In your experience, how accurate is the wine score?
Do you compare wine score to the price and look for value. I see a score of 92 for Prati and the price seems reasonable
by Baba10x
22 Comments
vic39
Very arbitrary. Especially JS. He gets paid to give good scores at this point. Everything is a 92.
saksnoot
I subtract 5 points from JS scores to get a more accurate idea. For California, I trust a limited number of reviewers/publications that seem to agree with my tastes. JS is not one of those
Re-do1982
A 92 is basically a participation award. Like the trophy every kid gets in 6 & under soccer. Try to find any wine in Costco under a 90. It’s only 15 bucks. Take it home, try it and give it your own score. ( the only one that matters)
CauliflowerDaffodil
Points from wine reviews are similar to ratings from movie reviewers; you take them with a grain of salt. Do you know the reviewer and trust their judgement? Then scores might help you find what you like and what you don’t. But even then, what’s the cutoff for a “good” wine? Is it 80? 90? 95? The 100-pt system is virtually meaningless and I think they should be rated on a 10-pt scale or graded by letter. Much more intuitive and easier to understand. But you’d still have to trust the reviewer for the grade to carry much meaning.
AustraliaWineDude
Scores mean nothing to the average consumer, but it’s perceived as important to consumers who don’t know wine to guide their purchases.
Wine scores only make sense if you understand the context of the score, the preferences of the reviewer, the alignment of their preferences to yours, the publication of the score, methodology (blinded or not etc.)…..
James Suckling scores are the most meaningless, they are a bit of a meme here too, everything scores well as people essentially paying to have the high score.
Due_Faithlessness561
Don’t pay any attention whatsoever to wine scores. Complete bullshit metric that has zero meaning. It’s a marketing tool and nothing else.
WornTraveler
James Suckling came to my wine shop! He was wearing a pink suit and danced up to the cashier to declare he was here to “Suckle [our] sweet juices” before releasing a live pigeon into the store. Then while we were all incredulously chasing after this major health code violation, Mr. Suckling pirouetted behind the counter, drank the vinegar dressing that I had with my salad from lunch, and gave it a 91.
I hope that answers your question
BillyM9876
Back in the day, there were only a handful of noteworthy critic rags: Parker, Jancis, Spectator. Scores were meaningful back then. While sometimes the publication was dead wrong, for the most part, greater than 90 meant something. Greater than 95 was extraordinary and the few that got 100…well they were really good wines.
Then all the people that Parker, WS brought up thought they were bigger than the publication and wanted to carve their own revenue streams. The only way to differeniate yourself in a packed field was to give higher scores. Why? Winery and retail outlets will mostly pick the highest score to pitch their goods. Then your name is all over the place.
In general, I feel Suckling is the worst. Most people in the trade laugh at his scores, but that doesn’t stop us from putting it on our sales pitchs. After all, we all have to move boxes. General rule is if you subtract 5 from any Suckling or Dunnuck score, you have a better chance of not being disappointed. Subtraction quotient on Parker and Galloni are a little lower. Spectator has turned out to be pretty good with a minimal subtraction quotient in recent years, IMO.
ExaminationFancy
Last I checked, numbers don’t taste like anything.
A score of 92 means nothing to me.
SpeedySparkRuby
I ignore the score and just read the description
RockyMoose
This sub gives better scores than any publication and we don’t even use numbers.
I trust a “meh” or a “yum” from y’all way more than a “92, drink or hold” from Skippy McTaster.
Legitimate-Page3028
99 from Luca Maroni guarantees the contents are bilge water.
Samui-747
Suckling scores are worthless
Stebenhilda
I mean it’s a Gallo produced mass market wine, it’s only going to be so good. The best way to know is just to pick up a bottle. If it’s good they probably made over 100000 cases so you can just get more later.
I honestly never really trust wine scores or medals at all.
abuttfarting
The guy they’ve got doing the Parker ratings in Spain has nearly the same taste as me. I can blindly grab a 93+ bottle from there and come away satisfied.
iwrotedabible
Entourage voice: Oh YEAH!
Oh YEAH!
oh yeah!!!!!!
Prati is Martini. It’s good for the price. They don’t make their money off this label last I checked.
Background_Talk_2560
Ha! I literally opened one of these for dinner tonight. Very “mid” as my kids like to say. A little disappointed that Costco would even carry it because I generally like their offerings.
Ok_Tell_2420
It’s a $15 California cab. It’s going to be pretty much the same as any other $15 California cab. If that’s your normal price point, buy a bottle and give it a try.
caseybvdc74
I wish critics would just use their words that mean nothing instead of numbers that are worse than nothing
Winter_Current9734
Suckling has good tasters. Stuart Pigott for example is a really serious taster and I got to know him quite well and I do think his tastings and notes for German wines are mostly spot on.
That being said: for the US market, Sucklings ratings are ridiculous.
harsh-realms
JS 99/100 JR 16.5/20
thesourswede
Try it, if it had been Luca Maroni it would have been a 98 points wine….
22 Comments
Very arbitrary. Especially JS. He gets paid to give good scores at this point. Everything is a 92.
I subtract 5 points from JS scores to get a more accurate idea. For California, I trust a limited number of reviewers/publications that seem to agree with my tastes. JS is not one of those
A 92 is basically a participation award. Like the trophy every kid gets in 6 & under soccer. Try to find any wine in Costco under a 90. It’s only 15 bucks. Take it home, try it and give it your own score. ( the only one that matters)
Points from wine reviews are similar to ratings from movie reviewers; you take them with a grain of salt. Do you know the reviewer and trust their judgement? Then scores might help you find what you like and what you don’t. But even then, what’s the cutoff for a “good” wine? Is it 80? 90? 95? The 100-pt system is virtually meaningless and I think they should be rated on a 10-pt scale or graded by letter. Much more intuitive and easier to understand. But you’d still have to trust the reviewer for the grade to carry much meaning.
Scores mean nothing to the average consumer, but it’s perceived as important to consumers who don’t know wine to guide their purchases.
Wine scores only make sense if you understand the context of the score, the preferences of the reviewer, the alignment of their preferences to yours, the publication of the score, methodology (blinded or not etc.)…..
James Suckling scores are the most meaningless, they are a bit of a meme here too, everything scores well as people essentially paying to have the high score.
Don’t pay any attention whatsoever to wine scores. Complete bullshit metric that has zero meaning. It’s a marketing tool and nothing else.
James Suckling came to my wine shop! He was wearing a pink suit and danced up to the cashier to declare he was here to “Suckle [our] sweet juices” before releasing a live pigeon into the store. Then while we were all incredulously chasing after this major health code violation, Mr. Suckling pirouetted behind the counter, drank the vinegar dressing that I had with my salad from lunch, and gave it a 91.
I hope that answers your question
Back in the day, there were only a handful of noteworthy critic rags: Parker, Jancis, Spectator. Scores were meaningful back then. While sometimes the publication was dead wrong, for the most part, greater than 90 meant something. Greater than 95 was extraordinary and the few that got 100…well they were really good wines.
Then all the people that Parker, WS brought up thought they were bigger than the publication and wanted to carve their own revenue streams. The only way to differeniate yourself in a packed field was to give higher scores. Why? Winery and retail outlets will mostly pick the highest score to pitch their goods. Then your name is all over the place.
In general, I feel Suckling is the worst. Most people in the trade laugh at his scores, but that doesn’t stop us from putting it on our sales pitchs. After all, we all have to move boxes. General rule is if you subtract 5 from any Suckling or Dunnuck score, you have a better chance of not being disappointed. Subtraction quotient on Parker and Galloni are a little lower. Spectator has turned out to be pretty good with a minimal subtraction quotient in recent years, IMO.
Last I checked, numbers don’t taste like anything.
A score of 92 means nothing to me.
I ignore the score and just read the description
This sub gives better scores than any publication and we don’t even use numbers.
I trust a “meh” or a “yum” from y’all way more than a “92, drink or hold” from Skippy McTaster.
99 from Luca Maroni guarantees the contents are bilge water.
Suckling scores are worthless
I mean it’s a Gallo produced mass market wine, it’s only going to be so good. The best way to know is just to pick up a bottle. If it’s good they probably made over 100000 cases so you can just get more later.
I honestly never really trust wine scores or medals at all.
The guy they’ve got doing the Parker ratings in Spain has nearly the same taste as me. I can blindly grab a 93+ bottle from there and come away satisfied.
Entourage voice: Oh YEAH!
Oh YEAH!
oh yeah!!!!!!
Prati is Martini. It’s good for the price. They don’t make their money off this label last I checked.
Ha! I literally opened one of these for dinner tonight. Very “mid” as my kids like to say. A little disappointed that Costco would even carry it because I generally like their offerings.
It’s a $15 California cab. It’s going to be pretty much the same as any other $15 California cab. If that’s your normal price point, buy a bottle and give it a try.
I wish critics would just use their words that mean nothing instead of numbers that are worse than nothing
Suckling has good tasters. Stuart Pigott for example is a really serious taster and I got to know him quite well and I do think his tastings and notes for German wines are mostly spot on.
That being said: for the US market, Sucklings ratings are ridiculous.
JS 99/100
JR 16.5/20
Try it, if it had been Luca Maroni it would have been a 98 points wine….