Scoring from 20 and 100 points

[question]

Question submitted by Patrick Heath.

Can you please explain the differences in judging methods between the 20 score and the out of a 100 score. For a time i thought you simply multiplied the 20 score by 5 , but this does not always seem to correlate. Thank you
[/question]

[answer]

With some misgivings, it must be said, I changed the publication of my scores on wine to the 100-point system. Or perhaps to phrase that more accurately, to a 100-point system, since after some fairly detailed research into the subject, there is no universal system by which critics apply scores out of 100 to wine. I believe this was necessary for people to be able to compare and contrast my scores to those of other critics, most of whom today use a 100-point scale.

Having made the decision to change, it then became a matter of choosing some basis on which to make the conversion. After more research into this, it became starkly obvious that while theories abound concerning the conversion from the 20 scale to the 100 scale, most are patently nonsensical.

To backtrack a little, in 2002 and 2003 I contributed the annual Australian section to the monthly newsletter of the highly respected American wine critic, Steve Tanzer. Steve, naturally enough, uses a 100-point scale. Since I was writing in his publication, he and I attempted to create a conversion from my scores out of 20 to his scores out of 100, based on his view of the 100-point scale and where we collectively believed our scores intersected. While we both tried to accommodate ourselves, I wasn’t entirely satisfied that we had got it right. Without wishing to question Steve in any way, I didn’t feel absolutely comfortable in picking up this same conversion again.

It was critical to me to make the change in a way that would enable my readers to compare my scores in a meaningful way with my contemporaries, none of whom I have more respect for than James Halliday, who has been scoring wines out of 100 for some time. It made – and still makes – no sense to me not to follow his lead. Fortunately James agreed. Neither of us are worried if our marks happen to differ on individual wines, and our readers’ task is made easier if they know we are comparing apples with apples.

So, with only a couple of marginal adaptions, here is the basis on which I have allocated my scores out of 100. I have drawn a little from James’ descriptions and it goes without saying that I am grateful indeed to him for his positive and friendly cooperation.

95+ Outstanding wines of exceptional quality; either classic representations of their style or variety, or cutting-edge wines at the very sharp end of wine innovation. Roughly equivalent to Gold Medal 18.5 and above.

90-94 Highly recommended. Wines of genuine class and character. Pretty well covers the gamut of Silver Medal 17.0 to 18.4.

87-89 Recommended. Certainly above average quality, without faults that interfere beyond a base level of enhancing complexity, able to make a quality statement about variety, technique or region. Solid Bronze Medal 16.0 to 16.9.

84-86 Reasonably good wine, but lacking genuine distinction and class. Should be free of technical faults. Relatively uncomplicated and straightforward, comprising the better examples of cheap wine sub $12. Just above and below Bronze Medal status 15.3 to 15.9

80-83 Everyday wines, possibly with some technical deficiency, hopefully at the cheaper end of the pricing scale.

75-79 Something went wrong. Possessing a significant flaw, often through a viticultural or winemaking misfortune.
I believe this system gives me sufficient flexibility, as well has having enough in common with the 100-point scales used by others. It is worth noting that wines scoring an average of 15.5 out of 20 in Australian wine shows are awarded a Bronze Medal; those that score 17 are awarded Silver Medals; and those that score 18.5 are awarded Gold.

This site presents both scores. For what it’s worth, I still think in scores of 20 and probably always will. Using it as I do, the score from 20 provides infinitely more flexibility and information.
[/answer] Please login to post comment