The notion that a 'point score' is of any relevance to wine is absurd.

Parker is a moron, even if he agress with that.


Max Hauser wrote:
> "DaleW" in ups.com:
> > As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a crusader for
> > squeaky-clean "Davis" wines.
>
> Can't speak for Laube, but yes, that stylistic issue is another face of the
> Davis school, not mentioned in my earlier posting about it. Recall Paul
> Draper's sharp comments in the early 1990s, in connection with the notorious
> historic "AxR #1" rootstock hubris that ushered phylloxera back to
> California. Currently archived for example he
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2mqa3
>
> It might also be worth mentioning for the serious student of wine
> publications that the 100-point numerical-rating language is _relatively_
> new to the US wine market, and has never been universally accepted by US
> wine consumers, which is easy enough to see if one is interested. (It was
> accepted more widely, though, than the major US numerical attempt before it,
> coincidentally from UC Davis.) There have been US critics and critic
> publications, and wine ratings, far longer than there have been 100-point
> scores. The survey of US wine newsletters published in the landmark
> University of California Press _Book of California Wine_ in the 1980s did
> not mention any such scores. Many experienced and eager wine enthusiasts I
> know have never mentioned a numerical score, except as a nuisance side issue
> (because one thing a high numerical score consistently predicts is the price
> the market must pay for the wine). The 100-point scores evidently clicked
> most with wine newbies eager for simple but authoritative-looking guidance.
> But as RP himself argues, they don't substitute for learning about wine in
> general, or learning what you like.