Rating wines - what's a point?

Everywhere you look these days, wines seem to have an associated "rating" - so what's that all about and, in particular, when you see a points rating on my blog, what does it mean?

Somewhat unhelpfully, there are a number of different ratings scales for evaluating the "quality" of a wine - Revista dos Vinhos, for example, the Portuguese wine magazine, uses a 20 point scale.

In many other (I'd hesitate to say "most", although it probably is) cases a 100 point scale is used. I use the 100 scale, popularised by Robert Parker in the 1980s, so that's what I'm going to talk about. You might think, logically, that a terrible wine would score somewhere near zero, and a really great wine nearer 100.

Wrong!

Whilst every fibre of my being, as a mathematician, rails against it, the lowest score for a wine on the 100 point scale is 50. Yes, 50.

Bands between 50 and 100 are usually described along the following sort of lines...

• 50-69 Rubbish - quite possibly undrinkable 
• 70-79 Pretty crappy 
• 80-85 Good 
• 85-90 Very good 
• 90-93 Excellent 
• 94-97 Outstanding
• 98-100 Awesome

(To read a more "official" version from Robert Parker's "The Wine Advocate" - look here)

But why on earth do I care, or should I bother to score myself?

Fair question.

You should care because it gives you some idea of how good a wine is - you see an 85 point wine and you might be tempted to think of this in terms of a percentage - that this is, somehow, better than 84% of wines, which it simply isn't - an 85 point is wine is "just" a good wine.

Of course you don't need to score yourself, but it does provide a focus for your tasting - ultimately you're going to have to give it a number, which helps to concentrate the mind. It will also help when, in 2 years time, you're in a wine shop having tasted (and rated) 1000 wines to give yourself an idea as to whether or not you thought that was a good wine when you tasted it (and whether it's a good buy in the "only 5€" section, for example).

OK. So we should probably discuss some of the "problems" with the whole points rating system...

• People have differing opinions. Of course. Robert Parker, for example, was often criticised for his liking of "fruit bombs" - big, powerful, fruity, often quite alcoholic wines. Other reviewers disagreed, favouring lighter, more acidic, subtle wines. The solution to this "problem" is simple - know your reviewer, or at least get a feel for how their taste stacks up against yours.
• Points rate wine quality, which is nothing to do with your taste. The most extreme example of this, for me, is white wines - I simply don't much care for them - so what's a 91 point white to me? An excellent wine I probably won't like.
• The Price effect. From my viewpoint, the "quality" of the wine is absolute - regardless of whether I paid 2€ or 200€. Others, however, take cost into consideration - I think this is wrong. An 89 point wine costing 2€ is better value, but simply not as good a wine as a 91 point wine costing 200€. Value, or otherwise, belongs in the text section of the note, not in the number. Sometimes, of course, hand on heart, that's hard to do - it's difficult to "admit you were wrong" in having paid 60€ for a wine and then rating it at 82 points.
• Consistency. Perhaps this isn't a problem with professional reviewers, but I'm pretty sure it is for me. I have good days and bad days, happy days and sad days and my view of the wine in the glass varies. I try to fight it, but I don't always win. Consistency over time is difficult too - 4 years ago I might have rated a wine 90, since I knew (had tasted) no better - that same wine might get 86 now, or even 92, if it was, in fact, an excellent wine.
• What exactly is being rated? This is a bug-bear for me, and something often discussed on sites like CellarTracker. Some people rate what's in the glass (I'm one of those), and some people rate what they regard as the potential of what's in the glass (clearly they are witches or warlocks and know how a wine will develop over the next 25 years). I rate what's in the glass and, if I think the wine will improve, I'll make a comment in the associated text - I think everyone should do that. For this reason, amongst others, a tasting note consisting of only a number is nearly worthless unless you know the reviewer.
• Wine ratings affect future wines. The problem here is that when too many people start buying what the reviewers "recommend" (i.e. their highly rated wines), other wine producers have a tendency to change their techniques or production in order to produce wines more similar to those (i.e. wines that will get similarly high scores). Arguably why not - highly rated wines are more in demand and therefore command higher prices. But this isn't good for wine production - a range of styles to suit different tastes is required. But I personally don't fret about this - no-one cares except me about my ratings.

I conclude with a few personal observations about my tasting notes, and the rating that goes with them...

• I do to tend to score more highly wines that I like, wines with a lip-smacking moorishness that I call "yummy"  rather than to attempt to judge "wine quality" in absolute terms - I simply don't have the palette for the latter, nor the range of experience, nor the budget to try that Margaux, or Grange, or Petrus, or Screaming Eagle, or whatever to find out if those wines really are 99+ points wines. Will I ever get to try one of those fabled 100 point Noval Nacional Port Wines?
• 90 points is the "breakpoint" for me. Below that is a decent enough wine, and possibly good value for money, but, aside from the odd daily drinker if they're great value, or wines I think might well improve, I don't buy those again - there are enough wines I haven't tried yet, and always will be. I might buy more of wines I've rated at 90 or above, depending on the price, and how long I think they might last.
• I don't rate white wines. Once in a while one crosses my path and I write a tasting note, but I don't have the experience, or interest, to score them.