wine Enthusiast / Wine Mag.com Top 100 Best Buys of 2020

- Wine-Searcher Most Searched For Wines

-

⁽²⁾  - Read my previous article (2018) on Wine Scoring and Wine Critics at 

https://www.ledomduvin.com/2018/08/and-dont-let-anyone-or-anything-like.html

^{(3)  -} If interested, you can check my tasting results for the HK UGCB Bordeaux 2017 Vintage, with both the ratings of my 5-star scale and the conversion into the 100-point scale equivalent, here, and make the decision for yourself.

(4)  Find more wine-related personalities, websites and blogs on FeedSpot's Top 100 Wine Blogs, Websites & Influencers in 2020   

NB: I'm number 101 😁 on Feedspot's Top 100 Wine Blogs, Websites and Influencers of 2020 (as of December 28th, 2020). I was number 85 at the beginning of the year, in January 2020, so I better write more on more subjects to go back up.  Please spread a good word for me. It might help too. 🙏🙏🙏

Unless specified or notified otherwise,  ALL the above, including, but not limited to, illustrations, drawings, pictures, photos, tables, graphs and texts, etc... property of ©LeDomduVin 2020

FYI: Thank you for crediting me on any materials or texts you might use in this post.  

#wine #vin #vino #wein #wineeducation #wineknowledge #winescoring #scores #opinions #winescores #winescoringsystem #winerating #ratingscale #scale #ledomduvin @ledomduvin ©LeDomduVin 

LeDomduVin: What's a great wine? And don't let anyone or anything influence your own taste, decision, and judgment !!!

What's a great wine? (Qu'est-ce qu'un grand vin?) by and for @ledomduvin 2025

What's a great wine?

And don't let anyone or anything — like wine critics' scores, ratings, tasting notes, medals, or quotes— influence your own taste, decisions, and judgment!!!

What's a great wine? (*)

We can argue on the subject for hours, but first and foremost, a great wine is a wine YOU love.

A wine that is satisfying to you for its aspect, robe, color, intensity, aromas, bouquet, freshness, ripeness, richness, depth, complexity, balance, harmony, structure, texture, layers, taste, aftertaste, finish, and whatever else you can think of that is pleasing to you in it. 

A wine so exciting and delicious to your palate that it makes you shiver, or pause, or reflect, or smile right after the first sip. A wine from which the first glass immediately calls for another one. A wine you will never forget for that blissful moment. A wine triggering only one reaction from you: "Wow! What a great wine!"

Wine tasting is so subjective and can be influenced by so many factors that you can only count on yourself to really define what a great wine is for you. You might be the only one in the room who loves the wine, yet who cares, as long as you are satisfied with it. And don't let anyone or anything influence your own taste, decision, and judgment!!!

Don't let anyone or anything influence your own taste, decision, and judgment!!!

Label design, wine critics' scores, ratings, medals, quotes, tasting notes, and wine descriptions are all fine to read and pay attention to, and might, to a certain extent, guide and influence your decision and even help you to make up your mind on whether to buy a wine without having tasted it before (or not). 

However, do not let these factors dictate your decision; take control of your mind and influence your palate. Although some of them may be used as guidance (those from the critic(s) you like and follow, who are usually meaningful and reliable, 'cause not all of them are), none of these factors should determine whether you will enjoy or even love the wine, especially before tasting it.

Don't fall into the trick of believing that because a wine critic you follow, like, and have a similar palate and taste, scored a wine highly, that you will automatically love this wine. Of course, there is a strong potential you might like it too, but it is not always the case.   

So, don't let anyone or anything — like wine critics' scores, ratings, tasting notes, medals, or quotes — influence your own taste, decisions, or judgment!!! 

Do your research and browse the internet, as the scores, ratings, and tasting notes might be outdated and reflect how the wine was at a specific time —maybe a few years ago —while the wine may have evolved (for good or for worse—you never know). Diversify your sources and check what people have to say about it.  

Look at the various given scores on Wine-Searcher.com, for example, and only take into consideration the most recent ones. And if not recent enough, have a look at CellarTracker.com to read the most recent wine reviews, scores, and tasting notes (if available for the wine you're looking for).   

In any case, please, please, please do not define a wine's quality and taste by just reading scores, ratings, or critics' reviews and quotes, either (especially if outdated). Do not say: "..oh, look, this wine got between 95-100 points, it must be excellent...", as you do not know! 

That's true, isn't it? You have no idea if this high-scoring wine will be good for you and your taste, your palate, and overall personal preferences, just by trusting a few high scores and reading a few often vague and meaningless sentences that claim to describe it—sent your way with appealing words and adjectives meant to cloud your judgment and make it harder to decide based on your own tastes. 

When I was less experienced, I often bought wines solely based on high scores, only to be disappointed because the scores were outdated, inflated compared to the wine's actual quality, the wine evolved differently than expected, or because the high score came from a critic I don't usually follow but decided to trust for that particular wine. It's the surest way to make a mistake.  

 

Think about it. Unless you've already determined that your palate, taste in wine, and appreciation for tasting are similar to those of a particular wine critic you've been following closely for years, and as a result, you've established that you both favor the same wines and rate them similarly (and they receive good scores and are on par with your preferences based on the descriptions), then you really don't know. 

And to be able to tell if that 95-100-point wine will suit your palate (or not), there is only one way: You have to taste it! There is no other way.

Granted, unless it is inexpensive and widely available, tasting a 95-100-point wine is not always easy because they tend to be costly and produced in limited quantities, making them difficult to access. Most wines rated 95 or above are. So, unless you purchase and try it yourself, you'll never know if that 95-100-point wine is as good for you as the rating or score implies.  

In fact, you are facing 3 situations that will influence your decision whether to buy it (or not): 

1. The 95-100 points have been given fairly recently by a wine critic (in a magazine, a guide, or a website) you follow and like, as you have a similar palate and usually like the wines he or she likes, and in that case, there is a high probability that the taste corresponds to your palate and that you may agree with the score too, and consequently have no problem to buy it and enjoy it.    

2. The 95-100 points is an aggregated average score calculated by taking as many critic scores as possible for this specific wine and vintage, adjusted to the 100-point scale. Since the final score is a consensus of various critics' scores (some old and some newer), and recent reviews on CellarTracker.com corroborate these scores, there is a high probability you'll buy and like the wine, even if you would have rated it differently based on your taste.   

3. The 95-100 points have been given by one (or several) wine critic(s) (in a magazine, a guide, or a website) long ago and/or by a critic you dislike, or that has a palate totally different than yours, and you usually disagree with his or her scores. Obviously, you probably won't buy the wine, even if it received high scores. However, it would still be interesting to taste it if you have the chance one day, to see whether you like the wine and agree with the score.    

That said, even if I ask you not to judge a wine's quality solely based on scores, a 95-100 point rating will always influence your opinion, directly or indirectly (even if it's from a critic you dislike). It would be dishonest to claim otherwise. But what I mean is: don't assume anything about a high score or take it for granted until you've tasted the wine yourself.    

The more you taste, the more you refine and sharpen your palate's skills, knowledge, and taste.   

Nowadays, there are many ways to taste a wine before buying it and/or to be informed about a wine's quality, and to make your own judgment of wines rated by critics, while refining your palate, sharpening your skills, and growing your knowledge at the same time.  

• Visiting your "Caviste" (or boutique-wine store) to ask for their opinions and comments can be helpful. If the "caviste" is friendly and customer-focused (like I used to be and like I was during my New York years), they might be willing to open a bottle in the store so you can taste the wine, judge it for yourself, and help you decide whether to buy it.   

And trust me, from experience, a "caviste" usually has no problem opening a bottle because he/she knows the bottle isn't lost. Most customers who visit the store always appreciate a free "impromptu" tasting with the chance to get a free glass of wine. Therefore, opening a bottle to win over one customer usually attracts others and significantly increases the chances of selling more bottles of that specific wine than initially planned. 

Personally, when I worked as a store manager and wine buyer at two boutique wine stores in NYC, I had no problem opening bottles for customers. This often led to enjoyable impromptu tasting sessions that many other wine shoppers also appreciated. It was fun, and I sold many cases of wine this way, rather than just individual bottles. 

NB: Between you and me, fakely arguing about a wine or criticizing a producer or a specific wine label,  especially when facing a skeptic, is always a good trick for a caviste to open a bottle in the store. It usually works quite well, and the skeptical customer usually ends up buying the bottle. (😊)

Other ways to taste a wine before buying it and/or to be informed about a wine's quality, and to make your own judgment of wines rated by critics, consist of:

• Subscribing to the newsletters of your local wine merchants and/or wine stores, to be informed of their up-and-coming wines, promotions, tastings, dinners, and other wine events  

• Going to wine dinners, wine fairs, as well as forums, expositions, and any other events promoting wines. 

• Attending wine classes (WEST, CMS, DUAD-ISVV, etc...)

• Being invited as often as possible by friends who have a substantial private wine cellar at home (😊)

• Traveling and visiting wine regions and wineries, to get facts, stories, and other details directly at the source. There is no better way to understand a wine, the producer who made it and his/her philosophy, as well as the vineyard and terroir it comes from (types of grapes and vines, age of the vines, vineyard management, history, geography, geology, topography, climate, microclimate, weather patterns, etc.)

NB: This list is not exhaustive; there may be other ways to taste and evaluate wines.


You may have noticed that I didn't mention or suggest going to your local supermarket, as most supermarkets store their wines in less-than-ideal conditions (not to use the word "bad"). This is especially true when visiting "over-the-top" supermarkets with aisles upon aisles of nondescript bottles of wine, gathering dust while standing upright for months under harsh neon lights. Yes, these wines might look appealing in pictures on that supermarket's wine flyer, pamphlet, brochure, or even website, with all sorts of flashy scores, ratings, quotes, stars, medals, and whatever else they've squeezed into that image to persuade you to buy the wine, but the reality is often quite different...     

Obviously, they do it to draw your attention and influence your mind, taste, judgment, and overall buying decision and experience. Deceiving you into buying wines based on scores, ratings, quotes, and medals rather than taste and intrinsic qualities. And the result is often annoying (as you feel that you've wasted your money) and disappointing (as even if you try to convince yourself that there is something good about it, because this or that wine critic said it was good and scored it highly, you don't even like the wine after all).   

Marketing savvies have perfected many ways to lure you into their trap to make you buy wines that are not good taste-wise and/or not worth it money-wise, or even fake and/or counterfeit wines without you noticing it, who knows.... (my previous post is a perfect example of it, read it here). 

In fact, many unaware and uninformed wine drinkers surely buy some of these marketing gimmicks (or even fake wines) with blind eyes and without asking questions, sometimes, simply because the "mise-en-scene" is too good not to be true. 

Either the label looks completely genuine, or the scores, ratings, quotes, and/or descriptions on the flyer, pamphlet, or brochure sound so attractive that one or the others ultimately catch your interest, and you can't resist the temptation of buying at least a bottle.

My point is that you should never decide or convince yourself that a wine should be good or even great, solely based on:

• the look and overall design of a label, or

• the wine critics' scores and other rewards (medals, stars, etc...) on flyers, pamphlets, brochures,  websites, or in specialized wine buying guides, or

• the discounted price or other promotional packages 

You'll be surprised by how many people do that on a weekly basis. They check the scores, read the descriptions, and buy the wines without further research (or having previously tasted them in most cases), and, roughly 7 out of 10 times, end up disappointed as the wine is not to their liking after all. 

Yet, still, the week after, again, they find themselves in front of the same shelves at their local supermarket, and they do it again... Sounds familiar? While there are now numerous free applications and websites available to assist them in their choices, such as Wine-Searcher.com, Vivino.com, and CellarTracker.com, for example, and these tools can help them make more informed decisions when purchasing wine.  

Ok, granted, these sites and apps also have scores and ratings, such as 100 points and stars. Yet, these are average combined scores and ratings from various sources, including both professionals and regular people, indicating a consensus. Therefore, the scores and ratings are likely to be more accurate and credible than those from only one or two wine critics, whose palates may not align with yours.   

So, let's start with an example of the look and overall design of a wine label. 

For the purpose of this post, I created the following fake wine label (and the accompanying wine flyer, which is featured a little further down in this post). I posted them on social media (Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn) before finishing this post to gauge the reactions and comments they would elicit from the public. 

And surprisingly, many people viewed and liked it, which is great. Yet, I'm sure that many of them fell into the trap and probably did not even realize that it was a fake wine label (especially those who do not understand French or are not familiar with French slang). The devil is in the details. Look at this label carefully!   

Chateau Picrate Label by © LeDomduVin 2018

Did you fall for it? Yes? No? Let's have a closer look at it.  

At first glance, it "almost" looks like a genuine wine label. Frankly, some of the modern-style wine labels on bottles I've seen on the market look even faker than this one (if I may say so...😊). Yet, looking at it closely, some of you will realize the obvious "supercherie". 

1. The wine name, "Chateau Picrate", is a joke, but some of you may have fallen for it as being a true Chateau name (or not). You may not know it, but "Picrate" is an old French slang word designating a low, generic, and often tasteless wine in French (thus, if you did not know, it is normal if you fell for it, as you have to be French or master the French slang to know that). (*) 

2. The producer's names, "Cedella Vinasse et Vincent Goût", two of the various fake names and protagonists I use in my wine stories and illustrations, are made-up names for which you may have also fallen for (and there again it is normal for the same reasons as the wine name above), as these are French slang play-of-words. 

• "Cedella Vinasse" is a French-made-up play-of-words for "C'est de la vinasse", which could literally be translated in English by "This wine is crap" (*)

• "Vincent Goût" is also a French-made-up play-of-words for "Vin sans goût", which could literally be translated in English by "Wine without a taste" 

3. The appellation, "Appellation Ajeterdanslevier Recommandée" (AAR), is also a made-up word instead of the usual "Appellation d'Origine Controlée" (AOC) or nowadays "Appellation d'Origine Protégée" (AOP). 

• "Ajeterdanslevier" is a French made-up play-of-words for "A jeter dans l'évier", which could literally be translated in English by "to throw in the sink"

4. The village name, "jenveuxplus", is the same thing, a completely made-up French play-of-words for "j'en veux plus", literally meaning in English "I don't want any more"

5. The zip code (or "Code Postal" in French) 33333 does not even exist in Gironde, France. 

6. "Bordeleau" instead of "Bordeaux" (that was obvious..). Bordeaux (the town and the wine region) and Borddeleau (the play of words, I replaced it with), both literally mean "at the water's edge" in French. 

7. And the logo or drawing in the middle?... Now that is an interesting-looking design, related to the Appellation "Ajeterdanslevier" Recommandée...  Remember "l'évier"(in French) is a sink... Can you see what I'm getting at? Yes? No?  Look at it again... what does it remind you of? Any idea? Look again... do you have it? Yes, of course, it is a kitchen sink hole... get it? Clever, isn't it? 

And even as obvious as all these details may have been (for a person speaking or having a good understanding of French or French slang and play-of-words), you may still have fallen for it and believed it was a genuine label, did you? 

Now, you can see how easy it is to be deceived by a label when you have no clue it is fake. Therefore, never judge the quality of a wine by its label. I'm sure that from now on, you will have a closer look at labels at your local wine stores... (😊)

Let's take a look at an example of the wine flyer now. 

As I mentioned earlier, after creating the fake wine label, I also made a wine flyer to promote it, for the purpose of this post. Also, I posted it on social media (Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn) to, again, see the reactions and comments it will trigger from the public eye.  

Surprisingly, it was even more successful than the fake wine label, probably because I used English words this time (instead of French) to capture the attention of a wider audience. And it worked well, as even if I stated (on my post with these 2 illustrations posted on the social media) that it was a joke, at least one person made a comment saying: "Where is the joke?" (and if one person wrote it as a comment, either he did not get it or thought it was genuine at first, then you can be sure many others at least thought the same way too 😂😂😂)

Let's take a closer look at it, and please tell me that you didn't fall for it...
It is way too obvious, isn't it?..... 

Chateau Picrate Critic's ratings/scores by © LeDomduVin 2018

Pretty good and quite funny in my opinion, isn't it? I liked it a lot and even laughed at my own jokes while doing it (and afterward, when revisiting it...), and if nobody else did, then at least I'm glad I had a good laugh for my own pleasure (nothing better than self-satisfaction from time to time).    

At first glance, I'm sure that some of you, who are not attached to details and never read between the lines or read too hastily without paying close attention, probably thought it was a genuine wine flyer (badly hand-made... I admit... but genuine maybe...) and only looked at the scores and the 5 stars quotes... Am I right?   

Unfortunately, when it comes to buying wines they do not know, most people, in general, are way too often falling into the trap of marketing geniuses exhibiting enticing wine critics scores, ratings, quotes and medals on over-the-top wine retailer's websites and/or on supermarket's flyers, pamphlets, and brochures. They should learn how to pay more attention to details in order to save both money and time.  

However, let's dissect it, like we did for the fake label above, to discover the hidden gems of humor contained in this fake wine flyer (and to provide answers to those who might still wonder where are the jokes.. and did not get them 😊 ... I admit that it might be a little difficult if you don't know anything about wine or are not part of the wine industry or not a wine magazine reader). 

1. The scores and distorted names above them are all inspired and based on the scoring systems and  names of some of the most well-known and respected wine critics in the world (some of whom I know quite well, therefore my apologies in advance to all of you for ridiculing your fist and/or last names)

• "Robber Parker" instead of "Robert Parker Jr." 
• "Wine Stalker" instead of "The Wine Spectator"
• "Genesis Robinson" instead of "Jancis Robinson"
• "LRDVDF" instead of "La RVF - La Revue du Vin de France"  
• "Jeannie sur Lie" instead of "Jeannie Cho Lee"
• "Wine Cellar in Cider" instead of "The Wine Cellar Insider"

2. The "Triple Gold" Medal at Jakarta International Wine Challenge... I don't think there has ever been an International Wine Challenge at Jakarta... (but I thought it was a good idea 😊)

3. "The Daily Booze" instead of "The Daily News" (why not...)

4. "Carafe" instead of... (you surely guessed this one)... "Decanter" of course (pretty funny, no? )

5. "Red Prawn" instead of "Gambero Rosso" (the famous Italian food and wine magazine with its "Tre Bicchieri")... (this one may not have been obvious for everybody... but funny still in my opinion)

6. "Painin Guide" instead of "Peñín Guide" or "Guía Peñín" in Spanish (the famous guide to Spanish Wines)

If after revealing all these details, you are still falling for it, I'm not so sure what to do for you.... as you are a hopeless, desperate case... (😊)

Don't let yourself be influenced by the wine critic's scores or ratings

Wine critics scoring a wine by © LeDomduVin 2018 

Don't let yourself be influenced by the critic's scores or ratings as they can be "meaningfully meaningless" (as I like to say) and greatly vary in between wine critics. As said previously, get to know the various wine critics palates and scoring patterns, and only follow with assiduity the one (or the few) that have a similar palate and tasting appreciation as you, and score wines with scores similar to the ones you could have given to the wines yourself.

Over my 27 years career in the wine business, my palate and taste have changed and evolved as I was  (and still) getting older and to a certain extent wiser. And it is the same for the wine critics. Therefore you should always keep track of these changes, the wine critic ones as well as yours too, prior finalizing your decision, more especially if you haven't tasted the wine yourself previously and only base your decision on scores. 

If out of 10 wine critics scores for a wine (let's say between the range of 89 to 96), 6-7 are similar and the other ones are not far behind, then it means that fairly unanimously, most critics liked the wine and that there is a good chance for the wine to be good for your palate and even more chance for the wine to please a wide range of diverse palates. It might, or not, be to your liking, but it does not mean that it is bad either. It just means that your palate is different and the wine not suitable for your taste, even if it will please others.

In general, the more homogeneous the scores from various critics are the more mass appeal the wine will have due to its intrinsic quality and not only because a handful of the most famous critics give it a high or top scores. This is what happens to the top 250 best wines in the world. At this level, they are rarely "not good" and even less often "bad", they are just "not as good as" due to an off vintage, yet their scores usually still remain high. 

If, on the opposite, there are too many variations in between the wine critics scores, for example, respectively 89, 92 and 96 (like in the illustration above), then you will have to go with the wine critics you follow the most to be sure that the wine corresponds to your taste. But you may have a comprehensible hesitation and ask yourself why the wine critic you follow rate it lower or higher than the other critics. The tasting notes might give you a hint of why he/she scored it that way. But in the end, the choice is yours, and there again it does not necessarily mean that the wine is bad, just that it did not correspond to the taste and palate of this or that wine critic, that's it. In that case, you know what to do, find a way to try it and judge it for yourself.

On top of that, depending on the wine critic you follow, some being more consistent than others, scores can be quite tricky to understand and may not even reflect the tasting notes, supposedly written to give you an incentive on the reason why the wine received such a score.

I remember, once back in NYC a few weeks after attending the En Primeur 2003 vintage in Bordeaux, reading the tasting notes of a few wine critics, for the Chateaux of the Appellation Margaux for example, to compare them and define what I will buy for the store back then. I was startled and doubtful by what I was reading. They all looked nearly the same. It was absolutely bewildering. 

Imagine, you read 15 or 20 tasting notes from the same wine critic on the various wines from one appellation and in the same vintage. And you realize that not only all the tasting notes are approximately the same (despite some rare changes of a few words and sentence styles) and thus "astonishingly indistinguishable" from one another without looking at the names of the Chateaux, but, surprisingly enough and for some unexplained reasons their scores (or ratings) greatly varied. Go figure!

For example, it was like reading, about 2 different Chateaux from the same appellation and same vintage, something like:

• Chateau Y 2003 Margaux

"Black fruit, good acidity, polished texture, good structure and balance, long persistent finish" 89pts

• Chateau Z 2003 Margaux

"Black fruit, refreshing, smooth texture, combining structure and balance, long-lasting finish" 96pts

The blind tasting wine critic's paradox by ©LeDomduVin 2018 

Well... what?!? What really differentiates these two tasting notes? They are roughly the same and say the same thing for both wines... So, why are the scores so different? What makes the first one only worth an acceptable 89pts and the second one a staggering 96pts? How meaningful is that? I wonder... what is the word I'm looking for? Ah, yes... "meaningfully meaningless" that is... 😊  ...as these tasting notes are in no way indicative of the superior quality of the second wine compared to the first. This kind of tasting notes are incredibly confusing and meaningless at best. 

If someone has the answer, please let me know, as I'm very interested to know why there is such a big difference in between these 2 scores while the descriptions are nearly identical.

These are just examples that I created for this post. But seriously it is not even exaggerated, as for the tasting notes I read from these few wine critics for the Bordeaux En Primeur 2003 back in the days, they were to that extreme, meaningless, as nearly literally identical but showing huge differences in scores. It was mind-boggling.        

Now, if we go back to the situation at the wine critics' table in the illustration above, the huge gap in between critics scores  (the lowest being 89pts and the highest being 96pts) proves once again that tasting is very subjective and that you should really know the taste and palate of the critic(s) you follow and the pattern he/she/they follow to rate the wines he/she/they have tasted (I'm repeating it as it is an extremely important point). 

Let's take again an example from the Bordeaux 2003 Vintage. 2003 was such a controversial vintage in Bordeaux as it was a very hot vintage, which scared and startled and took aback many producers (to say the least) as the heat wave was not planned, anticipated and/or expected to be that hot and that sudden. It was an unprecedented type of vintage, which produced some really weird wines, yet most wine critics first raved about it during the "En Primeur" campaign.  Let me explain.

Unprecedented hot vintage, yes, as neither the winemakers and their team of vignerons, neither the vines were prepared for such hot weather. As a result, facing an unprecedented situation, some  got scared and harvested too early to try to keep some acidity and prevent over-ripeness (surely fearing their grapes will cook and/or the rain might come at some point diluting the early ripening grapes). While others, probably over-confident, harvested much later trying to take advantage of the sun to have riper grapes and tannins, to obtain fuller and stronger wines. And some hesitated, they harvested part of their crop too early, then stopped and waited, then harvested the rest of their crop later (way too late for quite a few of them), and ended up blending both harvests together, spawning unbalanced wines with weird characteristics.

In fact, some of the resulting wines from the early harvest were totally unripe, acidic, astringent, green and tannic. While some of the later harvest were strongly overripe, or obviously cooked, showing everything upfront with no structure and no harmony and a finish unpleasantly high in alcohol. And the rest of the wines were a strange combination of both characteristics (early and later harvest blended together).

In my true and honest opinion, the resulting wines across the whole region of Bordeaux in general, for this hot 2003 vintage, to say the least, were frankly inhomogeneous and unbalanced.

In the position of Wine Buyer and Wine Director for one of the most successful wine and spirits retail stores in Manhattan (NYC) at the time (PJ Wine), I remember when we traveled to Bordeaux for the En Primeur 2003 and being there, in my home region, with our team, tasting hundreds of Chateaux, some 2 or 3 times as they were presented in various tastings and events.

After tasting so many wines every day for about 8 days straight (at the wineries, at wine tasting events, with the négociants, and even during wine dinners), my mind was set on buying as little as possible, as I was irrevocably skeptical about the quality altogether of this rather strange "millésime" (vintage in English), resulting in "Bordeaux 2003 En Primeur tasting" being one of the worst and less homogeneous vintages I have ever tasted (En Primeur) in my 27 years career as a Sommelier and Wine Buyer for restaurant and boutique wine stores.

My boss and some of the rest of the team, at the time, (like the press and most wine critics) were also quite ecstatic, raving about this 2003 vintage. They said it was great, fruity, strong, lot of structure, etc, etc.... Yet, I thought utterly differently.

• Whenever they tasted concentration and ripe jammy fruit, I tasted over-ripeness and cooked fruit. 

• Whenever they tasted some sort of freshness or crispiness, I tasted weird, sour and unpleasant acidity for some and total lack of acidity for others. 

• Whenever they tasted solid grip of tannins that added texture and structure, I tasted unpleasant, unintegrated, astringent and green tannins contributing to the bitterness of the wine, or, on the other end, "overripe" tannins adding almost like a burnt sensation. 

• Whenever they tasted concentration and strength, I tasted over-extraction and the high alcohol level. 

We were definitely not on the same page, as I really disliked the 2003 vintage. I urged my boss not to follow the critics (or follow them with extreme caution) and more especially not to buy too many cases of too many wines in that vintage, as they will surely be difficult to sell and time might prove they will not evolve well... But he did not listen and swallowed the words of the wine critics who released their scores right after the tasting week, surfing the wave of enthusiasm for this unprecedented hot vintage blinded by his lack of better judgment.

In fact, and time proved me right, rare were the Chateaux which succeeded in making a good wine in this particularly unprecedented hot 2003 vintage. Moreover, none of them improved with age in the bottle. Of course, there are some rare exceptions to that rule. Pontet Canet in Pauillac and Montrose and Calon Segur in Saint-Estephe come to mind (there were definitely 3 of my favorites when we tasted them at the Chateaux, and the critics raved about them as being the best of this particular vintage, for that I had to agree with them, for the rest no).

Pauillac and more especially Saint-Estephe on the left bank were mostly preserved due to their proximity with the Gironde estuary creating a micro-climate preserving the vines from the heat by colling down the air, and the presence of sand, and patches of clay in the soils, which tend to stay cooler and also retain water, an essential key factor to produce good wines during a hot year like 2003.

NB: note that I did not mention gravel, which is one of the main component of the Haut-Médoc soils, as gravels absorb the heat during the day to restitute it at night to the vines, which usually helps the ripeness of the grapes in regular years, but in very hot year it increases it too rapidly and does not help to cool down the vines, therefore no point to mention it.

The wines crafted from vineyards of the right bank planted on calcareous and clay soils also did well for the most part, as both if these soil's components retain humidity and release it, allowing the vines to cool down, get the water and nutrients they need, and be more resistant when facing strong heat like in 2003.

But overall, it is just the harvesting time decision and the quality of the grapes at harvest time that define the quality of the resulting wines for the 2003 vintage (and most wines were not good for all the reasons cited above, but more particularly due to wrong vineyard's management decisions and harvest timing).   

    

However, to my despair and despite my advice not to, my boss ended up buying loads of 2003 Bordeaux. At first, the "Bordeaux En Primeur 2003 vintage" sales were promising, as the wine critics notes and their incomprehensible enthusiasm for this peculiar vintage paid off. But then, about 6 months to a year later, while the wines were still in barrel, not even bottled and therefore not even shipped to us, some critics started to downgrade the wines and lower their scores.

My first intuition was right and my fear of having difficulty selling that vintage became a reality.

The wines were still in barrel, not even bottled, but clients were already calling to cancel their orders and get their money back. My boss was both upset and desperate, not sure of what he could do anymore to turn the situation around.

Moreover, after the vintage 2000 when Bordeaux wine prices started to go haywire, 2003 came at a high price too and speculation that was quite high right after the En Primeur 2003 tasting week came rapidly to a low point as revised scores started to appear.

2003 came at a high price, as 2001 and 2002 were just average to bad vintages (not great, not good, but just OK... mediocre if you want my opinion - yet, some wines from these two vintages surprisingly ended up being quite good with a bit of age in the bottle; that is what we call "Classique Bordeaux" in Bordeaux, as an excuse of being austere and mediocre in their youth, but somewhat better a few years down the road).

Then again, some lower their scores after tasting the 2003 wines again after bottling, 2 years later, realizing that they had been partially or completely wrong in the first place. Then, once again, lower their scores again a few years later as the wine did not even improve and, in some case, even got worst. That said, I cannot generalize, as not all critics downgraded the wines. Some critics (a few, but still...) slightly  elevated their score after bottling.... yet, it did not reassured our clients and did not help for the sale....

My boss had gambled on the success of this Bordeaux 2003 vintage, not on his own taste, but on critics scores, and the critics were changing their mind rapidly. At that time in the US, Bordeaux wines were products of huge speculations on both the regular and the grey markets. Lower ratings meant lower investment returns over time for most of our clients. About 3/4 of the stocks we bought went canceled or unsold, and he took us more than 2 years after receiving the stocks in our warehouse to liquidate them, most of them with a huge discount, just to get rid of them. It was a sad experience that had been driven by scores rather than taste and reason.

I'm sorry, once again and as usual, I'm slightly deviating from the subject to tell you my stories from the past. So, let's go back to the huge gap in between critics scores.

Let's take, for example, the scores of Chateau Palmer 2003, which was one of the Chateaux that made a decent yet not extraordinary wine in this peculiar vintage (yet much better than some for sure... and because I like Palmer for many reasons, one day I will tell you why.... in another post).

As unbelievable as it may seem, in the table below, the gap between the Wine Critic's scores received by Palmer 2003, varies from a low 87pts to an astonishing 96pts on 100 point scale, and from 15.5 to 18 on 20 points scale. As for the critic's overall view, 4 are between 85-89 and 5 between 90-94. Personally, my score will be somewhere between the middle and the lower camp. (looks like the same situation as my illustration above at the wine critic's table 😊)

In any case, as already stated earlier above, (and it makes even more sense when looking at the table below), the huge gap in between critics scores proves once again that tasting is very subjective and that you should really know the taste and palate of the critic(s) you follow and the pattern they follow to rate the wine they have tasted.

That is the reason why you cannot let yourself be influenced by the scores (or ratings) without knowing the palate, taste and rating pattern not only of the critic(s) you follow, but the others too.

Chateau Palmer 2003 Wine Critic's Scores © LeDomduVin 2018

I did a colorful graph as visual graphs usually speak louder than words. 😊

Chateau Palmer 2003 Wine Critic's Scores Graph by © LeDomduVin 2018

For the ratings on the 20 points scale, it is important to understand that they cannot be converted into the 100 points scale via mathematical % conversion (right column in table below - as some of you might logically think so and do so), as the results do not equal or match the corresponding 20 points rating scale used by the wine critics and wine press.

To better explain what I'm trying to say,  here is another table I created, which should help you understand (I hope it helps). 

Wine Critics 100pts scores vs 20pts scores scale by © LeDomduVin 2018

As you can see, wine critic's scores and descriptions can be biased and greatly vary due to various factors and therefore could influence you wrongly if you do not know or have at least an idea of the palate, taste and rating pattern of the critic(s) you want to follow. So unless you have similar palate and taste, do not let yourself be influenced by scores that are at both extremes of the scale's spectrum. 

If you are a kind of new to wine and want to know which wine critic to follow (that is if you think that you should follow critics to better buy your wines, then follow these steps:

1. Buy some wines from one region and one vintage (if possible) scored by at least 3-4 wine critics without reading their tasting notes (ask your local store and/or caviste and/or Sommelier to advise you on which ones you should taste if you do not know)

2. Taste, assess, evaluate and score the wines yourself with your own palate  and own rating system (if you can that is....) at home, at a restaurant, alone or with friends and/or family

3. Now, read the various critic's tasting notes and scores, and compare them to yours to determinate, which critic(s) is (are) the closest to your descriptions and scores (the ones you have given to these wines yourself).

4. Repeat the process with various wines from different countries, regions, appellations, and vintage in order to confirm which critic(s) you want to follow.

You will see, it will definitely ease the pain when buying wines that you don't know and never really got the chance to taste before.    

Don't let yourself be influenced by the critic's tasting notes,

Don't let yourself be influenced by the critic's tasting notes, and don't take them for granted either unless you have similar taste or palate. Learn about the palate and taste of the critics you follow to get better guidance on the wine you want to taste and buy (as said and repeated many times in this post...I will never say it enough...).

For example, it used to be a time when Robert Parker Jr. was King, and whatever he said went. For most people with a similar palate, he was right-on, and defined what was good or bad for decades. I have much respect for the man (that I have met a few times long ago) and his palate. I have also a lot of respect for what he has done for many regions and wines and producers all around the world over the last 4 decades, and more especially Bordeaux (where I'm from).

However, for people (like me) who are more inclined to lighter, fresher, more balanced, less extracted, less woody and less alcoholic wines, Robert Parker Jr. taste was probably too bold, too strong, too jammy, too woody, basically too much for their palate.

NB: Note that I said "was" and not "is" as, and although he and WA remain strong references in terms of scores and tasting notes, I believe he (and/or WA altogether) is not making the weather in the wine world anymore.. (for quite a few years now I believe, but you probably knew that already...).

As a Sommelier and Wine Buyer for restaurants and boutique wine stores, I had no other choice but to pay close attention to RP tasting notes, and more especially his ratings (in order to satisfy some of the clients I sold the wines to in both places).

Yet, I have always preferred and expressed more enthusiasm to read and follow the tasting notes from more classic and less "new world" critic's palates such as Michael Broadbent, Jancis Robinson, Hugh Johnson, Stephen Tanzer, Clive Coates and Allan Meadows and buyer/importer such as Kermit Lynch and Neal Rosenthal (just to name a few) for my personal cellar and consumption, but also for some of my clients.

Nowadays, I also follow newer critics like Neal Martin, Jeannie Cho Lee (with whom I've worked for a little while) and a few others, as their palate and taste seem to better correspond to mine (... it is not always true though), yet my taste has evolved and changed over the last 30 years, as well as the wines have changed. 

Yet, in the end, I usually prefer my tasting notes as they are more detailed and express more emotions and sensations towards the tasted wines (nothing wrong with unabashed self-promotion here, hey?... Read some examples on my last post here and let me know what you think).

On that note, I found that some critic's tasting notes are really "meaningfully meaningless" (these 2 words together again 😊... I love saying them...) to the point of being bad sometimes.

I remember reading the tasting notes of a famous critic (no name here, as with time I learned how to respect him somewhat, even if I still don't like his writing style) for the 2003 vintage Bordeaux En Primeur, and frankly, for Margaux (same example as above again and I want to insist on that), they all had similar tasting notes resumed in 2-3 short sentences maximum for each wine and were "astonishingly indistinguishable" from one another without looking at the names of the Chateaux.

And yet, some received scores way below 90 points, while others were well above 90 points, but by reading the tasting notes it was impossible to define or comprehend what was the reason behind the scores. Doesn't it sound ridiculous and confusing to you? It was meaningless to me, to say the least. (as said previously, but there again, it is important to repeat it as it happens more often than you think)

In my opinion, the problems with wine critic's tasting notes is that either

1. some are too short, too vague and/or not detailed enough to really describe the wine and reflect or justify the score, or

2. some are way too long with metaphors and made-up words supposed to trigger an image of something peculiar, often unknown to most common people.

It is true, I'm telling you. Some wine critics and other wannabes think that throwing around "meaningful" words such as "rocky mineral", "old saddle leather", "tingling salty tide", and so on, makes tasting notes sound more important, more imposing, more interesting... or something.

Of course, big words and metaphors can be fine when used correctly. They can even be built into a very good writing style, but I'm referring to tasting notes that use bad metaphors, rather odd terminology and so many supposedly "meaningful" words that it reduces them to be unintelligible in the context or even hard to imagine, and therefore become "meaningless".

For example, it is like if I was writing this as a tasting note:

Chateau Picrate Label by © LeDomduVin 2018

Chateau Picrate 2018 Appellation Ajeterdanslevier Recommandée 

"Exuberant nose of ripe Durian fruit with notes of mildew, underbrush forest floor, just unearthed mushrooms, long vacated birds nest, undertones of flooded tarmac, moldy saddle leather, buried Alpine Ibex horns, crushed pencil shavings in coriander, cloud of attic dust, over moisturized cigars box, waterfall's rocky minerals, wet pebble stones, and overtones of wet animal fur, old mope, mothball, sponged chalkboard, dried Uhu stick and just opened black indelible marker pen. A slipper of the vintage. Highly recommended"  62pts
- LeDomduVin 26/08/2018

OK, this is an extreme and slightly exaggerated example... yet, I have read similar laughable tasting notes and at that point, in my perplexed opinion, it's bad, over-killed and at best meaningless.

Unfortunately, some wine writing people just did not get it yet. And when this type of writing leaves the minds of melodramatic wine critics, wine bloggers, and other wine-writer wannabes and enters mainstream wine TV shows, wine press, wine guides and books on the subject, we all suffer from lack of understanding and for good reasons.

On that note, and now that I have wasted 2 hours of your precious time with a very lengthy post (once again.... 😊), I wish you the best, thanks for reading this post and stay tuned for more posts like this one (I mean shorter than this one I hope.....) 

Cheers! Santé!

LeDomduVin (a.k.a. Dominique Noël)

(*) I made the header illustration in 2025 for this blog post, which I wrote in 2018 (with the same title). I like to use my protagonists in illustrations as headers for my posts, and this post was missing one.

All these names/words are slang and old popular French synonyms for "bad wine" from various regions, eras, and uses.

I thought it would be funny to see my two protagonists, Bordeaux and Burgundy, insulting each other with these old-fashioned French words.😁👍🍷

Also, forget about the definitions of "Picrate" and "Vinasse" in English, as they have nothing to do with the English words, which both respectively correspond to something totally different. In French, "Picrate" and  "vinasse" are just old French slang for "bad wine".  

@ledomduvin #ledomduvin #wine #vin #vino #wein #whatsagreatwine #questcequungrandvin #greatwine #grandvin #definition #pointofview #perspective #subjective #sommelier #sommelierlife #sommlife #lovewine #wineyearly #tasting #winetasting #critics #fivestars #ratings #notes #scores #medals #scoring #competition

Unless stated otherwise, all rights reserved ©LeDomduVin 2018, on all the contents above including, but not limited to, photos, pictures, drawings, illustrations, collages, visuals, maps, memes, posts, texts, writings, quotes, notes, tasting notes, descriptions, wine descriptions, definitions, recipes, graphs, tables, and even music and video (when and where applicable).