I was responding to something that my friend Panos wrote, and realized that it would make for an interesting discussion.
There have been so many discussions about the 100 point scale, and most of them are about its deficiencies. Whether it is about score inflation, tasting conditions and the variability of wine or the shenanigans that are sometimes part of barrel tastings etc, etc. I have used 20 point and for the last thirty years the 100 point scale.
So here is my take for what it is worth. There is nothing objective about the 100 point scale. It is a personal impression of a wine at a given moment, and for that one single taster. The wine may change, the taster may change, conditions may change. I find my notes are consistent, but there is a small percentage of wines where the score is significantly higher or lower. Nature of the beast; especially when you are tasting younger wines
So if the same taster can find differences, how is it possible to take a random critic or person as gospel and spend your hard earned cash on a bottle? Well you may say, at least try and find a critic whose palate is aligned to yours. God help you!
There are two kinds of critics. One, a critic with a very defined palate, who scores a wine according to whether he likes the wine and finds merit. John Gilman is a good example of this; he doesnât play games, and if he doesnât like a wine, he scores it appropriately. Johnâs palate often does overlap with mine but we have differed many, many times.
Then there is the second type. All things to everybody. He may not like a wine, but may be able to extrapolate that it is well made and worthy of a high points score. It is bad enough that the 100 point scoring is inherently flawed, and to be honest not very useful. Now you have got some ding dong scoring not based on his own palate, but what he thinks somebody elseâs is.
I could go on and spend some time on score inflation. I will not, except to say it is there of course, and the way we market wine incentivizes critics to adjust their scores ever higher.
So you have a subjective scale which is inherently flawed, judging wines that change with maturity, scored by someone who at best may give you an honest appraisal but if you choose the wrong one, you will end up getting a dishonest appraisal. I canât see much merit in the 100 point scale.
So when you see me scoring a wine, take it for what it is worth, a note to myself of how good a wine is on that particular day. Anything more, you do at your own risk.