Missing the point with scores

There seems to be no argument that not all wines are created equal, so how come the increasing demand that all receive sky-high ratings, and do we cut off our nose to spite our face with this?

Back when I was at school the threshold for an A-grade, the top mark in UK education at the time, was something like 75-80%. If I got an A, and let’s imagine I scored 78% do to so, both my folks and I would be pretty pleased. Fast forward to today and I like to think that, should my son come home from school with the equivalent of an A in his test, I’d be very proud of him.

So how come a bottle rated 88/100 is unlikely to get a look in amongst many of today’s wine collectors? You’d have to imagine that a wine with a lowly 79/100 would count itself lucky to meet a glass or corkscrew on its fast track to the spit bucket.

The comparison to school grading is not idle, as Robert Parker initially adopted his 100-point scale to mimic that used in the US High School system. What’s more, each edition of The Wine Advocate – remember those buff-coloured hard copy editions? Our office fax machine used to buzz as certain ‘contacts’ sent us copies faster than the postal service could deliver – used to be prefaced with an explanation of the scoring system. This is still published on www.robertparker.com to this day:

• 96-100 – extraordinary
• 90-95 – outstanding
• 80-89 – above average to very good
• 70-79 – average

Even if the grade parameters between UK and US schools are not exactly aligned, it does feel as though apparently ‘outstanding’ wines (say 91/100) are struggling to get a look in today; and that interest in ‘very good’ wines (87/100ish) has long since evaporated.

This is not a rant about score inflation; there are enough of those already. Rather, I think we have an issue with inflated expectations and that’s not doing us any favours as wine lovers. I’ve recently heard wines with 95/100 scores being dismissed as not exciting, pedestrian or uncompelling propositions. Hang on a minute: something rated 95% perfect is surely pretty special, no?!

If we go back to the opening statement that not all wines are created equal, it is obvious that not all Margaux wines, for example, are going to merit top 90s scores. A Chateau Angludet is unlikely ever to be rated in a similar bracket to Chateau Margaux, but that does not diminish the pleasure of a mature Angludet from a good year, served with a modest lunch – the 90/100 score (Neal Martin’s www.vinous.com rating for the 2016) notwithstanding.

Similarly, even the finest of Gevrey Chambertin village wines is going to pale against a decent Chambertin; but what right-minded wine lover is going to decline a glass of ‘basic’ Gevrey 2022 from Denis Bachelet (90-92pts www.burghound.com), Fourrier (89-91pts BH) or Rousseau (89-92pts BH). Call me greedy, but ideally I’d have both Denis Mortet’s Gevrey Cinq Terroirs and his Chambertin Grand Cru in my cellar each year – both brilliant wines but in different contexts and for doing different jobs. Actually, call me very greedy, as I’ll have his gorgeous Marsannay Les Longeroies too!

At some level, drinking the more modest wines helps us to better appreciate what we have in the very top wines. It would be rare for me – or Vinum – to host a wine dinner and jump straight into the Chevalier Montrachet, as even a brief crescendo through village or 1er Cru helps to highlight the quality of the headline act.

When I taste at Southwold, Burgfest or any of these tastings I try to expand my range of scores beyond 90-100. Not only does this give my high scores greater credibility – at least, in my eyes – but I genuinely believe that a wine rated 88% perfect can be a really good drink. And an 85/100 bottle of Bourgogne Rouge could well be totally decent – after all, according to Parker, this is on the cusp of ‘very good’.

All this was sparked by looking at scores for some of my favourite Bourgogne Blancs. These are wines I buy by the case most years and love drinking at home. I don’t consider them in the same light as their more senior siblings, but wines from the likes of Domaines Bachelet-Monnot and Paul Pillot bring us huge amounts of pleasure when we don’t want / it wouldn’t be appropriate to spring for a 1er Cru.

With 85-87pts, I hate the fact that the Paul Pillot 2020 Bourgogne gets passed over by collectors who otherwise count themselves as wine drinkers and wine lovers. I’ll even pull a bottle from my own cellar to drink with you and show you why. I think we need to lead a charge to reclaim sub-90/100 scores as legitimate for certain wines. Sure, I’d probably swerve a 91/100 1^st growth, at a 1^st growth price, but a village Chablis with 87-89pts? As long as the price is not pretending it’s Montee de Tonnerre, it’s from a decent grower, and I can make it cold enough; chances are it’ll be delicious with some oysters! From the right grower and vintage, it may even develop into something more complex and serious given a year or two.

I’m sure there is no easy answer to all this. A lot of it comes down to the old argument about tasting for yourself and not relying on the numbers which, of course, is rarely possible. There is also an element of perspective, of taking a step back and realising that Chianti Classico, Saint Joseph, Vosne Romanee or Barolo normale from good estates can be extremely rewarding to drink and cellar, even if they’re not going to hit the heights of triple-digit scores.

I’ll leave you with this: Neal Martin’s review of Domaine Bachelet-Monnot’s 2023 Bourgogne Blanc concludes, “this is a classy Bourgogne Cote d’Or.” The score? 86-88pts. Critics have long encouraged their readers to concentrate on their notes more than the scores (which is why I always put the score at the end, after the tasting note); the wine lover who buys this as a classy generic white Burg will be laughing all the way to their recycling bin; the person who skips the wine based on an uninspiring score will simply miss out.