Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Randy Caparoso's avatar

I agree with your premise. While scoring systems have helped increase interest in wine, ultimately it is a highly irresponsible way of imparting information because it implies there is an actual hierarchy of wines in respect to quality, when in reality nothing of the sort exists. I've always said that scores are like saying Bach is "better" than Beethoven, the Beatles are better than the Stones, or Lafite is always superior to Margaux or Lynch Bages. It's complete nonsense, yet this is exactly what scores are all about. The finest wines are appreciated for where they are grown and their artistry, not by quantitative measurements of sensory qualities disguised as objectivity. If anything, scores do a great disservice to the public by leading them on the wrong path, and in the end this will only hurt the industry.

Expand full comment
Darby Higgs's avatar

The best rejoiner to what I call Score Madness is "I don't know what a point tastes like!" Unfortunately, we are stuck with scores as they sell. But that doesn't mean that sensible wine writers need to be part of the game. We just need to point out to our readers regularly that we don't think scores impart useful information about wine. There is also point of context. On a hot day I will always prefer a '85 point' anonymous rose to a '95 point' Bordeaux. Wine has many dimensions it cannot be captured with one number.

Expand full comment
43 more comments...

No posts