One of the questions I am asked most often is surprisingly simple.
“If the critics are all tasting the same wine, why don’t they give it the same score?”
It seems like a fair question. After all, the bottle hasn’t changed.
The answer is that wine criticism is far less objective than many people assume. Professional critics work to consistent standards, but they are still evaluating something that is influenced by timing, context, personal preference and individual interpretation.
That doesn’t mean the scores are unreliable. It means they need to be understood in context.
A wine is never completely static
Wine changes continuously
A bottle opened today may show differently from one opened three months later. Young wines can close down, mature wines can become more expressive, and even conditions during transport and storage can influence what ends up in the glass.
Two respected critics may taste exactly the same vintage at different points in its development. Neither is wrong. They are simply reporting what they experienced at that particular time.
Tasting conditions matter
Professional critics do not all taste under identical conditions.
Some assess wines at formal tastings alongside hundreds of others. Others taste privately from bottles supplied by producers. Some revisit wines several times before publishing a score.
Fatigue also becomes a factor
After tasting fifty or a hundred wines in succession, maintaining absolute consistency becomes increasingly difficult, no matter how experienced the critic may be.
Different critics value different qualities
Every experienced wine critic develops preferences over decades of tasting.
- One may place greater emphasis on elegance and balance.
- Another may reward concentration, power and richness.
- A third may favour wines that promise exceptional ageing potential, even if they are not especially approachable today.
These differences are usually subtle rather than dramatic, but they can easily account for a difference of two or three points.
The scoring system is only part of the story
Many wine buyers focus entirely on the number.
That is understandable, but it is rarely the most useful part of a review.
The written tasting note often tells you far more about whether you are actually likely to enjoy the wine.
- A 93-point wine described as restrained, mineral and savoury may suit your palate perfectly.
- A 96-point wine praised for its richness and opulence may not.
The higher score does not automatically make it the better choice for you.
Consensus is often more valuable than any single opinion
This is one of the reasons I compare critics rather than relying on only one.
When several respected critics consistently rate a wine highly, confidence naturally increases.
When opinions differ significantly, that is equally informative.
It encourages buyers to read beyond the score and understand why those differences exist.
Sometimes a wine divides opinion because it is unconventional.
Sometimes because it is still developing.
Sometimes simply because wine appreciation remains, despite all the expertise involved, a human judgement rather than a mathematical calculation.
The takeaway
Wine criticism should never be treated as a league table where one score automatically proves another wrong.
Different critics bring different experience, different perspectives and different priorities to every tasting.
