In Defense of the 100-Point Scoring System. Kind Of.
Want to get a serious wine lover’s knickers in a twist? Just ask him what he thinks of the 100-point scoring system. Nothing is quite so controversial — and ubiquitous — as the 100-point scale. Popularized by Robert Parker, the World’s Foremost Wine Critic or the Scourge of the Wine Industry, depending on whom you talk to, Parker had the clever idea to rate wines according to the 100-point system. This grading tool, familiar to anyone who’s ever passed through the American school system, has guided many a wine shopper — and pissed off more wine professionals that you can imagine.
Look, I don’t pay any attention to Parker points. I find the people who follow him slavishly a little off-putting. But my occasional annoyance at Parker and his acolytes is dwarfed by my chagrin at people who love nothing more than to complain about him. Why so much rage, you guys? It makes me make feel like I need to defend the 100-point system. So here’s my attempt to refute the most popular anti-Parker arguments:
1. Wine is beautiful, magical, transcendent, something so special that it can not be reduced to a mere number. I love wine. I have had my share of magical experiences around great bottles that count among the happiest moments of my life. But for most of us, wine is an enjoyable beverage. The vast majority of consumers who don’t know a ton about wine are looking for a good bottle that won’t break the bank, and, every so often, a splurge that lives up to its price tag. If the 100-point scale system is helpful in those pursuits, who am I to judge? The world of wine is vast and diverse, and there’s enough room for those of us who take it very seriously, and those of us who just want to have a good time. Imagine if the movie industry operated the same way. It would be like going around to people waiting in line to buy tickets to Eat, Pray, Love, telling them they are boors for seeing the movie just because their local critic gave it three-and-a-half stars, all while waving the latest issue of Cahiers du Cinéma in their face.
2. Robert Parker is evil. Therefore, the 100-point scoring system is evil. If I remember correctly from my 10th grade ethics class, this is what’s called an ad hominem argument. Attacking the man instead of the issue at hand. If we only read books, watched movies, or embraced innovation and technology created by likeable people, the structure of our DNA would be undiscovered, the iPhone wouldn’t exist, and our only entertainment would be an endless loop of Sandra Bullock movies on TBS. (Although don’t get me wrong, I love Sandra Bullock.) This argument is illogical, annoying, and childish. Next.
3. I’m OK with assigning numerical scores to wine, but the 100-point scale is arbitrary. This is the most reasonable of all the arguments out there, even though I don’t quite buy it. Yes, the 100-point scale is imperfect, and damned if I know the difference between a 91 point one and a 92 point one. There’s a certain Scholastic “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” nature to a 100-point scale, but that arbitrariness is inherent in any grading or evaluation system. Does the fact that it’s numerical annoy people? Or does 100 seem like too large a range, in which case does that make Jancis Robinson’s 20-point system only 1/5th as stupid?
4. The 100-point-scoring system is the Worst Thing to Ever Happen to Wine in the United States, if not the WORLD. This is my favorite. We should be so lucky! I can think of plenty of things that are much worse for the wine industry. Insane wine mark ups at restaurants. The U.S.’s anti-consumer three-tier distribution system. French wine subsidies. Anti-alcohol crusaders. Confusing labeling laws. Shall I go on?
5. The 100-point system is the reflection of one man’s tastes. This one is pretty accurate. It’s no secret what kind of wines Robert Parker likes (big, bigger, and biggest), and that he’s not one for subtlety. But I don’t think that’s a huge problem, and here’s why. First, he’s representative of the American palate overall. Yes, we eat too much artificially flavored, oversweetened crap that has wreaked havoc on our taste buds and makes us crave more flavor, more sweetness, more stimulation, more, more, more. But as Americans, we have access to a greater variety of good, intensely flavored food from around the world than pretty much anyone else in the universe. Inhabitants of even a moderately sized U.S. city can probably find some good Chinese, Mexican, Thai, Indian and BBQ within half an hour of their homes–not something you can say about the average European. (But if anyone can tell me about some great Vietnamese and soul food joints in Rennes, Turin, or Stuttgart, I’m all ears.) I’d argue that all of these cuisines can work well with bold flavors, so we’re not morons for gravitating towards these big wines.
Second, the problem with Parker’s palate isn’t its existence, but its primacy. Since the 1980s, his palate has been the only one that’s mattered, and the 100-point scale has been the dominant wine rating point of reference. His stamina and talent for self-promotion, among other characteristics, have kept him on top and made it tough for other voices, palates, and evaluation systems to emerge.
But this is America, gosh darn it. We don’t wring our hands about the other guy’s success. We tip our cap, come up with something better, and work our butts off to steal market share away from him. This is actually happening, albeit incrementally. Wine bloggers are gaining a little traction, although probably not as much as we’d like to think. Some folks are doing interesting stuff with wine badges. Wine retailers are working harder to educate their customers, writing their own shelf talkers instead of relying on Parker points, offering more tastings, and organizing their selections around what foods to match them with or their taste profiles. Olive Garden, the restaurant chain that sells more wine than any other in the U.S., lets patrons try wine for free and organizes its wines by flavor profile, with nary a Parker score in sight. Granted, I don’t eat at the Olive Garden and this is a boring list, but it’s well priced, with accessible wines that probably complement the food they serve.
These may be baby steps, but they’re definitely steps. The quality and variety of wine available right now on the U.S. market in unparalleled. Is the 100-point scale the ideal way to get consumers to drink the best, and most varied, selection of wine out there? Of course not. But let’s move on. Give the guy his due and come up with something better.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Nice.
I have to admit that I score my wines. I don’t feel like I follow the same numerical grades as the Parker system (who has now invented the 100+ score). But I do score them and it’s mainly for my own ability to look back and remember what level of satisfaction I found in the bottle. Other people seem to find them helpful and so I share those scores.
I will attest that I find much more pleasure from wine now that I analyze each bottle I drink. I drink much better wine now than I did when it was just about drinking wine. I guess it’s just personal preference.
Either way, this is a great piece.
Love it!
“I don’t eat at the Olive Garden and this is a boring list, but it’s well priced, with accessible wines that probably complement the food they serve.” But what do you really think? : )
Great point that scoring the wine yourself is also a helpful way to slow down, analyze, and really think about what you’re drinking. While it’s certainly not the only way to do that (I use a weird mix of checks, plusses, minus signs and stars myself), it’s an effective one.
Forgot about Parker’s recent 100* point wine! Yeah, that’s a little ridiculous.
Great points, all. I wrote a similar post a few months ago, a sort of pros and cons list of the 100-point rating system.
I agree completely that “the vast majority of consumers who don’t know a ton about wine are looking for a good bottle that won’t break the bank . . . and, if the 100-point scale system is helpful in those pursuits, who am I to judge?” Absolutely!
I think the 100 point system is very good for consumers in the sense that if they have, say, $20 to spend, and want a good red, they can go right to the high-scoring reds in that price range at their local wine purveyors, and find something worthwhile, especially if they’re staring down 300 + bottles and haven’t a clue what to buy! In these circumstances, a ratings system that everyone can understand is pretty darn useful.
But by the same token, and this is what I find most troubling about the whole ratings system, so much great wine does not get rated at all, and many consumers aren’t aware of this. Which makes it hard for the little-known, but quality producers, to get their wines top-of-mind for wine consumers. When I pointed out that oceans and oceans of wine never even gets rated on my blog several months ago, lots of people who buy wine and drink wine regularly were surprised.
So I always tell people, “just because it’s not rated, doesn’t mean it isn’t good,” (however people define that).
At the end of the day, the 100-point scale is useful for some and not so much for others, but it’s not, in and of itself an “evil” thing!
And great post, I really enjoyed it.
Thanks so much, I’m glad you liked the post. Great point that just because a wine isn’t scored doesn’t mean it isn’t worth drinking. This is where I think smart folks like you come in, opening up people’s eyes, maybe even one at a time, about all the great wines that are out there, regardless of scores.
Nice piece. Whether you like or dislike 100 points scoring, there’s no question but that widely accessible wine criticism has improved the general quality of wine. Parker an WS have forced coasting premier crus to pick up their game and catapulted promising newcomers to prominence in a way that simple word of mouth couldn’t.
I’m not much of a 100 point fan myself, though a surprisingly high or low score gets my attention. I think of wine in simple, almost primitive terms: would I buy this again? Is it an every day wine or something special? Would it benefit from age? That’s about it. My palate isn’t discerning enough to quantify 1% differences in quality, so I go with yes or no questions.
Again, this was a smart piece. Nicely done.
Thanks so much. Agreed, I don’t spend much time looking at numbers either, aside from the really low ones. (The same morbid curiosity that makes me read reviews of movies that I know will get panned, I guess.) And yes, “will I buy it again?” is the ultimate rating, as far as I’m concerned. Given how much wine there is out there that I’m dying to try, the threshold for a re-purchase (not to mention laying down a few bottles for the future) has to be pretty high! Cheers.
I find all critics’ ratings and tasting notes valuable, although you need to learn to calibrate them with your own tastes. The biggest complaint I have with Parker, Wine Spectator, and Tanzer is assigning such precise ratings to wines that are so young and, in some cases, still in barrels. This is compounded by their failure to provide systematic follow-up ratings of the wines as they mature. Sure, they do occasional retrospectives on vintages or verticals for producers, but far too sporadically to help consumers. Parker’s Hedonist Gazette notes, on the other hand, are not really tasting notes, and raise the question does a sober 8 become a drunken 10? A far better system is Clive Coates’ 10- and 20-year retrospectives, but sadly he only focuses on Burgundy now. If you are considering the purchase of older wines, I suggest getting some of Coates’ excellent Bordeaux and Burgundy books or back issues of The Vine. Broadbent’s compendiums of tasting notes are also helpful. Of course there are many other sources of varying reliability, but I have digressed enough for now.
Terrific point. Jancis will occasionally retaste as well, and it’s really key to evaluating and understanding a given wine. I’ve made a few prognostications about the longevity of certain wines, only to be surprised (pleasantly or much less so). The proof is truly in the tasting!
I’m with you, Sasha. I hate the self-righteousness of people who don’t want others to have the 100-point scale. You don’t like the scale? Don’t use it. But why tell me I can’t? Do you tell Roger Ebert which scale he can use to review movies?