I think both you and Randy are missing the point. Rating ystems make sense when judging how wines (or dogs or quilts or pies) have established standards that are well understood. The American Kennel Club publishes a bible with 3-5 pages delineating the expectation for show dogs of 169 breeds. A Schnauzer is supposed to be 23-25 inches at the whithers with a wiry coat and a prancing gait. There is nothing subjective about these ratings.
At present, this applies only to regionally appellated European wines and also very much to Australian wine judging. We all know the difference between Chenin Blanc from Vouvray and Savennieres, or between Cab Franc from Chinon and Graves, and would never consider judging them in lumped varietal categories.
When Parker or the Spectator assigns ratings to California wines, his ratings are indeed personal preference, because styles vary widely. Like a movie critic, he refers only to his own preferences and is saying, in effect, "good doggie!" If judges rated dogs the way they rate American wines, the owners would murder them in their beds, and rightly so.
What can and should be done is to rate wines according to the style consistency of the producer, in which case Chateau Montelena, Burgess or Mayacamas can do well precisely because they dependably do not appeal to the Parker aesthetic, Lord be praised! This will be important in the case of Burgess because it has just been sold and it is hoped that they will adhere to their historical style.
Of course, this notion violates the blind judging standard we have established for most American judging. IMHO, blind judging reduces judges to employing a conventional grocery store expectation to a given varietal category which may have hundreds of entrants. The effect is to exclude most of the wines with distinctive regional typicity and 100% of the interesting wines.
When Robert Parker assigned a high rating to a California red, I came to understand, over time, that it was likely a wine I personally wouldn't enjoy. This is not a criticism of Mr. Parker's taste. Taste is subjective. With time, ratings enable us to develop a helpful guideline, a more objective understanding of an individual editor/writer's palate and preferences.
I think both you and Randy are missing the point. Rating ystems make sense when judging how wines (or dogs or quilts or pies) have established standards that are well understood. The American Kennel Club publishes a bible with 3-5 pages delineating the expectation for show dogs of 169 breeds. A Schnauzer is supposed to be 23-25 inches at the whithers with a wiry coat and a prancing gait. There is nothing subjective about these ratings.
At present, this applies only to regionally appellated European wines and also very much to Australian wine judging. We all know the difference between Chenin Blanc from Vouvray and Savennieres, or between Cab Franc from Chinon and Graves, and would never consider judging them in lumped varietal categories.
When Parker or the Spectator assigns ratings to California wines, his ratings are indeed personal preference, because styles vary widely. Like a movie critic, he refers only to his own preferences and is saying, in effect, "good doggie!" If judges rated dogs the way they rate American wines, the owners would murder them in their beds, and rightly so.
What can and should be done is to rate wines according to the style consistency of the producer, in which case Chateau Montelena, Burgess or Mayacamas can do well precisely because they dependably do not appeal to the Parker aesthetic, Lord be praised! This will be important in the case of Burgess because it has just been sold and it is hoped that they will adhere to their historical style.
Of course, this notion violates the blind judging standard we have established for most American judging. IMHO, blind judging reduces judges to employing a conventional grocery store expectation to a given varietal category which may have hundreds of entrants. The effect is to exclude most of the wines with distinctive regional typicity and 100% of the interesting wines.
When Robert Parker assigned a high rating to a California red, I came to understand, over time, that it was likely a wine I personally wouldn't enjoy. This is not a criticism of Mr. Parker's taste. Taste is subjective. With time, ratings enable us to develop a helpful guideline, a more objective understanding of an individual editor/writer's palate and preferences.