On random wine scores

It's hard to keep track of the various rating agencies. Wine merchants are good at posting things like "91 Points" without saying whether that is from Wine Spectator or whatever. One does get a bit suspicious when a

This article, which contains little in the way of new information, is really taking swipes at a straw man. How many people, beyond the readership of the Wine Spec perhaps, really hold to the notion of intrinsic "quality" in wine or the myth of objectivity in tasting. Unless one is a trained "technical" taster, the tasting of wine is inherently subjective and influenced by myriad extraneous factors. This is one reason why I no longer do much blind tasting or even large-scale tastings: they bear no resemblance to the way in which I actually consume wine, which is with food over the course of an hour-or-more dinner.

Mark Lipton

Well stated for many of us. However numerous straw men and their clones wander into retail wine outlets every day, aggressively clutching their latest Parker or WS printouts of The Good Wines, and insist on seeing and perhaps buying *only* wines that have scored 90 or better. The function of those who actually taste wines and evaluate their store inclusion is trivialized and is indeed becoming more so. The Scoresheet Clutchers know exactly what scores they want and insist on them, having trouble considering or buying wines not on the Sheets. I remember when a Jancis Robinson or Steven Tanzer review was ignored because they were not well enough known. I wouldn't mind seeing a condensation of the Guardian article placed in every serious retail wine shop. It wouldn't work, but it would be fun.

pavane

Certainly not me. I had heard of all these studies before, and more!.

But a lot of people have not. And given how some experts like to project their image, I think people in general have a reasonable expectations that they should be able to perform better than they can.