Wine Ratings

Many years ago, I compared the ratings given by several critics and found considerable scatter of their opinions about the wine and numerical rating, when given. The UK critics tended to rank many "new world" wines lower than European classics, mainly because they were "fruit bombs", lacked complexity, had too much alcohol, or did not age well. For US critics, the ratings by Parker and the Underground Wine newsletter could be quite different. Actually age worthy wines need two ratings, one for how well they drink when tasted and how well they are likely to drink when fully mature. Also, for wine with some age, it is very important that the critic has tasted the wine more than once and that it is known that wine storage was proper. Even a Chateau Latour or a DRC burgundy from a good year can have a poor showing for a single bottle because of storage issues, cork issues etc. If you are buying to drink, find a critic that has a taste close to your's. Those buying wine to age and sell need to buy wine liked by the most popular critics who evaluate wine for how it will be with age.

Ratings were Parkerized giving them a 100 point scale. I find little comparison from one rater to the next unless you go in 10 point increments. Rating is subjective and I don't really blame the stores for putting the highest rating on the little piece of paper in front of the wine. That's marketing. Has little relation to the quality of the wine or whether you will like it or not. You need to taste a lot of wine to figure out what you like and not rely on the ratings.

And don't forget....

Wine Spectator with all its dubious restaurant wine list awards...is very valuable for the wine seller....but certainly not for the wine drinker..

I think you'll find this relevant:

That is very interesting but I would have been happier if the wines had scores with about an average 89-90. $100 a bottle is distinctly on the "rare occasion" side for me.

Fun - thanks!