Eric, I've felt scores were inflated for a long time, though I've wondered more in the downward direction. On a relative, subjective scale, wines that are far lesser products than others get only a few points less. A wine that's a failure in my book might get an 84, while a very successful bottle of ambrosia that doesn't fit current critical standards for style 'only' a ninety. That ninety might be fine if 100 is absolute perfection, but the 84 should probably be a 54 on a more absolute scale. A score in the 70s or lower is the kiss of death at most any price, so the whole scale shifts up. Then, since a wine of that 'quality' has an 84, others that do fall within popular modern style requirements seem to warrant more than 10 points higher, I guess...

I agree 100%. The only thing I would add that might help a bit is (if my memory serves me right) 70 points is basically flawed wine. So even though they call it a 100 point scale, the fact is that it's more like a 30 point scale.

(Someone, please correct me if I'm wrong)

The grade inflation over the past 20 years, and that's what it is, has made the 100 point scale more like a 10 point scale, rather than the 15 point scale it tends to be. Parker doesn't review wines that score under 85pts, or rather doesn't provide tasting notes.

Just as an indication of what has happened with wine scores I've pulled Parker's original wine buyers guide down and let's check out some scores. shall we.
Bordeaux is kind of tricky, not only have serious technological changes taken place, but producer have fundamentally changed their wines and the original buyers guide covers vintages 1981-1984, not exactly prime years but still.

So let's see.

Ch. Poujeaux, they haven't changed much

1981 - 82pts elegant and light, drink now
1982 - 87pts quite excellent, very rich and full bodied
1983 - 86 pts. quite excellent, austere

So let's compare these with a similar trio of vintage

1999 - 88pts charming, soft, velvety
2000 - 88pts serious red, excellent texture and purity
2001 - 89pts excellent concentration, forward and approachable

So not only do we see grade inflation here but there also seems to be a resultant lack of discrimination.

Let's take a look at Boyd Cantenac as well, another property whose wines have remained quite consistent over the years.

1981 - 70pts soft, dilute, vegetal
1982 - 86pts unctuous, fat, fleshy flavors
1983 - 88pts, one of the property's top wines, full blown, spicy, ripe,
1984 - 80pts one dimensional, cleanly made, ready to drink

and now

1999 - 86pts - elegant, sweet, well made
2000 - 89pts finest in decades, full bodied, substantial
2001 - 90pts, finest ever, more depth, texture and persistance
2002 - 90pts considerable richness and intensity

Again scores are both higher and more closely spaced.

I chose those 2 properties in bordeaux since they are properties I am familiar with and have been consuming for the span of time in question.

Let's move on to Barolo for even more fun.

The original buyer's guide included reviews from some pretty killer vintages. The media would have us believe that almost every vintage coming out of Piedmont these days is killer but that's another, not unrelated, story.

Some wines.

1978 Castello di Neive Barbaresco Santo Stefano - 87pts rich full intensity, full bodied

2004 - 93pts beautiful, terrific, poised, delicate and pure


1982 Ceretto Barolo Brunate - 89pts backward, very rich and full
2001 - 91pts gorgeous, dense and structured

1982 Ceretto Barolo Prapo - 89pts excellent
2001 - 92pts, massive, strapping, terrific substance

1982 Clerico Barolo Ginestra - 90pts explosively rich, intense, exceptional concentration, length, and balance
2001 - 95pts dense and structured, exceptional length and substance

1978 Conterno Monfortino - 92pts no real note given
1999 - 98pts breasthtaking

1978 Mascarello Monprivato - 90pts A monumental wine
2004 - 96pts explosive, remarkable, majestic

G Rinaldi Brunate

1978 87pts
1979 78pts bitterly tannic
1980 75pts excessively volatile
1982 88pts

2001 - 93pts, explosive nose, length and elegance
2002 - 85-87pts short on the palate and lacks overall complexity
2003 - 92pts seriously long and powerful, remarkably accessible
2004 - 96+pts truly majestic, superb weight and density, finely-textured yet powerful style

1982 Sandrone barolo - 90pts superstar, explosively rich, chewy, very concentrated, should be stunning
2004 - 98pts breathtaking purity and definition, stunning grace and elegance

Now it can certainly be argued that the older wines were originally woefully underscored by Parker, and realize the recent releases have been reviewed by Antonio Galloni, but the difference in point scoring is significant.

We can certainly continue and many will argue that wines are being made better than ever but the theory behind the 100 point scale has always been that the rating are a numerical rating relative to the peer group. If that was truly so then the wines would tend to remain around their original point scored as the overall level of quality increased.

The fact of the matter is that there has been grade inflation and compression over the years, for whatever reason and that has made point scores less useful, for the moment I'm not getting into the discussion about their utility.

On the bright side I think we have pretty much reached the apex of point inflation, at least until someone goes over to a 110 point scale.

Greg - thats very impressive. I was going to take a more philosophical view, but ultimately, it gets us to the same answer:

Our society only functions because certain things can be expected (Maslow's heirachy of needs). At its most basic level, its expected that if I hold the door open for you, you say thank you. As long as I believe you'll thank me I'll hold the door open for you. If, instead I'm worried that you'll attack me, then I'd not leave myself unguarded. A more realistic case occurred recently when Silicon Valley sent a team of delegates (twitter, google, meetup etc) to Iraq to talk about their websites. In a country where basic needs like food and shelter cannot be taken for granted, social networking was not of much interest.

The life of a critic basically works thus: they review wines, people turn to them for advice on whats good, wineries submit samples in the hope of a favorable review. If a critic published lots of bad reviews, wineries would stop submitting samples, and ultimately readers would stop reading the content.

There's a very clear societal benefit from rating inflation, and a very clear pressure to do this as well. Ultimately, I think the best a critic can ever hope to do, is slow down this inflation, as I dont believe it can effectively be quelled by will alone

Greg - I think discrimination is the issue. The 83 Boyd is 88 points as one of their top wines, but the 00 Boyd is only 89 although one of the finest in decades? And the finest ever is the 01, at 90 points. That's incredibly fine discrimination.

So for fun, let's look at some WS scores for France, Spain, and the US. They are all from different critics, so that's important to keep in mind.

WS scores for a wine that I buy from time to time, Gruaud Larose:
78 - 91pts
83 - 90 pts
96- 90 pts
99 - 90 pts
01 - 92 pts
02 - 92 pts
03 - 92 pts
05 - 91 pts
According to that list, it is a wine you should buy in every vintage because it's never all that much better or worse than the last vintage. I can't put any faith in these scores, and don't.

C.V.N.E. Vina Real is like this:
85 - 91pts
96 - 89pts
99 - 94pts
00 - 94pts
01 - 95pts
02 - 93pts
03 - 94pts
04 - 93pts
06 - 94pts
Different critic(s). Interesting results. Nearly independent of vintage, since nobody would rate the 2002 and 1996 in any way equivalent. I need to taste these side by side again and I recognize that some winemakers put out some pretty good wine in the 2002 vintage, but . . .

In any event, they've stuck with one critic for Spain for the past few years and he's increasingly understanding these wines. Although he seems to have been a little carried away on the 06 too.

And here's Viader. Not as much history because it's a newer winery.
90 - 91pts
92 - 88
93 - 89
94 - 93
95 - 92
97 - 97
99 - 94
00 - 92
01 - 94
02 - 92
Yet a third critic but he's been there for all of these vintages. What's interesting is that his enthusiasm seemed to peak at the 1999 vintage in Napa, after which he became increasingly cranky. He loved the 1997 and then almost uniquely, rated the 1999 at least as good overall, although this particular wine didn't fare as well.

Viader was almost a kind of cult wine in the 90s but now it's less hyped. However, it's got a good shot of cab franc in it and I think that's why it continues to get high points from WS, because his palate has definitely changed. I actually like his rankings these days more than in the past. He has pulled back in general, which I think was not a bad idea.

As far as grade inflation goes, I tended to think that there was some inflation but now, looking at these, I'm not 100% sure about that. I think there's a fifteen point scale for most critics -82 to 97. Very few wines score 100 and very few score much below 82 these days. Partly that's because winemaking really is much better. Competition works.

Also I think it's because wines scoring really low are simply not reported. In the few cases where they are, as in the BV George de la Tour getting a highly publicized 69, it was to make a point and punish them rather than actually rate the wine.

Phillip - I don't know if it's quite as simple as you suggest. For a few reasons.

Critics publish reviews and customers look for the high points as guidance on what to buy. Some people read the low points, but nobody is going to act on those. So the service to the customer is the guidance, which means publishing notes on the better wines. There are many more good wines today than 30 years ago, so with a larger universe, we are likely to see more positive reviews.

I doubt that the critics are going to worry about getting wine. When Parker started, he just bought the wines and many many bloggers do that today, as well as many newspapers, etc. When one becomes prominent, wineries and distributors start sending samples, but it's not necessarily the make-or-break issue for the critic so much as meeting the needs of the readers is.

However, the main and true beneficiary of the scores is the vendor, whether retailer or wholesaler. The most important critic in the US market, bar none, is Robert Parker. I know a few people who love wine but only a few subscribe to his publication, especially now that it's available on the web. Some do of course, but they're a fraction of the wine buying market. However, probably 75 percent of the stores in NYC and probably a much higher percentage, as well as nearly every distributor and importer, subscribes.

Why?

Scores move product. When Joe Average walks into a store, he figures they're trying to sell him something, so when sees 90 points from some third party, he trusts it. Parker reviews a lot of wine and he rules the top end and those shelf-talkers move product. He could probably refuse all freebies and double or triple his price, and he would still keep his circulation in the trade. Meanwhile, most other magazines tend to be more consumer-oriented with livestlye articles and recipes and fewer wines covered. If they stopped receiving wine, they'd likely survive anyhow on the other stuff.

In any event, I don't think there's anything wrong with the 100 point system, nor do I think it's quite as scientific as it may seem. It allows you a finer gradient than say, five stars, while on the other hand I don't think anyone can tell the difference between a 91 and 92 and 93 point wine with any consistency.

Finally, I think there are more people with less knowledge writing about wine these days. People who've been drinking wine for three or four years are blogging about it and giving scores out, people who have decided that they only like this or that type of wine are also blogging about it and giving scores out, people who try maybe a hundred or so wines a year are blogging about it and giving scores out, magazines and newspapers are filling space with articles on wine every once in a while, and so on. I care less about grade inflation from someone who's been in the business for thirty years than I am bothered by some yo-yo who fancies himself or herself an expert and offers useless opinions on subjects unknown.