Scores of 90-plus don’t all equate to really outstanding wine
IT’S NOT OFTEN that you see wine estates trumpeting about a silver medal, yet the sound of popping corks can get pretty pretty loud when a respected critic or tasting panel awards a score in the 90s – regardless of whether or not it warrants a gold medal, let alone double gold or platinum. It’s amazing how the mind works: 90 out of 100 seems better than 15 out of 20 or 3 Stars, say. But surely anything in the 90s must be the same as or much better than gold? In fact, 90 to 92 usually equates to a ‘low’ silver, 93 to 94 a ‘high’ silver – 95/100 usually the minimum reflected by a gold medal, with a platinum award or trophy typically implying something higher.
In other words, a wine reviewed as 90+ might be regarded as excellent, but normally only 95 or 96 translates as outstanding and it takes even more to be verbalised as extraordinary or profound, say. Perhaps 98 is at heaven’s gate, 100 in the Garden of Eden… Where things can get tricky is agreeing on a definition for double gold: twice as good as gold, you’d think, but not necessarily – 93 is all it takes to win a double gold medal at the Veritas Awards, for example. Mmm.
Regarding Scores of 90-plus: Yep. And R99.95 is much cheaper than R100.
Never liked the 100 point scoring system. Too many anomalies, as you point out so succinctly.