Ratings Dept: What do they mean?

[Capn Jimbo]

Rating, Schmatings...


Most of us are aware that spirits are rated. The problem is not lack of ratings, but an abundance of them. Unfortunately, many of them are by relative amateurs just for fun (and which are relatively uninformed) or by quasi-commercial types whose reviews are highly influenced by freebies. Our Reviewer's Reviews have shown that most of these are biased toward the high scores.

Fortunately, there are a few very good and dependable resources.

Another factor is the scoring, today's subject.


How did the "ratings" come about?

Let's begin with the beginning. Rating really came about many, many years ago in our American high schools, and what can be called the American Standard Grading System:

F - failing
D - below average
C - average
B - above average
A - excellent

The importance of this model simply cannot be underestimated. First, we all have experienced it and understand it well. Like a staircase, the steps are even and represent steady and equal progress in performance. Thus if someone says a spirit, wine or beer is a "C", we automatically assume it is merely average.


But how about spirits ratings?

Good question, actually an excellent one. The father of modern ratings is Robert M. Parker, Jr. As most should know, Parker simply dominates wine ratings. Per the Wiki "...the New York Times wine critic Frank Prial asserted that "Robert M. Parker Jr. is the most influential wine critic in the world."

Prior to Parker, wine "ratings" were mostly complimentary (compare to today's rum ratings), with most "critics" closely connected to the producers (again, like rum). But then Parker came along in the mid 1970's, and to call him a rebel was an understatement. Indeed, one of his heroes was Ralph Nader. Two things happened:

1. Parker developed his now standard rating system. Although he called it a "100 point system", he actually reported scored from 50 to 100, and was based on the one system that all Americans know - the aforementioned American Standard grading system. His system:

96-100: An extraordinary wine of profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety.
90 - 95: An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.
80 - 89: A barely above average to very good wine displaying various degrees of finesse and flavor as well as character with no noticeable flaws.
70 - 79: An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.
60 - 69: A below average wine containing noticeable deficiencies, such as excessive acidity and/or tannin, an absence of flavor, or possibly dirty aromas or flavors.
50 - 59: A wine deemed to be unacceptable.

As should be obvious, this follows the American Grading System to a "T" (pun intended), with the sole exception that the "A" grade is subdivided into "outstanding" and "extraordinary" (think A+). Anyone educated in America automatically understands the rating.

2. Parker was a severe critic of wine critics (think The Rum Project), and really made his chops when he stood alone in calling the 1982 Bordeaux "superb". He was proven right, and the rest is history. Parker and his rating system now dominates the world of rating not only wine, but beer and spirits.


Following Parker, 5-Step ratings become dominant...

Beer Advocate

95-100 world-class
90-94 exceptional
80-89 good
70-79 average
< 70 poor, avoid

Again, closely following Parker and the American Standard, with "A" subdivided, and with "D" and "F" combined.

Rate Beer:

1 - 5, in tenths. In complete accord with Parker and the American Standard.

Dave Broom (rum, star system):

1 - poor
2 - average
3 - good
4 - excellent
5 - superb

Broom has eliminated "F's), the unacceptable rums, as not worth reviewing or reporting. He still reports "D's", poor rums, and splits the "A's" into "excellent" and "superb". Half stars are awarded. Interestingly, in his comprehensive book "Whisky", he avoids ratings entirely, but focuses on comparative style and taste profiles. The well respected David Wishart takes the same - not rated - approach.

Anthony Dias Blue (originator SFO Competition, stars):

1 - decent, average
2 - fine, but not exceptional
3 - exceptional
4 - world class.

Like Broom, but Dias goes a step farther and eliminates both "D" (poor) and "F" (failing) spirits. Again, "A's" are split into "exceptional" and "world class".

Michael Jackson (single malts):

50's - lacks balance or character, never meant to be bottled as a single
60's - enjoyable but unacceptable
70's - worth tasting, especially above 75
80's - distinctive and exceptional
90's - the greats

In complete accord with Parker and the American system.

Jim Murray (whisky):

0-50 - absolutely diabolical
51-64 - nasty and well worth avoiding
65-69 - very unimpressive indeed
70-74 - usually drinkable but don't expect the earth to move
75-79 - average and usually pleasant but though sometimes flawed
80-89 - very good to excellent whiskys
90-93 - brilliant
94-97 - superstar whiskies that give us all a reason to live
98-100 - better than anything I've ever tasted

In line with Parker and the American system, albeit with more subdivision.

Wine Spectator

95-100 Classic: a great wine
90-94 Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style
85-89 Very good: a wine with special qualities
80-84 Good: a solid, well-made wine
75-79 Mediocre: a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws
50-74 Not recommended

The Spectator follows Parker's lead, but now subdivides "B" into "good" and "very good". "C" (average) has been pushed up a tad and becomes "drinkable". while "D" now extends into "C" territory, and joined with "F" as unacceptable.


Bottom Line

1. Parker is really the father of modern ratings, based on the American Standard grading system.

2. The American system is natural, in even steps and completely ingrained in American thinking and experience.

3. Those reviewers who deviate beyond minor subdivision do so at their own risk. Good example: bond ratings.

A Summary

F - poor - 1 Star - 50-59
D - below average - 2 Stars - 60-69
C - average - 3 Stars - 70-79
B - above average - 4 Stars - 80-89
A - excellent - 5 Stars - 90-100

The great majority of reviewers base their ratings on this system.


*******

Note: A very few move "average" down, calling average a "D" (or 2 Stars or 60-69). Their motivation seems intended to imply that only better spirits are reviewed, a statistical impossibility. The notion of "average" is exactly that: an "average" of all scores. "Average" should always be the largest category, by definition, with fewer and fewer scores toward the extremes. The result: the familiar "bell curve" and normal distribution.