| Leo Bueno |
I have in the past tried to construct a traditional point-based
tasting scale [where you give X points for appearance, Y points for
the smell, Z points for taste, etc.] based on those I have seen [e.g.,
the UC Davis 20 point system] but find those scales generally
difficult to work with. Plus, assigning relative weights to each
component evaluated is very problematic, as many of you have pointed
out.
Instead, it seems to me that a simple subjective hedonic scale ought
to be sufficient to do the trick. I think it fair to assume that
people drink wine because it gives them pleasure to do so, so it seems
reasonable that construct a scale that measures the degree of pleasure
one derives from the wine evaluated.
It is hard for me to come up with a reasonable descriptive term for
each of the values on the scale.
As you can see, the idea is that on a 10 point scale, a wine that
scores a 5 (smack in the middle) provides neither pleasure nor
displeasure, for lack of a better term, it is "pleasure-neutral".
Note that the idea is *not* to evaluate wines against other wines,
thus I purposefully stayed away from the concept of "average", which
implies relative position or value versus other wines. What I would
like to measure is the effect of a wine on the taster, not whether the
wine is better or worse than others like it.
The problem with this scale is to come up with suitable descriptive
terms and possibly explanations for each which make it easy for
tasters to accurately gauge their perceptions.
Below is my latest attempt at it. Note for example that the term
"excellent" may not be a good one to use, since it does not seem
fitting to one's perception. Will appreciate your suggestions.
HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
10 Great
9 Excellent
8 Good
7 Pleasant
6 Somewhat pleasant
5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
4 Somewhat unpleasant
3 Unpleasant
2 Bad
1 Poor
0 Terrible
--
=================================================
Do you like wine? Do you live in South Florida?
Visit the MIAMI WINE TASTERS group at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/miamiWINE
=================================================
|
|
|
| Mike Tommasi |
How about :
- superb
- very good
- good
- mediocre
- bad
The above accompanied by a full text explanation.
Mike
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:15:04 GMT, Leo Bueno
<REMOVETHISleobueno@usa.net> wrote:
>
>I have in the past tried to construct a traditional point-based
>tasting scale [where you give X points for appearance, Y points for
>the smell, Z points for taste, etc.] based on those I have seen [e.g.,
>the UC Davis 20 point system] but find those scales generally
>difficult to work with. Plus, assigning relative weights to each
>component evaluated is very problematic, as many of you have pointed
>out.
>
>Instead, it seems to me that a simple subjective hedonic scale ought
>to be sufficient to do the trick. I think it fair to assume that
>people drink wine because it gives them pleasure to do so, so it seems
>reasonable that construct a scale that measures the degree of pleasure
>one derives from the wine evaluated.
>
>It is hard for me to come up with a reasonable descriptive term for
>each of the values on the scale.
>
>As you can see, the idea is that on a 10 point scale, a wine that
>scores a 5 (smack in the middle) provides neither pleasure nor
>displeasure, for lack of a better term, it is "pleasure-neutral".
>
>Note that the idea is *not* to evaluate wines against other wines,
>thus I purposefully stayed away from the concept of "average", which
>implies relative position or value versus other wines. What I would
>like to measure is the effect of a wine on the taster, not whether the
>wine is better or worse than others like it.
>
>The problem with this scale is to come up with suitable descriptive
>terms and possibly explanations for each which make it easy for
>tasters to accurately gauge their perceptions.
>
>Below is my latest attempt at it. Note for example that the term
>"excellent" may not be a good one to use, since it does not seem
>fitting to one's perception. Will appreciate your suggestions.
>
>HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
>
>10 Great
>9 Excellent
>8 Good
>7 Pleasant
>6 Somewhat pleasant
>5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
>4 Somewhat unpleasant
>3 Unpleasant
>2 Bad
>1 Poor
>0 Terrible
Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail
|
|
|
| Mark Lipton |
Leo Bueno wrote:
> HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
>
> 10 Great
> 9 Excellent
> 8 Good
> 7 Pleasant
> 6 Somewhat pleasant
> 5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
> 4 Somewhat unpleasant
> 3 Unpleasant
> 2 Bad
> 1 Poor
> 0 Terrible
Why use numbers at all, Leo? Would not the words themselves suffice?
Few poeple wouldn't understand that an excellent wine is more
pleasurable than a pleasant one, and so forth. In fact, this is not too
far away from the system applied by many tasters (Broadbent, Johnson) of
assigning 0-4 stars as a metric of quality (though whether they use a
hedonistic scale I can only guess).
Mark Lipton
|
|
|
| Ed Rasimus |
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 12:10:15 -0500, Mark Lipton <notpil@eudrup.ude>
wrote:
>Leo Bueno wrote:
>> HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
>>
>> 10 Great
>> 9 Excellent
>> 8 Good
>> 7 Pleasant
>> 6 Somewhat pleasant
>> 5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
>> 4 Somewhat unpleasant
>> 3 Unpleasant
>> 2 Bad
>> 1 Poor
>> 0 Terrible
>
>Why use numbers at all, Leo? Would not the words themselves suffice?
>Few poeple wouldn't understand that an excellent wine is more
>pleasurable than a pleasant one, and so forth. In fact, this is not too
>far away from the system applied by many tasters (Broadbent, Johnson) of
>assigning 0-4 stars as a metric of quality (though whether they use a
>hedonistic scale I can only guess).
>
>Mark Lipton
I suspect that the bottom line is that all wine rating scales (except
for the patently commerically motivated) are hedonistic. (Which
recalls a three-day excursion to Bangkok with a fellow tactical
aviator in which I guided through wine, fine meals, good spirits and
other less reputable pursuits of the evening--by the middle of day
three he bestowed upon me the accolade of being "the greatest hedonist
I've ever known!")
Based on a need for simplicity, how about a three point scale:
1.) Good--buy again, drink again, seek out more.
2.) Good--finish, accept if offered at a bargain, but don't actively
seek more.
3.) Bad--never let this swill sully my palate again.
As Baron Manfred von Richthofen said in a slightly different context,
"everything else is rubbish."
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
"Phantom Flights, Bangkok Nights"
Both from Smithsonian Books
***www.thunderchief.org
|
|
|
| Max Hauser |
"Mike Tommasi" wrote:
> How about :
>
> - superb
> - very good
> - good
> - mediocre
> - bad
I've long favored the scale from the US Department of Agriculture, used for
meats (and good for Internet jokes too, by the way) --
Prime/Choice/Good/Utility/Pet.
-- Max Hauser
|
|
|
| Ian Hoare |
Salut/Hi Leo Bueno,
le/on Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:15:04 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
>
>10 Great
>9 Excellent
>8 Good
>7 Pleasant
>6 Somewhat pleasant
>5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
>4 Somewhat unpleasant
>3 Unpleasant
>2 Bad
>1 Poor
>0 Terrible
Mine starts at your 6.
yum.
yum yum
yum yum yum
yum yum yum yum
mega yummy
No worse than any other attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.
--
All the Best
Ian Hoare
http://www.souvigne.com
mailbox full to avoid spam. try me at website
|
|
|
| Hunt |
In article <8tudj0t40ogl6di2h6bjddvbdf8uki0a39@4ax.com>,
REMOVETHISleobueno@usa.net says...
>
>
>I have in the past tried to construct a traditional point-based
>tasting scale [where you give X points for appearance, Y points for
>the smell, Z points for taste, etc.] based on those I have seen [e.g.,
>the UC Davis 20 point system] but find those scales generally
>difficult to work with. Plus, assigning relative weights to each
>component evaluated is very problematic, as many of you have pointed
>out.
>
>Instead, it seems to me that a simple subjective hedonic scale ought
>to be sufficient to do the trick. I think it fair to assume that
>people drink wine because it gives them pleasure to do so, so it seems
>reasonable that construct a scale that measures the degree of pleasure
>one derives from the wine evaluated.
>
>It is hard for me to come up with a reasonable descriptive term for
>each of the values on the scale.
>
>As you can see, the idea is that on a 10 point scale, a wine that
>scores a 5 (smack in the middle) provides neither pleasure nor
>displeasure, for lack of a better term, it is "pleasure-neutral".
>
>Note that the idea is *not* to evaluate wines against other wines,
>thus I purposefully stayed away from the concept of "average", which
>implies relative position or value versus other wines. What I would
>like to measure is the effect of a wine on the taster, not whether the
>wine is better or worse than others like it.
>
>The problem with this scale is to come up with suitable descriptive
>terms and possibly explanations for each which make it easy for
>tasters to accurately gauge their perceptions.
>
>Below is my latest attempt at it. Note for example that the term
>"excellent" may not be a good one to use, since it does not seem
>fitting to one's perception. Will appreciate your suggestions.
>
>HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
>
>10 Great
>9 Excellent
>8 Good
>7 Pleasant
>6 Somewhat pleasant
>5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
>4 Somewhat unpleasant
>3 Unpleasant
>2 Bad
>1 Poor
>0 Terrible
Leo,
Maybe a takeoff of your system, albeit with 2 more categories:
12 - I'll take a case!
11 - I'll count this one as part of the case
10 - OK, a half case, this one and maybe three to play with
9 - Half case, this one, and only two to taste along the way
8 - Half case, this one, and one for tomorrow night
7 - Half case, and this one - that's all
6 - Hm-m-m, good enough for a half case, including this one
5 - Can't justify a half case, but these will do
4 - This one, and three more, in case I missed something
3 - Just this one, and two for the in-laws
2 - Alright, I've had this one, maybe one for my neighbor, who never returns
any of my tools
1 - This one is all I ever care to be around!!!!! :-}
Hunt
|
|
|
| Mike Tommasi |
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 22:52:18 +0200, Ian Hoare <ianhoare@angelfire.com>
wrote:
>Salut/Hi Leo Bueno,
>
> le/on Thu, 02 Sep 2004 11:15:04 GMT, tu disais/you said:-
>
>
>>HEDONIC TASTING SCALE
>>
>>10 Great
>>9 Excellent
>>8 Good
>>7 Pleasant
>>6 Somewhat pleasant
>>5 Neither pleasant nor unpleasant; indifferent
>>4 Somewhat unpleasant
>>3 Unpleasant
>>2 Bad
>>1 Poor
>>0 Terrible
>
>Mine starts at your 6.
That's right Ian, distinguishing levels 0 to 6 above is a waste of
time. Who cares whether it is terrible or unpleasant?
Mike
Mike Tommasi, Six Fours, France
email link http://www.tommasi.org/mymail
|
|
|
| Tom S |
"Mike Tommasi" <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote in message
news:a2gej0t5r6aggr2fv1qshk55qmk6t6q0jp@4ax.com...
> How about :
>
> - superb
> - very good
> - good
> - mediocre
> - bad
That's pretty good Mike, but I'd add a super-tier for the few wines that are
a religious experience to taste (of which I've had only a handful).
I'd also add a level below bad. This is for wines that are so foul smelling
that I wouldn't _dare_ to taste them. Unfortunately, they do exist -
although not much in the commercial realm. I've judged homemade wines in
competition a few times, and when you run across one of these you wonder why
someone would spend the money for the entry fee. >8^P~~~|
Tom S
|
|
|
| Dale Williams |
One of the problems with ANY scale is you need to clarify what you're
measuring, what are the criteria, and what the scale is supposed to represent
(or just put so many disclaimers afterwards it's meaningless, as I do in my
notes!). The Parker board tends to have a thread about once a week questioning
what RP means by "in its peer group", and whether a 95 pt Oz red is indeed
better than a '94 pt Montrachet.
As I've noted before, my simple American-school style grading is totally
subjective, all I'll claim is that on any given set of notes from one night is
that I liked the B+ better than the B-.
There are of course lots of ratings systems, involving points stars, letters,
or prongs (don't ask). One of my favorites (because he admits totally
subjectivity) is the one used by Jay Miller, a NY wine-geek who occasionally
appears in my notes. Don't think he would mind my posting his scale, which goes
from A+ to D-:
A - This wine is great!
+Oh my god! Nothing can be this good! But it is!
Magnificent, complete, glorious
-This is all I can ask for in a wine
B - This wine is good!
+This wine is really good!
This wine is quite good!
-This wine is pretty good
C - This is wine!
+This wine is ok
This wine is drinkable
-This wine is flawed
D - Is this wine?!
+Wow, did they mean it to taste like this?
They couldn't possibly have meant it to taste like this
-Ick, yuck, phooey!
Another classic scale:
http://www.the-stupids.com/aboutus_3stooges.html
Dale
Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply
|
|
|
| Hunt |
In article <4QTZc.15361$VD5.11805@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com>,
toms@dontspampacbell.net says...
>
>
>"Mike Tommasi" <garbage@tommasi.org> wrote in message
>news:a2gej0t5r6aggr2fv1qshk55qmk6t6q0jp@4ax.com...
>> How about :
>>
>> - superb
>> - very good
>> - good
>> - mediocre
>> - bad
>
>That's pretty good Mike, but I'd add a super-tier for the few wines that are
>a religious experience to taste (of which I've had only a handful).
>
>I'd also add a level below bad. This is for wines that are so foul smelling
>that I wouldn't _dare_ to taste them. Unfortunately, they do exist -
>although not much in the commercial realm. I've judged homemade wines in
>competition a few times, and when you run across one of these you wonder why
>someone would spend the money for the entry fee. >8^P~~~|
>
>Tom S
Tom that situation is not entirely limited to the "home made" sector.
Some years ago, friends and I attended a local wine festival. Due to
difficulties, we arrived late on the first day. Everyone, save one vendor, had
packed up and left, and here we were holding our three-day tickets, and in
NEED of wine. We approached the single vintner's table and asked for his
horizontal tasting. He poured all five of his wines for us, and began to talk
about his wines and property. Though in need, we couldn't find one wine that
was drinkable. This was my first time tasting and spitting! We left to find a
good restaurant with real wine.
Next day at a more formal event, we noticed that the tent with this
gentleman's wine was empty - just a sign, and inquired on the circumstances
with the owner of the host property. He stated that this winery had been in
business for about five years, and that its proprietor/winemaker had been a
member of the host organization for about that time. As his property was many
miles distant, he was always given space for his tastings in the hosting area,
just as now. However, all members had pleaded with him over the years to do
many things different with his juice, but he "had a vision." Unfortunately, no
one could stomach his "vision." Because most of the attendees at this event,
had experienced these wines the day before, no one would even come near his
tent. By 10:00 AM, he was gone in a huff, taking his vision with him.
He went on to explain how all of the members had tired of pointing out the
same glaring flaws, vintage after vintage, only to be re-buffed and reviled.
I can only hope that one day he would listen to those trying to help him
produce good wines (of which there were many from this little area, though
most were of the novelty, or pancake syrup variety). As his was a true
commercial venture, I also hope that he was some sort of a legacy, and was
sitting on a sizeable fortune, as I cannot imagine anyone buying his wine, if
they ever tasted it.
It was so vile (IOHOs), that there wasn't one positive thing we could say
about it.
Hunt
|
|
|
| Joe Rosenberg |
Blast from the past ( From our FAQ)-------------
The schlemiel scoring system for winetasting
Contributor
Joe "Beppe" Rosenberg
Question
I am new to winetasting. Can you help me with a way to score wines
objectively?
Answer (well, sort of ;-D)
5 points for each wine spilled during a tasting, extra 10 points if spilled
on something white ie tablecloth, shirt, Tom Wolfe suit or if you're at a
Klan tasting a bed sheet. Also bonus points if wine spilled was from trying
to pronounce unctuous, fruit bomb or one of Marvin Shankin's favorite
cigars.
5 points for aberrant behavior at tasting; this includes vomiting, wine
coming out your nose or other orifice, belching, some form of flatulence,
rolfing, discussions of EST, Zen, Christian Science, zoroaterism, keynesian
economics, Dan Qualye's hat size.
10 points for showing up
5 points for using any of the following at the tasting: Grecian formula,
Midol, bidol, viagra, delaudid, kj jelly. bisquick, vegamite, fat free-sugar
free mineral water.
5 points for reading this far.
--
Joe "Beppe" Rosenberg
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
|
|
|
| Joe Rosenberg |
Blast from the past ( From our FAQ)-------------
The schlemiel scoring system for winetasting
Contributor
Joe "Beppe" Rosenberg
Question
I am new to winetasting. Can you help me with a way to score wines
objectively?
Answer (well, sort of ;-D)
5 points for each wine spilled during a tasting, extra 10 points if spilled
on something white ie tablecloth, shirt, Tom Wolfe suit or if you're at a
Klan tasting a bed sheet. Also bonus points if wine spilled was from trying
to pronounce unctuous, fruit bomb or one of Marvin Shankin's favorite
cigars.
5 points for aberrant behavior at tasting; this includes vomiting, wine
coming out your nose or other orifice, belching, some form of flatulence,
rolfing, discussions of EST, Zen, Christian Science, zoroaterism, keynesian
economics, Dan Qualye's hat size.
10 points for showing up
5 points for using any of the following at the tasting: Grecian formula,
Midol, bidol, viagra, delaudid, kj jelly. bisquick, vegamite, fat free-sugar
free mineral water.
5 points for reading this far.
--
Joe "Beppe" Rosenberg
"Hunt" <noone@hunt.com> wrote in message
|
|
|
|
