Vinomofo Wine Deals

Whining&dining said:
I have to agree, as I've had pointed out to me before on this forum, a JH 89/90 is virtually announcing that said wine has no redeeming features at all, I can't recall seeing an AC rating below 89/90 since I've been looking at the VM deals etc, it is a very narrow bandwidth...It might actually be enlightening to post about the wines that are in fact s**t or borderline just to contextualise the better ones and as an "early warning system", just saying :)
Click to expand...

If I had my time again, the Rosemount Little Berries GSM would get <86, and I gave the Fox Creek Fox and Hounds 2014 86-87. The Maverick Twins GSM 2014 is also firmly in the 86-87 mark.

I don't buy the unreviewed $8/bot stuff. No intention of doing so. If you want reviews of that, then I'd check Vivino.

I'm not even sure why I'm defending myself here. Feel free to start your own scoring system or VM wine reviews thread. FWIW I put all my scores on CT. I only post the nicer stuff here, as this isn't a wine review site.
 
Last edited:
Whining&dining said:
...a JH 89/90 is virtually announcing that said wine has no redeeming features at all...
Click to expand...
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't agree with that statement.
I have less issues with the lower range scores from Halliday than those at the higher ends that (to me and it seems many others) are clearly inflated by 3-5 points compared to more prudent reviewers. I suspect one reason in Campbell Mattinson leaving the Wine Companion fold was the gratuitous bumping up of some of his scores by JH.

FWIW, 89 is a high Bronze show score, 90 a low Silver, not that I trust Show scores either.
Understanding Wine Ratings | Australian Wine Companion

And a non-point system The TORB Rating System
 
beefarmer said:
Whilst I appreciate the tough scoring, I would not be happy peaking at 94. Furthermore, who says wine you can't afford will deliver that 5 point extra wow factor?
Each to their own...scoring systems.
Click to expand...

It was firmly "tongue in cheek". There's a vast quantity of wine out there I've never tried. Maybe someday a DRC or a 20yo German Riesling will get that 95/96/97. I'm sure my scoring system will change over time too.
 
Anyway, does anyone care to hazard a guess on today's Black Market deal: Sam Kim 93/100 2011 Central Otago pinot, RRP $60/bot, which they're "giving away" for $19.90/bot ???
 
redbigot said:
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I don't agree with that statement.
I have less issues with the lower range scores from Halliday than those at the higher ends that (to me and it seems many others) are clearly inflated by 3-5 points compared to more prudent reviewers.
Click to expand...

If you had included my full reference to Halliday it would have put my remark in context: as I've had pointed out to me before on this forum, a JH 89/90 is virtually announcing that said wine has no redeeming features at all. Perhaps I should have inserted 'apparently', there seems to be quite a lack consensus on wine scores not just on this forum so TORB's rating system (which I have actually read on-line previously) is a much more human way of grading, but whatever the case it is inevitably subjective....

AnonymousCoward said:
It was firmly "tongue in cheek". There's a vast quantity of wine out there I've never tried. Maybe someday a DRC or a 20yo German Riesling will get that 95/96/97. I'm sure my scoring system will change over time too.
Click to expand...

I don't genuinely think that was all that apparent from what you posted, perhaps an off-shoot of this thread titled "The good, the bad and the ugly from VM" is in order...
 
Check out the latest credit card signup bonus point offers
Read our AFF credit card guides and start earning more points now.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

AnonymousCoward said:
It was firmly "tongue in cheek". There's a vast quantity of wine out there I've never tried. Maybe someday a DRC or a 20yo German Riesling will get that 95/96/97. I'm sure my scoring system will change over time too.
Click to expand...

I've never understood why so many people score something out of 100 when 99% of wines fall in the top 15 points, the bell curve is pretty skewed. Iv e never seen a wine score 48 or 63...know what I mean?

I also don't see how there can be that much range in wine. I like vivino, 1 to 5, if I like it it will get 3.5, if I hate it it will get 1, if I love it it will be 4.5. It might skew the averages for other users but helps me remember what I do and don't like.

Anyway....Vinomofo...seems to be a lot of Maverick stuff on there at the moment...keeping my eye out hoping for some twins cab blend.
Also if anyone was interested the ulithorne GSM 2014 is there, enjoyed last years vintage but I'm not buying at the moment.
 
georgehall said:
I've never understood why so many people score something out of 100 when 99% of wines fall in the top 15 points, the bell curve is pretty skewed. Iv e never seen a wine score 48 or 63...know what I mean?

I also don't see how there can be that much range in wine. I like vivino, 1 to 5, if I like it it will get 3.5, if I hate it it will get 1, if I love it it will be 4.5. It might skew the averages for other users but helps me remember what I do and don't like.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why so many people just care about a score and totally ignore tasting notes. The score doesn't tell you anything about whether you'll like the wine or not. Tasting notes will.

Secondly, scoring a wine isn't about whether you like it or not. Its meant as a judgement of the wine quality. Is it varietally correct. Are there wine making faults. Is it a high quality wine or not. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the typical kiwi Sauv Blanc style. Doesn't mean I won't rate it highly if its a quality wine.
 
Daver6 said:
I don't understand why so many people just care about a score and totally ignore tasting notes. The score doesn't tell you anything about whether you'll like the wine or not. Tasting notes will..
Click to expand...

The entire mof_ model appears to be built on 95+ or Bling - JH's 95 is almost a guide to average (ok) wine - first getting in to wine I was a slave to the scoring system in absence of understanding of other sources, but the more learnt the more meaningless it becomes...the mof_ blurb of rejecting all but 6% of the wines that come across their desk is also simply marketing fodder - there are some dead set stinkers regularly on sale...still tho there are definite bargains to be had - i think of the Ferguson CM, Sandalford CS 09, Chalambar when cheap, Warramate, Torbreck Struie - its just becoming more difficult to wade thru their chaff in the hyperbole fog
 
Whining&dining said:
Still toying with the https://vinomofo.com/wines/mixed-case/shiraz-labeouf-and-co? deal, I've been backtracking through the contents some of which are recent past (it seems to me) and some like the Mount Barker Capel Vale recently and (constantly) noted. Seems on the face of it an OK deal especially with the $50 Maverick thrown in, anyone else tempted or wary?
Click to expand...
I tell you folks one thing . When the fo quote Mr Kim brebich, you know that wine will be good. This seems a very good deal if the maverick holds up with a wow factor. Due your diligence.
 
Whining&dining said:
I have to agree, as I've had pointed out to me before on this forum, a JH 89/90 is virtually announcing that said wine has no redeeming features at all, I can't recall seeing an AC rating below 89/90 since I've been looking at the VM deals etc, it is a very narrow bandwidth...It might actually be enlightening to post about the wines that are in fact s**t or borderline just to contextualise the better ones and as an "early warning system", just saying :)
Click to expand...
In the latest Greenock Creek wine reviews Phillip White states again why he has stopped scoring on a points based system. He gives his opinions but its up to the reader to figure out what he may mean in determining what to buy. He too states too many people only go by points. Cheers
 
AnonymousCoward said:
Because Robert Parker.

Jancis Robinson, Sam Kim etc. still use /20 scales.
Click to expand...

Same problem, the actual range is 15-20 in .5 increments, smaller .points for the pretentious. The 20 point scale has components (colour, aroma, palate) that supposedly make it more consistent compared to the "pick a number" approach of the 100 point scale, but I think that's a fallacy.

All points-based systems have the same issues of pretending to show a precision that words don't convey and yet just end up as a marketing tool.
Compound that with the brevity of notes in such bulk publications as the Wine Companion, many of them are really quite useless in fully describing the wine. My monthly tasting group is usually supplied with tasting notes for the wines tasted single blind in sets of four, often from Halliday. In about 50% of the time the notes are not very useful in identifying the wine and often don't closely match the wine in front of us.

It's a bit long-winded and results in tasting notes presented in a formulaic fashion, but use of this sort of tasting sheet will always result in a note that covers all relevant aspects of a wine.
http://www.torbwine.com/images/Torb Tasting Sheet.pdf

All wine reviews have the same issues - it's the opinion of one person of one bottle at one point in time. Some reviewers obviously resonate more and more consistently with your individual tastes/preferences, they are the ones to identify and pay most attention to.
 
Daver6 said:
I don't understand why so many people just care about a score and totally ignore tasting notes. The score doesn't tell you anything about whether you'll like the wine or not. Tasting notes will.

Secondly, scoring a wine isn't about whether you like it or not. Its meant as a judgement of the wine quality. Is it varietally correct. Are there wine making faults. Is it a high quality wine or not. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the typical kiwi Sauv Blanc style. Doesn't mean I won't rate it highly if its a quality wine.
Click to expand...

I pay very little attention to scores.

Out of interest, if you don't like a style of wine, by would you ever drink it to have to score it?

I drink wine for me, for what I like, so any 'score' I associate with a wine is based on whether I like it. I'm not getting paid to drink wine or have anyone relying on my review of wine before buying it.
 
Rug said:
In the latest Greenock Creek wine reviews Phillip White states again why he has stopped scoring on a points based system. He gives his opinions but its up to the reader to figure out what he may mean in determining what to buy. He too states too many people only go by points. Cheers
Click to expand...

While I agree that on their own, points are largely subjective. I think there is a place for a consistent scaling scheme. For me, the Cellar Tracker scale is ideal.

98-100 Extraordinary
94-97 Outstanding
90-93 Excellent
86-89 Very Good
80-85 Good
70-79 Average
50-60 Avoid

When tasting a wine I can usually identify which category I think it falls into, and then within that category the scale provides some leeway to indicate if it is towards the top, bottom or mid-way. These groupings provide a means of calibrating the rating scale. I am hopeful that others using CT follow the same scheme. This way I can see how my assessment compares with others. If everybody invents their own scale, then the numbers really become meaningless for the broader community.

However I don't assess wines solely on their rating. For me a detailed tasting note always takes precedence. I have more of an issue with VinoMofos taste descriptions than I do with their reliance on rating points. For me their tasting notes sometimes feel like a work of fiction, or at least marketing spin.
 
Rug said:
He gives his opinions but its up to the reader to figure out what he may mean in determining what to buy. He too states too many people only go by points. Cheers
Click to expand...

Good point Rug, I would have to honestly say that Phillip White is far and away one of the most entertaining writers/reviewers of wine operating in the industry today. He's been likened to Bukowski but I actually think he's more gonzo, a Hunter S. Thompson of the oenological world, sometimes a bit of a ratbag, sometimes a provocateur but always erudite and irreverent!
 

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Currently Active Users

... and 3 more.
Total: 582 (members: 53, guests: 529)
Back
Top