The Thing With Wine Scores

Many wine critics use a point system to rate wines. The idea is to lend some objectivity to the quality of a wine against its competitors. At one time there was a ten point scale that only looked for flaws and that may still be used by winemakers and such. The hundred point scale used now has its own problems as many see a wine with under 90 points as not so great. A 75 point wine? You'll never see that mentioned in print. Too bad that happened.

Besides the goofiness of the cutoff being somewhere around 87 to 90 points for a decent wine there is one other really big issue. If Robert Parker or Wine Spectator or Wine Enthusiast or whoever gave a wine a high score does that mean you'll love it?

Everyone's perception of "this wine is better than this other wine" will be different. Do you have the same tastes as Robert Parker? Probably not. Did you just sit down and try a bunch of wines one after the other and determine the best ones? Nope. And many people upon trying a 92 point wine will feel somehow dumb if they don't like it. Well that, as they say, is bullshit.

Wine judging is done on typicity. Is this wine typical of other wines of the same varietal from the same region? A wine critic who has tasted a lot of Napa Cabernets then gives one a certain score he/she is rating it against what they remember from all the other Napa Cabs they have had and where it ranks for them against all of them. Would your ranking be the same? Nope.

So does that mean you should ignore the scores? No. I see it as one data point to use, but not an on/off switch as to whether you should like a wine. Or whether you'll like a 92 point wine better than an 88 point one.