>1) I don't like 100 point rating scales...wine cannot be scored that precisely.>
Wine reviewing is much like audio equipment reviewing with one major difference. In each, the reviewer observes and describes the sensory qualities of what he is reviewing - this part is pretty objective. In audio, the reviewier has an ideal to compare it against - live unamplifed music occurring in a real space.
What is the wine being compared against? His favorite example of that varietal or some ideal? Here is where the two separate - there is an objective benchmark for a audio but not wine?
The rest of the reviewing process in each case is subjective, with the reviewer experessing his preferences and assigning the product a value based on his likes and dislikes.
A 100 point scale is as good as any. Martin Colloms began to use a scale like this for audio equipment, but for some reason stopped.
>All the hundred point scale accomplishes is driving wine idiots to the store to demand a wine that scored a 96 over the wine that scored a 95.>
If the reviewers give a score of any kind, this will happen to the higher scoring wines.
>How many times have you tried chatting about wine and run into people who can only describe the quality of their tasting experience by telling you how many points the wine they drank had been rated? The hundred point scale is a crutch for wine idiots that leads them into pretension rather than appreciation.>
Do you rant and rave to your friends who buy equipment from Sterophile's Recommended Components List and tell you it rated an 'A' rather than describing the sound?
>2) Wine Spectator and other critics piss me off.>
Then don't read them.
>3) When the critics say they taste blind, and then we find out they tasted "blindly" in a flight of three wines, two of which were white, it calls into question the inherent greatness of Screaming Eagle cab.>
I don't care if they tase sighted or blind - their reviews are merely a guide and you should taste it yourself before buying - just like in audio.
>4) Which leads me to these 98-100 ratings on those "Only 10 cases made" wines.>
Better get on those winery mailing lists now...
>a) Any winemaker should be able to make one barrel that's fantastic. Wine that's that limited is not a commercial release. It's like saying that a hand tailered DKNY is "better" than a DKNY off the rack. Save the space for wines that consumers can go taste and check your rating skills. Brag about the half barrel wines, but don't bother to add to your bragging with absurd ratings.
b) They rate those wines that highly so they can continue to get them to taste and be exclusive and hip, sure. But they also rate them that highly because they know no one will ever be able to go out and expose their palates.>
Blah, blah, blah...
>c) Those "reviews" are read by audio manufacturers, who then go out and try to re-create that exclusivity by making "limited run" audio gear. Bullshit! Audio makers like McIntosh and Musical Fidelity should be skilled enough to take inorganic parts and make as many amplifiers as needed. Don't let wine cults leak into hi fi.>
Maybe the winemakers got the idea from audio manufacturers...
>d) Creating wine cults demeans us all. It turns wine drinking into stock speculation. Wine is for ultimate consumption, no?>
Like audio, watches, golf, stamp collecting, expensive sports cars, or any other hobby, wine appreciation can be whatever you want to make it.