Who invented wine’s 100-point scale?
We quite often talk about the 100-point scale and its impact on wine, but is it correct to say that Robert Parker “invented” it? He certainly popularized the approach and it has come to be large part of his legacy as other magazines shifted to the numerical system.
In “The Emperor of Wine,” Elin McCoy writes that Parker and his friend Victor Morgenroth tried various systems of rating and evaluating wines in their (blind) tasting group in the mid-seventies. They tried letter grades from A to F as well as the UC Davis 20-point scale, which had already brought numerical ratings to wine with the gravitas of an institution. McCoy continues that “one of the men–Parker isn’t sure who–came up with the 100-point idea, which was really a 50-to-100 point scale…” (For international readers, the scale follows the system that we have in American schooling for most tests.) McCoy says that Parker and Morgenroth thought that the system was “much less likely to result in the inflated wine ratings they saw all around them.” Ironically, score inflation is the most likely threat to the 100-point system today.
Back on a thread in 2009, a commenter flagged Dan Murphy, an Australian, as pioneering a 100 point system. The retailer that bears his name today describes Murphy’s 100-point system as predating Parker’s use. Another commenter on the thread, Claude Kolm, relayed that in Maynard Amerine and Maynard Joslyn’s Table Wines (1970 edition) they discuss various scoring systems including a 50-point, 100-point and even a 200-point system.
Just for laffs, here are a few tasting notes and scores from one of first issues of the Wine Advocate: “a terrible wine…very thin and acidic with a dull, dumb bouquet and taste. A poorly made wine that should be avoided” (55 points). And another one: “atrocious wine devoid of any redeeming social value” (50 points). Care to guess which they were?
On February 14th, 2012 at 4:13 pm ,Jean-Luc wrote:
I’d bet the first one is a Burgundy
On February 14th, 2012 at 4:27 pm ,Christina wrote:
The latter is a Leoville-Poyferé, according to my Google search.
On February 14th, 2012 at 5:59 pm ,gabe wrote:
they don’t rate ‘em like they used to
On February 14th, 2012 at 7:38 pm ,jbh wrote:
the photo made my day.
On February 15th, 2012 at 8:00 am ,Terroirist » Daily Wine News: Embracing Gigondas wrote:
[...] Vino explores the history of the 100-point [...]
On February 15th, 2012 at 12:39 pm ,Spartacus wrote:
No, *I* invented the 100 point scale!
On February 16th, 2012 at 2:36 pm ,Dr. Vino wrote:
Jean-Luc: that’s what you’d expect today!
Christine has got the second one, the 1973 Leoville-Poyferre. The first one is the Chateau Margaux, also 1973.
Gabe – That is certainly true.
jbh –
On February 17th, 2012 at 1:25 pm ,Wine Cellar Roundup – Episode #80 wrote:
[...] invented the 100 point system? I particular like it but Dr Vino gives a quick [...]
On February 20th, 2012 at 3:55 pm ,Michael Peel wrote:
I’m at a complete loss and always have been to understand why it starts at 50. If a wine is awful 1 point is perfectly legitimate. I could understand it if they only ever wrote about wines that achieved 50 or more, which is how I would write a food guide.
Furthermore, the rush to give wines a 100 points is utterly crazy, in my opinion, and dumbs down the whole thing. In my entire life I have only drunk one wine I’d give 100 points to – 1945 Ch Mouton Rothschild and I have drunk quite a few.
On February 20th, 2012 at 4:01 pm ,Anthony Rose wrote:
It’s not the scale but the authority (or lack of it) behind it that counts.
On February 21st, 2012 at 1:50 pm ,Tai-Ran Niew wrote:
@AnthonyRose *thumbs up*
On September 20th, 2012 at 4:37 pm ,luse gaddy wrote:
BULL CRAP!!! GOD MADE WINE!!!
On November 8th, 2012 at 10:24 am ,Vermont Wine Media » $4.99 and it’s GOOD! wrote:
[...] 84 = Good: a solid, well-made wine. If only wines got extra credit, for quality to price ratio, within the 100 point system. For what it is worth, we take QPR into account [...]