Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010

Is the 100-point scale dead or just on life support?

By Andy Perdue, Wine Press Northwest

This evening, I was chatting with a well-known and -respected Washington winemaker about a wide range of subjects. One that struck me was the fact that a 90-plus score from a major wine magazine no longer moves wine.

When we started Wine Press Northwest some 13 years ago, a score of 90 points or better from Wine Spectator or Wine Advocate was magical. A winery that could crack the 90-point barrier would suddenly sell a lot of wine all over the country.

Even wineries that scored 85 points or higher would proudly display and publicize those numbers.

Frankly, I rarely see someone touting an 89 or below these days. And when this winemaker said he scored a 92 for one of his wines and didn't sell a single bottle as a result, I was shocked - even as he just shrugged his shoulders.

As I think about it, I wonder if a saturation of 90-plus scores from the world's two most important publications - Spectator and Advocate - as well as the others who use the 100-point scale (most notably Wine Enthusiast and Steve Tanzer) has dulled consumers' interest in 90-plus wines.

When I started in wine writing, the joke was that the 100-point scale actually was a 20-point scale because one rarely if ever saw published scores below 80 points. It would seem that the 100-point scale has now been reduced to a 10-point scale - and even it is becoming less effective because so many wines from classic Old and New World regions rate high scores with such regularity.

I will admit that I used to go through Spectator and Advocate on a fairly regular basis to see if their scores and reviews matched up with ours (we have four ratings: Outstanding, Excellent, Recommended and not recommended; thus, while the scores are basically apples and oranges, there is a correlation between a wine that gets 90 points and above with our "Outstanding" rating). Anymore, I don't really bother because so many wines score so high that they are relatively meaningless.

I have to think that wine critics who use the 100-point scale feel pressure to give higher and higher scores just to keep up with each other. Imagine this scenario:

Let's say Wine Advocate gives Barnard Griffin's Cab a score of 95 points and Wine Spectator gives it 89 points. Which score - and, thus, which publication - is the winery going to hype? This is important for readership, which drives revenue. Meanwhile, the secondary publications are just hoping for some of the leftover crumbs. Does that pressure them to boost their scores? Maybe. Maybe not. Some wine critics were, er, critical of Wine Spectator's selection of Columbia Crest's 2005 Reserve Cab as its No. 1 wine in the world last year. Was this because they simply disagreed? Was it because of professional pride? DIfficult to know.

But here is the biggest problem with the apparent issue of scoring inflation or saturation (whichever you want to call it): If a score of 92 can't sell a single bottle for the winemaker I was chatting with, what will? A 94? A 96? Maybe today but maybe not next year because every other winery will be able to boast about those scores, too. Thus, the critics who have relied on the 100-point scale for so many years may no longer hold much sway over the wine-drinking public because the system they created no longer is valid.

• Comments
• Add Comment
• Disclaimer