There are a couple points I want to make with today's post but first I need to give you some background.
On my regular visit to the eRobert Parker website yesterday, I saw an article in the daily news that caught my interest entitled
Dr. Strangelove, or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the 100 point scale, written by Mike Lynch and published at Wines & Vines. In the article he describes how as a retailer years ago he greatly disliked the system [of a 100 point scale] and the publications that supported it. His apparent attempts to dissuade his customers from relying heavily on scores from publications seemingly went unheeded.
It was only after he went out of business that his attitude regarding the 100 point scale began to change. Joining a PR firm that helped market wines around the country put him in direct contact with some of the same writers whose critical analysis he had come to disdain. When one of his wines received a 90+ rating he decided that possibly he may have been wrong about the "evil" system. Later when he became a traditional retail shopper he realized the value in referring to these same critics and when he ran his finger down the numerical list of their reviews he would stop when he reached 89 points. He had found his level of acceptance in wines and now fully embraced the idea and value of a rigorous scale that seemed to put some order to evaluating wine.
He concludes by pointing out all of the reasons why the 100 point scale was superior to any other system and he seems to justify it by stating his cellar only has wines rated between 90 and 100 points by Robert Parker, Wine Spectator, Wine Ehthusiast, and Wine & Spirits.
It is in this last statement that I had to pause. Since his buying decisions seem to be based on scores in publications I would be curious if his cellar has lots of single bottles, or he paid market rates for the wines (a premium over retail). Since he is no longer able to have access to the inside track when he was in the wine business, he is just like everyone else, responding to a review months after the wine is released.
I'm surprised he didn't make the conclusion considering his unique full circle experience that if he had known as a retailer what he knows now he may never have gone out of business. And I don't mean just because he could point out a wine was a "Spectator 94", but to rigorously calibrate his palate against them so that in the future when he tasted something he thought was excellent, he could apply one of his stated attributes of the 100 point scale which is "It encourages wine critics to take a stand rather than equivocate".
Change the word "critics" to "professionals" and you basically get to what The Wilder Side of California brings you every week; A measured offering of the best wines I tasted that scored 90 points or higher. I have been formally reviewing and rating wines I sell for nearly 10 years. I have yet to encounter a customer who would accuse me of scoring a wine high just to sell it. It doesn't mean other reviews that follow are neccessarily in synch but overall with 50 random wines there is relative convergence.
As a retailer it is a responsibility to our readers that the stated reviews and ratings are as accurate and repeatable as possible, otherwise we have no business doing what we do. What you get from Vinfolio is a forward looking viewpoint into the core of the new releases as well as access to winery libraries. The VF100 point scale has gained substantial credibility since there are many more wines I rate at the 90 - 92 range than there are in the 95+ range. Conservatism is built in. There has been only three wines to receive a 100 point score from me:
2004 - 2002 Buccella Cabernet Sauvignon
2005 - 2003 Scholium Project The Sylphs
2006 - 2005 Auteur Pinot Noir shea Vineyard
I find that sometimes when I publish review on wines scoring 90 to 92 points they may get overlooked in favor of the higher rated wines. Perhaps it is a good time to outline my score selections and what they mean.
< 90 points; not reviewed
90 to 92; Very well made balanced wines I would be proud to serve at anytime
93 to 94; Showing special qualities that add substantial interest
95 to 96; Excellent examples showing concentration and complexity
97 to 100 The unequivocal best available, period.
I do find the 100 point scale is an utterly valuable tool but is worthless unless viewed in context with a descriptive review.
I have another posting in mind how language relates to points I hope you enjoy.
But now for my question: How do you feel about the 100 point scale? Do you use it as an unwavering guideline from critics or us, or do you think it is a figment of wine marketing that has no usefulness in determining what you drink?