Wine scores aren’t pointless.
A key to wine appreciation is figuring out which wine reviewers function as independent voices for their readers, have a similar taste in wine as yourself. The rating I give wines on the 100-point rating scale provides a clear indication of how much I liked a wine. But this grading leaves me conflicted – it suggests reviewing wine is an exact science and not one person’s opinion.
There are a few notable publications and reviewers who continue to score out of 20 points (Jancis Robinson, Matthew Jukes), five stars or three glasses (Gambero Rosso), but the 100-point scoring system, which was popularized by American wine critic Robert Parker Jr., is the industry standard for evaluating wines. Parker’s system was devised to help consumers discover quality wines by separating the good from the bad. Wine marketers quickly discovered that those numbers – the higher, the better – were remarkable communications tools.
In marketing terms, a score of 90 or higher is celebrated as an endorsem*nt to buy. The laudatory digits are often displayed in advertisem*nts or on stickers affixed to the bottled without any justification or explanation. However, reducing a wine’s essence to a mere number doesn’t give consumers much to go on.
When I started writing about wine in 1998, I stubbornly refused to use a rating system. I believed readers could see what I had to say about a wine and decide whether it appealed to them or not. After all, a good tasting note should include the necessary backstory to help a consumer make up their mind.
But without a score, the review lacked a hook. It wasn’t a complete picture of the wine in question. I wasn’t sticking my neck out to critically assess the quality of the wine as I experienced it.
The lack of a score denied readers the opportunity to compare my views with other opinions including their own. After two years of reviews, I started using a five-star system, which was commonly used for reviewing movies, hotels and restaurants and avoided the faux precision of scoring out of 100.
When I took over this column, I embraced its historic use of the 100-point system, which allows wine lovers to take stock of my scoring patterns and compare with other commentators, including the ratings used in promotional catalogues and online advertising. After five years, the system has become second nature.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Robert Parker Jr.’s reviews used a broad scale. Tasting notes carrying 85 and 86 ratings were common. The system designated wines scoring between 80 and 84 as average, while those receiving between 85 and 89 were good. Scores of 90 and above were reserved for superior wines, cresting to outstanding specimens anointed with scores of 95 or higher.
The range of scores used today is more compressed. Scores below 87 or 88 are seldom published and certainly never promoted by wineries. I don’t often feature wines with lower scores in this column, knowing that they aren’t as interesting to readers and that space would come at the expense of another wine that I was more excited by.
Ratings of 90 points have become commonplace. Some marketers are saying that 95 is the new 90 for those looking for commercial success.
This score inflation can be attributed to an overall improvement in wine quality. Thanks to better understanding of grape growing and winemaking practices, it’s difficult to find truly bad wine today. A competitive marketplace has liquor monopolies and private buyers combing through an overabundance of wines made around the world. As a result, they can select well-made wines at a variety of prices. We’re not immune from boring or bland bottles or wine styles that don’t line up with your personal preference, but few could be classed as undrinkable.
Some writers have released high scores that are effective marketing tools for critics, too. The exaggerated scores of generous scribes such as James Suckling and Luca Maroni are often quoted in sales materials and ads. While they risk alienating consumers disappointed after buying a highly touted bottle, they are embraced by the wine trade for their support.
Critical and independent wine writing becomes even more valuable as bottles of wine become more expensive. I often hear from readers who want to know what’s good and inexpensive. I include affordably priced wines whenever possible, but I fear the days of superior wines for less than $10 a bottle are behind us. Many examples can be found in the $20 range, which is a significant focus for reviews published here.
When I taste wines for review, I set my own preferences aside and rely on skills gathered over decades of practice. My scores are based on how representative wines are of their style and how they stack up in comparison to previous wines tasted, including benchmarks of the region and grape variety. It’s not a snap judgment or hedonic response. Consumers are free to judge their wines with a thumbs up or down rating a la Roger Ebert. Trained tasters must embrace a methodology that limits bias or subjectivity. (They should also be mindful of how their mood, health or the other wines tasted during a session can affect their judgment.)
Wine lovers are right to wonder about the relevance of the 100-point system that functions to evaluate wines on a scale from 88 to 95. They can also reasonably ask what the difference is between a score of 87 and 88? Such scores risk being useless for readers, but the crux is how that number interacts with the price, the words and the personality of the wine. All those elements combined give meaning to a wine review that empowers consumers looking to shop smarter.
