Wine Scores (the infamous 100-point scale)

I know, this is far from an original wine blog topic.  Still, I feel the need to express my views on this interesting, often confusing or contentious issue.  I'd like to start by saying that although the tasting of wine is obviously a very subjective act, I do believe it is possible to discuss a wine's level of quality, relative to other wines.  What I am getting at here is that the subjective nature of tasting anything only goes so far.  Yes, we all taste a bit differently from each other, but the vast majority of us taste at least somewhat similarly to each other.  Preference is something else entirely, but I think if you get a group of people together and have them all taste the same thing (let's say some food for the sake of simplicity), most of them will largely agree on what that thing tastes like.  Then, of course, there will be varying degrees of how much each of them likes or dislikes that thing due to individual preferences.  With wine itself, there is a system of characteristics that we can identify and sometimes quantify (relative to other wines, not numerically) that most people who are concerned with such things can agree are markers of quality.  I'm talking about things like complexity, concentration, ripeness, length of finish, and acidity, as well as things that might be a bit more subjective or abstract, such as the balance and harmony of some of those components.  I know this gets into some tricky territory, but I will briefly say that if you get a group of experienced tasters together, they will usually be able to arrive at a consensus on a specific wine's quality in general terms based on these ideas.

If this has seemed a bit technical, there is good reason.  I am trying to lay the groundwork for the idea that wine quality can be discussed and, indeed, quantified -- to an extent.  Even in my argument for this idea, a few points that can appear (and be?) imprecise have entered into the equation.  This is why it seems a bit outlandish to me that some people would have us believe that they can absolutely discern the difference between a 90 point wine and a 91 point wine.  Such precision makes the whole thing seem very scientific and black and white.  When I look at the words Robert Parker, Jr, the inventor of the 100-point scale (and a terrific taster), uses to describe the ranges of scores, those terms make a lot of sense to me.  He uses terms such as "above average to very good" and "outstanding".  I think these are general terms that can be agreed upon by a majority of experienced tasters as mentioned above (is this a very good wine or an outstanding wine?).  I don't think a group of the best, most experienced tasters would agree on a specific score, or that a great portion of that group would agree upon the same numerical score.  There is plenty of evidence that this is true, from panel tastings and huge disparities between scores of individual critics for the same wines.

It would be easy to stop here and to simply say I am in favor of using scores as rough guidelines rather than specific indicators of quality.  If I did that, I would be failing to take into account personal preference and genetic difference.  For one thing, in groups of tasters such as those mentioned above, there will inevitably be wildly outlying qualitative judgments.  There might be a number of causes, but those are not as important as pointing out that we have no way of knowing if a single critic might be someone with such an opinion on a specific wine.  1995 Chateau Musar Rouge is a wine cherished by many collectors, experienced and apt tasters (myself included, at least with the experienced part) who think of the wine as easily into an outstanding (90+ points) quality range, perhaps even classic (95+ points), yet a critic working for Wine Spectator scored the wine a lowly 82 points!  Demand has driven the price of this wine to well over $100/bottle in most areas, and I am very glad that I have had the wine on more than one occasion when the price was lower.  Also, quality aside, what you like might be very different from what they like.  As much as we try to train ourselves to taste objectively, I think there will always be just a touch of preference involved in evaluation.  For those who are not trying to train themselves to taste objectively (most wine drinkers), personal preference is the biggest factor in whether or not you like a wine!  If you hate bleu cheese, you are not going to like even the best bleu cheeses out there.  If you really love pizza, you might be able to enjoy even mediocre or subpar examples.  Someone may love or hate characteristics in certain wines that affect their enjoyment far more than the overall quality of those wines does.

You might call me a hypocrite now and say that I have used point scores in emails and elsewhere when trying to sell wine.  It is true that some consumers don't like to buy anything without seeing such a score attached to it, and that I will occasionally humor and honor that demand.  Anyone who has ever talked to me in person about the topic has probably heard some part of what I have written here.

What it comes down to for me is that people need to trust their own palates.  I know that people like to have some direction, and that such advice doesn't always get you far.  That's why it is nice to interact directly with people who sell wine and can learn your preferences, allowing them to suggest wines that they (we) think you will like.  At least with that method there is a much greater chance that you will enjoy what you take home.  There are plenty of us out there who would love to show you that unheralded wine without an impressive score that you might just love.

If you're still reading this, I am very happy that you've made it to the end of my first post here.  thanks.  Please leave comments if you have anything to say about what I have written.  I will read those comments and respond if appropriate.  It could be a great way to enter into a friendly debate, ask me any questions you might have, or simply have your say in the matter.