What do the points mean?

A question I am receiving more and more is “what do the points mean?”, the question refers to a number, usually between 90 and 100, on a price ticket or affixed to a bottle in a gold sticker.

For many wine buyers this number means everything, it will be the sole factor in determining whether they buy the wine, or when deciding between two different wines.

It is clear that many new wine consumers or casual wine buyers who have never taken much notice are a little confused as to what the points indicate.

In a perfect world the number will be on one of two scales; one being a score out of 100 and the other out of 20. The 20-point scale is less commonly used nowadays and is more commonly used by critics who grew up when English critics and writers were the driving force or are grounded in the wine show circuit.

The 100-point scale is the scale you will see more commonly, popularised by the rise of influential critic Robert Parker, and locally James Halliday. The scale doesn’t make use of the full 100 points, it effectively begins around 75 (although you will almost never see a score this low printed) and runs through to a perfect 100 points.

Logically, as you move up the scale, the wine quality should improve as shown by the scale to the right. Below 86 points will be wines that are sound and drinkable through to slightly faulty.

Between 86 to 89 points will be wines of good character, typically for early/immediate drinking and worthy of a Bronze medal.

From the low 90s to 94 are wines of silver medal quality which show high quality, typical of their style and character that may reward some cellaring.

Finally, above 95 is a gold medal standard that are outstanding examples of their style. This is the scale that critics and many wine shows base themselves in, a clear delineation between quality levels.

Reality is a little different though and while scale is used widely, its implementation varies. I’m sure many of you would probably put a bottle back on the shelf if it had a score below 90 and increasingly so if it is below the mid-90s. After decades of implementing this system, how does a critic indicate that a wine they are assessing is a step up in quality from the prior vintage. If the last year was worthy of 90 points, and this year is better, then it must be worthy of 91 points, continue this over several years and we get a bad case of “point creep” where the base level of scores continually rises. Is a $15 Shiraz that is flavoursome, shows some character and is perfect for mid-week or pizza night drinking really worthy of a gold medal score? And if so, what does that say about the $60 wine that will develop complexity with time in the cellar, is an excellent benchmark for its style, variety and region that also scores 95 points, which is the better wine?

This is where another level of complication comes in; scores are often relative. The $15 wine that scores 95 points may receive that score because in the critic’s eyes it is of exceptional quality given its attributes, ie. for its price level it offers a lot more quality than the majority of its peers. Another critic may never score such a wine above 90 points because it simply doesn’t offer more than great flavour, some character and good everyday drinking.

Hence the cases of “This $20 wine is better than Grange because it received 1 more point”.