Scoring wines, beers, spirits etc is such a contentious notion. How can an ever-evolving, multi-faceted drink be summed up with a single number or a star rating? Still, I prefer to score as it serves as a personal reference point – something quantifiable about a particular product at a specific time.
When approaching my reviews, I advise reading the notes first and treating the score as an addendum.
Australian Wine and Drinks Review Scoring System
You’ll see two different scales at use on this site, a nice simple star system for most drinks, and something a bit more nuanced for wine.
Beer, Spirits, RTDs etc
- Below 2.5 stars. Don’t bother.
- 2.5 – 3 stars. Passable. Likely just drinkable.
- 3 – 3.5 stars. Better. Akin to a bronze medal in the show system, this is sound and drinkable, even if it may not be exciting.
- 3.5 stars – 4 stars. Now we’re getting somewhere. Now we’re nudging from bronze to silver medal and with a chance of some excitement. Genuine good drinks here.
- 4 stars – 4.5 stars. Top gear. These are seriously high-quality products and genuinely delicious.
- 5 stars. The best. These are the benchmarks, the beverages that we all wish we had made.
Wine
I like the classic Australian wine show scoring system because that’s what I was trained to use. Now, I’m too old and grumpy to abandon it completely, even if everyone else seems to prefer judging out of 100 now. So I write down both, just for context.
Unlike when judging in shows, however, I have the luxury of tasting with the label in front of me, often over several days.A little air time can turn middling wines into something for delicious, or sometimes it can see great wines unexpectedly fall over.
This scale appeared in its original form in ‘The World of Fine Wine’ Magazine (Issue 18, 2007), which was then modified by Steve Webber (De Bortoli), and I’ve then adapted it to my scoring bands.
So the first score is out of 20, then converted to a score out of 100, with an equivalent wine show medal. I judge according to benchmarks for style, and value doesn’t affect the scores (but it does affect whether I’d buy it).
- Below 14/20, below 80/100. Faulty wines or just terrible. Don’t bother.
- 14-14.9/20, 80/100-83/100. Be very wary of wines with this score. Poor quality, faults and just badness.
- 15-15.4/20, 84/100. A critical marker. 15 and above usually means sound wines if nothing remarkable about them. Lots of ok commercial wines in this category.
- 15.5-16/20, 85-86/100. Bronze medal winner. This is when we at least start hitting more drinkable wines. Sound, drinkable, if not outstanding, wines. Plenty of inexpensive releases end up in this category. However, be wary of expensive releases that get this sort of score – it often means a disappointment.
- 16-16.9/20, 87-89/100: Bronze medal winner. Typically good wines, sometimes with outstanding features. Lots of simple affable drinks here. You’ll find genuine quality wines, if simple or with some blemishes at the upper end.
- 17.0-17.9/20, 90-92/100. Silver medal winner. Very good wine, plenty of interest here. 17 is the pass mark for me. At the upper end, you hit a seam of drinks I’d happily recommend.
- 18-18.4/20, 93/100. Top Silver medal winner. Anything 18 and above is a terrific wine. Something with quality, detail, length and texture. The whole shebang.
- 18.5/20, 94/100. Gold medal winner. These are special wines. A gold medal is an important distinction. I want to drink, talk about and recommend anything this score and above.
- 18.6-18.9/20, 95/100. Top gold medal winner. A rare beast. Wines like this are what I buy. Typical outstanding wines of rare beauty or incredible intensity with balance, articulacy and length.
- 19-19.9/20, 96-99/100, Top gold medal winner. These wines come about so infrequently. The best of the best, the unicorns, the best in breed. I’ll be lucky to see a handful of wines like this a year (maybe).
- 20/20, 100/100. A myth. Perfection doesn’t exist in wine, so I will never give this score out and distrust the judgement of anyone who does (it’s grandstanding).