Ranking System

In order to compare all the various foods I try, I will be using a 5-point logarithmic scale, meaning it will become exponentially more difficult to gain higher scores. The scale is as follows:

< 1.0: Unjustifiably bad. Food that is under no circumstances worth eating.
1.0-1.9: Tolerable. Food that I would never want to eat but which, if I had to, I could eat.
2.0-2.4: Barely Good. Food which passes as above average.
2.5-2.9: Good. Food which I can enjoy somewhat.
3.0-3.4: Very Good. Food I will certainly enjoy, but to which I probably will not return.
3.5-3.9: Great. Food which I would not mind eating every once in a while, but which I will not typically crave.
4.0-4.4: Outstanding. Food I will frequently eat and actively crave. 4.0 and up is what I’d consider a high recommendation.
4.5-4.7: Superb. Food I will accept in a heartbeat, no matter the circumstances.
4.8-5.0: Unforgettable. This is one of the best things I’ve ever eaten in my life.

It should also be noted that I am no professional, and I make no presumption to be one. Instead, I am simply a consumer, and that is the perspective I have in mind in these reviews. While I may provide perspectives from professionals at times, these are mostly provided as a more “objective” second opinion. In reality, though, I could care less if I agree with the professionals, and typically my scores will have very large disparities even among food of rather high quality, often diverging from what the pros say. That is because I will only recommend something if I myself would buy it again. Without a large disparity in scores, it would be much more difficult to distinguish between normal-quality food, great food I would try once, and phenomenal food I would go back to time and time again. Food I would buy again is either designated as a Keeper or by a score of 4.0 or higher.

Relevant details follow for specific categories of foods.

Wine Reviews

These wine reviews and ratings all come from personal experience. Wines will be graded on the basis of mainly two criteria: taste and value. Aroma and color will also be considered, but only slightly. All the criteria will typically be implicit, however, and only an overall score will be given. There will thus be no weighted averages used. Instead, I will give a more “subjective” rating based on how much I personally enjoyed the wine, which includes how much of a value I think I got out of the wine, i.e. whether I feel I got a good deal on the wine and would be justified in paying so much for it. Value will be considered in two ways: first, implicitly, by adjusting the base score I give, and, second, explicitly, as I will provide a value-adjusted score at times for wines that are very cheap or very expensive.

While this approach may not be as “objective” as other approaches, it is how the typical consumer thinks. The consumer isn’t concerned with just “quality,” as is the professional. With Argentine wines (the majority of my reviews), I feel this perspective is even more justified, since the reason to drink Argentine wines is for their relative value compared to more expensive European ones, since even the best Argentine wines will typically cost less than $100, with most around $50 or less.

Chocolate Reviews

Here the criteria will be much more explicit, as I will provide full scores of each of the criteria. My focus is primarily on taste and value. I will also factor in the chocolate’s melt, presentation, flavor (how well integrated a certain flavor is, if applicable), and, at times, length. However, I will not use a weighted average, preferring to give a personal opinion based on my overall experience of the chocolate and how much I enjoyed it. Moreover, only higher-quality chocolates will be formally evaluated, with scores given in each category, while others (typically lower-quality bars) will only be given either cursory remarks or a detailed description without any formal scoring in particular categories.