Reading Wine Ratings

It started with Robert Parker and his Wine Advocate, or so I am told. And, now, wine is so much about ratings. But, what do they all mean? Have they gotten silly? Which ones matter and which ones don't? And, how about those medals -- bronze, silver, gold, and double gold?

The short answer is to take most of them with a grain of salt, some of them you should probably ignore entirely and a few are probably fairly well worth it. When, in my opinion, you should really take notice is when lots of critics give a particular wine a really high score. Of course, if that's the case, you're probably going to notice a dent in your wallet for those wines.

As I started, wine ratings as they are popularized today all started with Robert Parker. A lawyer by training, he started publishing his Wine Advocate, not a fancy publication by any means as it comes without pictures or even articles. He popularized the 100 point scale and even defined what that was based on and what the ratings meant. So, for example, the ageworthiness of a wine gets up to 10 points (this makes his scale as much for collectors as anyone, but definitely not for the person buying a bottle to drink that night) and a 90 point wine is excellent, 95 points is extraordinary, and 100 points perfect. 

We all know what has happened over the years, however. Grade inflation. You know, if you graduate from high school with a 4.0 GPA, you might not even be in the top half of your class. And, Parker's ratings have really suffered from grade inflation. Each year, there are s striking number of "perfect" wines (I have never had a perfect wine, I can assure you) and then, somewhere around 2008, he tasted the 2003 Domaine du Pegau Chateauneuf du Pape Cuvee du Capo. And, he, or someone working for him, awarded it 100+. Yes, better than perfection.

How silly.

While I often don't agree with them, I find Wine Spectator's ratings among the most reliable these days, certainly of those that are easily found. I have seen them give ratings from about the low 70s (those are bad wines) on up, very rarely scoring a wine above 97 points. Even then, however, they are the opinion of one critic. And, your tastes and that critic's tastes might not agree.

It's said that all tastings are done blind. But, having never seen one done by a publication, how do I know that they don't even know which winery's wines they are tasting? Are they biased if they don't know the particular wine, but do know where it's from?

And, what about those medals? Typically, they are given at wine fairs or wine competitions? And, they tend to be awarded by a panel of 5 tasters. If a majority give one particular medal award, that is what the wine gets. And, if all 5 think it deserves gold, then the wine gets a double gold (those are probably the only ratings worth knowing about as there was unanimity).

So, now you are out buying. And, you see that two wines sitting next to each other each have pretty high ratings. One gets, we'll say, 91 points from Wine Spectator and the other gets 94 points. The 94 point wine is more expensive. Which one should you buy?

That's a really tough question. So much depends on how "educated" your palate is. Chances are, if you buy both of those bottles and you taste the two wines side by side, you will prefer the 94 point wine about 2/3 of the time. But, maybe not. 

Is it worth it? Ask your wallet.