What does 100 point score mean?

[Tom_G_l_a_s_g_o_w]

The taster really liked it and its better than most wines.

I thought the question was about critics other than Suckling.

[Nate_Simon]

It means any retailer holding that wine is getting pretty happy right about now.

[J_Rock]

I think that it means, in the taster’s opinion, that wine represents the absolute pinnacle of winemaking/growing/timing and she enjoyed it as much as she thinks she could ever enjoy wine. This doesn’t require the wine to be “perfect” or greatest of all time.

[Jim_F]

I think we have skated around this issue for a long time. It is so overused that it in danger of becoming totally redundant. At best, it means different things to different people; whether or not the increase is due to inflation or better winemaking is one debate. Another is whether for some critics there is a benefit financial or otherwise to it.

In the end though, we will all define what we mean by a perfect wine differently. How do you?

No discernible flaws using the criteria the critic has in hand based on experience and expectations. And it wowed that critic/taster.

[Tom_R_W]

What does a 100 point score mean?

1. Jeb D wrote the review.

2. The Winery is paying $2,000/mo for Vinous Premium.

I’ve had a number of 100 pt CA cabs. IMO- it usually means it’s a tight, uber-ripe, over-extracted, heavily oaked, but in-balance mess.
Once they get about 10-15 yrs of age, I start understanding what the reviewer meant.

[JMReuter]

100 points means the top 1% or 2% of wines of its type. Either now or in the future.

[John_Flanagan]

It means it’s one point better than a 99 point wine.

[Mark_Golodetz]

Another Question
If you have ten 100 point wines, can you rank them 1-10

[Cris_Whetstone]

Folks love to obsess over flaws and “perfection” whatever that could possibly mean for a wine. That’s a distraction. Wines are not meant to be machined into flawless surfaces. Wines are sensory delivery vehicles. Some things that excite some are flaws to others and vice versa.

Jordan is on it. If a 100 point wine is not an experience that represents what the taster considers the pinnacle of their pleasure that can come from wine then the whole scale is meaningless. Flip it around. If a zero or 50 or whatever the bottom end is doesn’t represent the worst then what is the scale for?

[J_Rock]

Another Question
If you have ten 100 point wines, can you rank them 1-10

While it might be hard, it’s certainly theoretically possible. Each score represents a bucket of quality/enjoyment/etc. It’s not like you’re only allowed to have 100 wines and then you rank them from 1 - 100. Just like with every other numerical score, 100 represents a certain bucket or range.

[ChrisJames]

The perfect wine is perfect until the next perfect one. Scoring something 100 on an empirical scale simply begs for a 101 point wine in the future.

There is something to be said for a perfect wine experience (wine, people, place, time) but that cannot be scored, just described.

This. I was teasing someone who posted on a wine giving it 94 pts. I suggested that another wine which was approximately 10% better would thus deserve 104 pts. The 100 point scale would be more useful if we used all 100 points and a 100 point wine was a great rarity with plenty of wines in 50-90 range. Instead we use maybe ten of them (90-100) and really more like the 92-97 range.

[HoosJustinG]

One of the reasons I like the 20 point scale better than the 100 point scale is the absurdity of trying to quantify the difference between a 92 and a 93 point wine … it’s ridiculous, and I’d wager most/all critics would be unable to be consistent with themselves within 0 points if given the same wine in multiple tasting flights–what’s 92 now might be 91, 93 or even 94 this afternoon if tasted again. Whereas I think the 20 point scale really only has 10-11 different possible scores (15+) for “quality” wine and even fewer for “high quality” (those you’d think of as 90+ point) wines. It’s more like an academic scale … B/B+/A-/A/A+ … which brings me full circle to the question … what deserves an A+? Something that, given the circumstances, the grader can’t think of a way it could be better… if anything ever deserves an A+.

[Marshall_Manning]

It means absolutely nothing except for that the wine will get expensive. The plethora of young “100 point” wines given over the past 20 years is just ridiculous, honestly. A wine can’t be perfect unless it’s developed all of its subtlety, complexity, depth, and yet still remains vibrant, refreshing, and a pleasure to drink. And you can’t assign points for possibility…only what the wine is actually showing.

I’ve had some pretty amazing wines in my 30+ years of wine drinking (mostly thanks to generous friends!), and probably tasted 25,000+ wines, yet I’ve never had a wine I’d consider a perfect wine.

[jordan_jacobs]

Another Question
If you have ten 100 point wines, can you rank them 1-10

Yes

[Marcus_Dean]

there are no 100 point wines only 100 point bottles.

[Chris_Seiber]

It means absolutely nothing except for that the wine will get expensive. The plethora of young “100 point” wines given over the past 20 years is just ridiculous, honestly. A wine can’t be perfect unless it’s developed all of its subtlety, complexity, depth, and yet still remains vibrant, refreshing, and a pleasure to drink. And you can’t assign points for possibility…only what the wine is actually showing.

I’ve had some pretty amazing wines in my 30+ years of wine drinking (mostly thanks to generous friends!), and probably tasted 25,000+ wines, yet I’ve never had a wine I’d consider a perfect wine.

I don’t think that’s what it means, it just means the reviewer thinks it worthy of the top score that is within the scale they are using.

It’s like giving a high school geometry student an A+ for a semester. It doesn’t mean the student was perfect in every respect and the greatest geometry student of all time, just that he or she earned the highest score on the scale. Other kids before and after that student will get an A+ in geometry too.

[Alex_N]

I’d like to hear a winemaker’s take on getting 100 pointer, especially one that’s not on social media, and disconnected from the whole ratings thing, if that’s even a thing(?)

[HenryB]

Well written.
So when critics are handing out 99 and 100 for EP wines that isnt even bottled yet, the wines could actually end up being less than the original score. What about as the wine ages? If a barreled wine is 100, where does it go from there? What’s the purpose of aging ut if it is perfect RIGHT NOW.
This is why I think burgundy critics understand the rating system better than Bordeaux critics.

Does knowing the label before drinking the wine affect your score? If critics had to score wines blindly would they still give such high scores?

EP is always on potential anyway, and thats why many critics score a range for EP. As an example, LPB giving Angelus 2020 98-100 is ‘I will bet the score ends up being in this range once in bottle’, and more often than not they’re pretty consistent (of course its non blind so you can argue consistency or just reinforcing their own view, but different story).

This, for me, is why Anson’s 2019 Lafleur review really resonated:

Never the most exuberant during En Primeur, this is deep inky purple in colour with a violet rim. On the palate you get touches of iris, with an earthiness alongside, coupled with a grip of tannins that expands through the mid palate then clamps down again pretty sternly on the finish. Strong liquorice and chocolate notes, but the emphasis is clearly on slate and crushed stones, cigar box and cloves, with a strong, serious spine. I don’t give 100 during En Primeur, but this is as close as it gets, and is a reflection of just how impressively the Pomerol plateau has performed in the 2019 vintage. Stainless steel vinification then 15 months ageing in barrel, 33% new oak. Drinking Window 2027 - 2050

Note the bolding.

[HenryB]

It means absolutely nothing except for that the wine will get expensive. The plethora of young “100 point” wines given over the past 20 years is just ridiculous, honestly. A wine can’t be perfect unless it’s developed all of its subtlety, complexity, depth, and yet still remains vibrant, refreshing, and a pleasure to drink. And you can’t assign points for possibility…only what the wine is actually showing.

I’ve had some pretty amazing wines in my 30+ years of wine drinking (mostly thanks to generous friends!), and probably tasted 25,000+ wines, yet I’ve never had a wine I’d consider a perfect wine.

I don’t think that’s what it means, it just means the reviewer thinks it worthy of the top score that is within the scale they are using.

It’s like giving a high school geometry student an A+ for a semester. It doesn’t mean the student was perfect in every respect and the greatest geometry student of all time, just that he or she earned the highest score on the scale. Other kids before and after that student will get an A+ in geometry too.

and also that the scores are an attempted forecast of the wine at their peak, rather than their status quo right now

[HenryB]

Another Question
If you have ten 100 point wines, can you rank them 1-10

I think the interesting question here that is missed is…

With the increase in quality of production in recent years, should the score range be re-set/recalibrated? I can imagine producing high quality wines consistently 50 years ago was much harder (perhaps?), whereas now it’s less hard.

Or put another way, should wine scores be bell curved?


Of course that leads to the problem that 90 points for a 1980 vintage wine might only translate to 85 points for a 2020 vintage wine, and the 100 pointers of the 1940s might only be a 95 pointer now, which I dont think would be very useful for consumers.