• Choose a category
• All
• Classic-Fiction

By Root 468 0

nevertheless, receiving anything higher than an 85 is rare in any discipline that requires continuous prose, as opposed to mathematics or languages. Therefore, the idea of a 100-point “perfect” wine seems risible. British critics have traditionally depended on descriptions of wines rather than on numbers, and the quality of the prose of a number of them is part of the pleasure of reading about the wines. Nevertheless, each has his or her system. Hugh Johnson, editor of the eponymous Pocket Wine Book, assesses producers or areas rather than individual wines:

*—Plain, everyday quality

**—Above average

***—Well-known, highly reputed

****—Grand, prestigious, expensive

Tongue in cheek, he also offers the following somewhat idiosyncratic system to his readers:

ONE SNIFF: the minimum score; emphatically no thanks

ONE SIP: one step up

TWO SIPS: faint interest (or disbelief)

A HALF GLASS: slight hesitation

ONE GLASS: tolerance, even general approval

TWO GLASSES: means you quite like it (or there is nothing else to drink)

THREE GLASSES: you find it more than acceptable

FOUR GLASSES: it tickles your fancy

ONE BOTTLE: means satisfaction

A SECOND BOTTLE: is the real thumbs-up

A FULL DOZEN: means you are not going to miss out on this one

The logical top score in the Johnson system is the whole vineyard.

The ratings given by wine magazines can also be influential, and they, too, have their own systems. The scores from the American magazine Wine Spectator are frequently cited on slips under bottles in wine shops. It, too, uses the 100-point system, which Parker’s influence has established as the normal American way of rating wines. The British magazine Decanter has a hybrid system, using both stars and, latterly, a 20-point system, thereby providing an indication for some and certitude for others. It is certainly easier to remember stars than decimals:

*/ 10.5–12.49—Poor

**/12.5–14.49—Fair

***/14.5–16.49—Recommended

****/16.5–18.49—Highly recommended

*****/18.5–20—Outstanding

What is probably the most intelligently nuanced system, however, is that provided by the international magazine The World of Fine Wine, which also uses a 20-point scale:

0–7: Disagreeable or faulty wine

7.5–10: Sound but dull or boring wine of no character or appeal

10.5–12: Enjoyable, simple and straightforward wine

12.5–14: Good wine, but with no outstanding features

14.5–16.5: Very good wine, with some outstanding features

17–18.5: Outstanding wine of great beauty and articulacy

19–20: A great wine, of spellbinding beauty and resonance, leaving the drinker with a sense of wonder

It should be pointed out that the Parker effect is limited to a narrow range of wines, primarily those of Bordeaux and the Rhône, although a number of the wines of Burgundy, the assessment of which Parker now largely leaves to others, have also benefited. But most other areas look in vain for much attention, with, of course, the overwhelmingly important exception of California, where the Parker effect has been at least as striking as for Bordeaux.

But what Parker ascertained very early on, and what other critics have had to adopt to a greater or lesser extent, is the requirement for some precision in rating and ranking wines. It does not much matter if you believe that wines change and evolve, that wines vary from bottle to bottle, that judgment is just that, a human judgment, not an edict from heaven: customers look for help and firm guidance, and critics and writers feel that they must give it to them. It is all very well to say that you must taste the wine yourself and make your own judgment, but for many wine drinkers, who have not had the advantage of tasting thousands of wines, going into a shop and facing row upon row of bottles can be daunting.

To answer the question, then: most wine drinkers feel at least the occasional need for some guidance from a person whose taste they trust. The more experienced will have built up their own sense of what they like and which wines they prefer to drink, but they might