I’ve been thinking quite a bit lately about how enamored the wine industry is with the 100-point rating system developed by the esteemed Robert Parker. It’s so set into stone that it’s become the universal system of rating wine; however, it has some grossly flawed issues with it that all too many folks seem to overlook:
- Wine is too subjective to ever have a rating attached to it:
Think about it - do you or I have Robert Parker’s palette? Nope. What if the winemaker’s decisions were to bring about a more vegetal aroma from the wine (as seen in many of the “old-world” producers) - does that make him wrong? What if the person doing the judging is biased against oak? Too many variables here to take into account through a numerical system.
So why is the wine industry so beholden to him and others like him? The real answer is because they know scores help move huge volumes of wine for them, that’s why.
- Ratings rarely ever take into account the price:
Why should a wine that costs $60 bucks get a rating of say 92 when there are wines less than half that price which can get the same score? What does that mean? And why would anyone buy a 92point wine at $60 dollars when they can get the same “quality” for less? Doesn’t make sense to me. A more exaggerated example is - would a $300 dollar 95point wine be 10-times better than a $30 dollar 93point wine? Hardly.
- Ratings don’t take into account the varietal of grape:
Think about it - how can you begin to adequately compare a 92-point Cabernet Sauvignon to a 92-point Viogner? Impossible. Ever seen a 100-point Sauvignon Blanc? Nope.
Please help me take back the Wine Industry from the "Snob Mafia" have have hijacked it into nothing more than bogus ratings and treating those whom disagree with them like crap. EMBRACE YOUR OWN PALETTE! If you like a wine, drink it up! If you don't, move on to a different one - your palette will never lie to you!
