Wine Shows: Are the 100 point score totals useful or just confusing?

The Winemakers Federation of Australia (WFA) have announced this week that they’re reviewing the Code of Practice for the Display of Awards, examining whether the guidelines for wine show medal stickers on bottles are still accurate.

Given that most wineries seem to abide by the code it seems a pretty straight-forward review. However, I’d argue there is a thornier issue now apparent – how the 100 point scoring system is being used for wine show results and reporting.

Over the last few years we’ve seen several major Australian wine shows (notably Sydney and Melbourne) move from the 20 point score system to instead mark out of 100, reflecting a movement with wine critics around the world to adopt this scoring system (based chiefly on the American critics who popularised it).

Personally, I can see why the 100 point score system is being used for the actual judging. It’s much more relevant than the old ‘3, 7, 10’ scoring model I learnt on and many critics feel more comfortable using it (I don’t and instead adapt from 20. But that’s me).

The issue however is more about the way the scores are being used – no longer is it just about ascertaining gold medals, trophies etc, but also to arrive at a score out of 100 for each wine, using a scale that seems just as hyper-inflated as the one used by many an Australian wine critic.

I don’t want to delve too far into the relative weaknesses and the recent inflation of the 100 point system (explored nicely over at Red to Brown Wine only last week) for the moment (see further down the page for that). But that notion of ‘everyone gets a prize, maybe two’ irks – and seems rather out of step with how the judging process traditionally works.

To step back a bit, lets talk about wine show judging itself.

In a typical major (or good regional) Australian wine show, each panel is made up of three judges and several associates. Each panel member gives every wine a score (whether out of 20 or 100), and then the panel comes together and counts up the cumulative scores. If a certain wine gets enough points to get a medal, it gets a medal, if not, it gets nothing. There is always plenty of discussion about each wines merits, and frequent retastes are the norm. The best wines then get pushed forward for trophy assessment (if applicable) and then everyone retires to eat sandwiches and drink beer.

From there, the winners are decided and the results are published, sometimes with a cumulative score included, other times just with a list of medals etc.

Case closed, winners are grinners, cue more beer and sandwiches.

Importantly, the cumulative score didn’t matter to anyone but the producer – it was just a mark that told you how much the judges liked your wine. It served as the real results for anyone who didn’t win a medal.

But now, that cumulative score is shelved and instead each wine is given an equivalent score out of 100, with that number then published in the show results as the final score for the wine.

In this fashion, wineries get a second win for free. Suddenly wines that would have received a silver get 94 points (the minimum score for a gold at the 2014 Melbourne Wine Awards was 95 points), a score which in most critics and consumer eyes marks it as a top tier world beating wine – even though it it didn’t even take home the shiniest silverware in the show.

What that also means is that wine show medals mean nothing. It’s all about that (inflated) score, amidst a cheapening of the whole process. Further, you’ll now see wines that win big at a wine show – say, the Jimmy Watson winning 2013 S.C. Pannell Adelaide Hills Syrah – with not only a trophy but a stupendous score, almost intimating that not only did a small group of wine judges really like it, but some other critic independently gave it big points too (98/100 in the S.C. Pannell’s case).

The caveat here is that I am probably a little tighter in my scoring than many other critics, and I’d only ever give even 94+ to a wine I really really like. But still, I don’t think I’m alone in staring mouth agape at some of the results of this scoring…

@Timatkin @jamiegoode And to compound the idiocy. Melbourne show. 97pts 12 Wynns White Label Shiraz + 96 13 Rosemount Diamond Shz. GOD.
— Gary Walsh (@winefront) October 17, 2014

@jamiegoode @Teusnerwine Point have lost all meaning here. Every retailer newsletter I get has someone giving nice but entry level wines 96.
— Cam Wheeler (@cam_wheeler) October 14, 2014

Importantly, I’d like to reiterate that I think the opening up of wine show scoring via the usage of the 100 point system has merit. Indeed I was on the Sydney Wine Show Consultative Committee this year where the topic was a focal point of discussion and viewed positively.

Further, I’ve judged at a few shows myself and totally appreciate the process and its intentions – in other words, this is not an attack on wine shows. Indeed the trophy winners from the aforementioned 2014 Royal Melbourne Wine Awards as a group are one very handy set of wines, perhaps the best group of trophy winners I’ve seen in some time. Better still, the Jimmy Watson winner harks back to what ‘the Jimmy’ was intended to be – a delicious one year old wine – which is a massive win.

Further still, I know why shows are moving to scores – they want to retain relevancy in an environment where wine show results often seem to be more of a lottery than an actual quality indication. It’s a solid move from wine show promoters.

Still, just seeing those catalogues full of what I know are ‘nice, entry level wines’ with huge points really grinds my gears.

The answer? Personally, I’d like to see a move back to cumulative scores for wine show results, which takes out the sting immediately. That’s probably not going to happen, however, so in the meantime, how about we just slightly revise the scores down a bit? Start the gold medals at 94, top golds at 96-97? It is only a small change but would also help bring scores back to reality (maybe).

Then again, who am I kidding? We all know that scoring is somewhat arbitrary, blind tasting or not, and we could debate the merits or otherwise ad infinitum.

Pass me a beer. And a sandwich…

Wine

Wine Shows: Are the 100 point score totals useful or just confusing?