Parker & Robinson, maybe two sides of...

Well, after reading something from Coates I’m now not so sure about the equivalence of the 20 point system from elmundovino.com, for instance, and ’The Vine’:

";there is (or could be) a 20 out of 20 Beaujolais or House Claret. If I am reading a review of, say, Vin de Pays Chardonnays from the south of France, I expect the wine writer to highlight the best by giving them 18 out of 20 (or a 90 plus if they are marking out of 100). That, given the price context and the aspiration of French Midi Chardonnays is what I am entitled to expect, together with marks down to 15 (good), and less. But quite obviously these Chardonnays are not being compared to Le Montrachet.

What would happen if they were? Logically the notes would be in the low 70s (out of 100) or 13s (out of 20). What would that indicate? Only that the wines were barely drinkable, which they are not, by any means. They can be fine, good or indifferent, within their context, and the marking system must accommodate this.";

Low 70s = 13s ???? If Jancis applies the same scale you are quite right.

BTW, two additional comments from Coates regarding marking wines “within their context” are very interesting:

";Robert Parker is one of those who marks, so he says, absolutely. But how do we reconcile his marks for Margaux 1980 (88/100), Margaux 1981 (91/100) and Margaux 1982 (98 plus/100)? All these three wines are spectacular successes within the context of their vintages. But in absolute terms surely the 1982 is rather more than a mere 7 plus percent better than the 1981, and the 1981 rather superior than 3 percent over than the 1980? Like myself, Parker and others - and I cite him not out of any personal animosity but merely because his journal is very influential - are trying to make room in their marking systems for highlighting the best and where necessary being severe on the disappointing. I just think I am being more logical in admitting it.";

";And yes, an 18/20 in a 14/20 vintage should be the same as a 14/20 in an 18/20 vintage. I’d personally probably go for the former because what is implicit is the elegance of the terroir in a minor vintage – I write this with a glass of Clos de Vougeot 1992 from Grivot beside me. But which you, dear reader, will prefer, will depend on your personal taste, on your mood that particular day, and on the food that goes with it. Wine tasting and wine assessment is not an exact science.";

http://www.clive-coates.com/