For those who care to know a bit more about me and my thoughts on wine, here goes:
I'm a project manager for a mid-sized industrial construction company, but have long been interested in wine and have made the decision to take that interest to new levels (in the last year, I'd say that interest has developed into full blown obsession!). I've completed WSET courses (level 2/3) and have started up a
wine importing business with a good friend (www.juiceimports.com). For anyone who has actually looked at my wine reviews, it won't surprise you that I'm an engineer (and that I lack a certain amount of creativity!). Still, everything has a place; for some, wine reviews are about using obscure, sophisticated sounding adjectives and expressions, whereas I tend to be much more analytical and straightforward in my approach. In keeping with that theme, my philosophy is as such:
- a serious distaste for pretentiousness or snobbery with wine (and in general, really).
- you'll notice that I don't always abide by the generally accepted approaches to ratings (I don't use the Parker scale, I try to use a balance of wine talk and laymen's terms).
- a desire to encourage everyone to find the same kind of joy that I do in wine.
- the accompanying desire to help educate people about wine, but always in a fun, enthusiastic, un-intimidating environment.
- if you want to buy a $10 bottle of mass produced wine and hammer it down, have at it. I'm not here to criticize. What I WILL do, however, is offer encouragement to branch out (starting slow, of course!) and give some ideas for similar wines to try that aren't of the mass produced variety. In any case, I think you see where I'm coming from. I greatly appreciate all of you who are following me (and for reading this far)! I'm having a blast with this feed: I hope you're enjoying my posts as much as I enjoy producing them. Also: I love $1000 bottles of Bordeaux as much as the next person, but I'm also acutely aware that 99.9% of people have neither the access nor funds to get their hands on them. I prefer searching out amazing wines that cost a fraction of the price but provide much the same enjoyment and characteristics of the region. Of course, that's not to say I won't mix in a few beauties now and then! Rating System:
I’ve decided to revamp my rating system. I’ve noticed lately that a large portion of my ratings fall between about 8.3 and 9.0, which means there isn’t a lot in the way of a point spread and it doesn’t really give the reader a good sense of how the wine truly compares to others. I’ve also been making a point of buying wines that I think will be tasty or are highly recommended to me, which, though obvious (!), means that most everything I post is going to have a good (and similar) score! Given that, I figured I needed to further break down and define things in order to have wines stretch out along a wider spectrum of scores. A 5 out of 10 (or 50, on the 100pt scale) shouldn’t be the starting point for a wine** – it should be an average wine! Likewise, a wine that sits at 7.6 shouldn’t be viewed as bad (most generally wouldn’t look twice at a wine rated 76pts), but rather within the top 25% of wines out there. I wanted to make this change clear, however, since any winemaker who sees me post their wine at 7.5 would automatically think I was giving it a bad review. Not the case – I’d just rather that my scale is distinct from others but consistent with itself! So all that said, here is the breakdown I’m aiming for (I’ll add all of the scores up and divide by 10 to keep the 0-10 scale I’ve been on):
20 pts: Structure (acidity, tannins, sweetness, mouthfeel, intensity, finish, overall balance)
40 pts: Nose/Palate (general impressions, aromas/flavours, conviction, depth, length)
15 pts: Expression/Complexity (how does the wine present itself, is it expressive or dull, does it offer depth and complexity or is it simple, general impressions)
15 pts: Sense of Style/Place (how well does the wine represent varietal(s) and region it comes from, is it distinct or difficult to place)
10 pts: Drinkability (basically my super subjective category: how much fun is this wine to drink? Is it tasty and refreshing, zesty/spicy, silky smooth, creamy and mouthfilling? Is it a tannic monster or a fruit bomb? Do I want to have just a few sips or do I want to gulp down the bottle??)
9.1-10.0: outstanding to perfect – only my absolute favourite wines will make it this far
7.1-9.0: good to great wines – I suspect the majority of wines will still fall into here, even with the system change
5.5-7.0: decent to good
4.5-5.5: very average
4.4 and down: poor leading down to undrinkable – I anticipate that few, if any wines I try will be down here, but I want it to at least be a possibility
Please bear this new scale in mind going forward, because I think you’ll see a lot more wines falling out of the 80s and into the 70s/60s (which, as you see, doesn’t necessarily mean bad!). I’m hoping this change will really improve how the wines I post can be compared to one another.
**The commonly used 100pt scale is based on the premise that every wine is automatically granted 50 points (huh?!). Technically speaking then, the system is only a 50 pt scale (and realistically more like a 30-20 pt scale since wine rarely seems to fall under, and for some even 80). This pretty much defeats the purpose of a rating system, doesn’t it??
