The question of wine scoring came back into focus recently when The New York Times published a major article by Gary Rivlin in its Business section. The upshot of the piece was to call into question the 100-point scoring system, which I've never liked.
Rivlin makes the point succinctly: "A rating system that draws a distinction between a cabernet scoring 90 and one receiving an 89 implies a precision of the senses that even many wine critics agree that human beings do not possess. Ratings are quick judgments that a single individual renders early in the life of a bottle of wine that, once expressed numerically, magically transform the nebulous and subjective into the authoritative and objective."
If that's so -- and it seems right to me -- what are we to say of reviewers who can distinguish between an 89 and an 89.5?
What was so interesting in this story was that reviewers who use the 100-point system confessed they thought it was flawed. For example, the publisher and editor of Wines & Spirits is quoted as saying, "On many levels it's nonsensical ... I don't think it's a very valuable piece of information." The former editor of Wine Enthusiast magazine said it's time to drop the 100-point system.
Even reviewers at Wine Spectator, whose scores out of 100 can decide whether a wine sells well, are qualified in their support of the 100-point system. James Laube, the magazine's chief reviewer of California wines, says it's "imperfect," but argues that "it's a very valuable service to let people know if there are imperfections in wine." Problem is, Wine Spectator, like most other wine magazines, doesn't review poor or imperfect wines.
One argument for keeping the system is that it encouraged wineries to improve their wines to garner high scores, and so contributed to the overall improvement in wine quality over the past few decades.
Maybe, maybe not, but it's a point made by a number of people quoted in the Times article. It's true that any wine scoring 90 points or higher sells much better than a similarly priced wine that scores "only" 89. But it's an insidious practice. Wine Spectator sends its scores to wine merchants in advance so they can stock up on the 90-plus pointers, and wine-consulting companies advertise their ability to make wines in a way that will boost their scores.
What does this mean? It's a recognition that certain wines made in certain styles -- big and powerful -- and made from certain grape varieties -- such as Cabernet Sauvignon, Pinot Noir and Chardonnay -- are much more likely to score 90 points or higher than lighter, more delicate wines.
I suspect it's too late to turn this one around. Wineries love to trumpet their high scores, retailers advertise wines by numbers, and many consumers rely on them. But I can't think of any other product where so many consumers make their selection by the score given by someone they don't know and whose skill (or lack of skill) they have no knowledge of.
If some sort of rating is necessary, why not just say that excellent is 5, very good is 4 and good is 3, not-so-good is 2, poor is 1, and that an unacceptable wine gets 0. To imagine that we can really distinguish to the level of one-100th -- or in some cases one-200th -- boggles my mind.