Chuck wrote:Just a thought. Is it possible that wines are just getting better compared to decades ago (the whole process from growing making to storage) and JH rates them on a consistent basis and in fact there could be 101 point wines out there ie marginally better than a 100 point wine of say 30 years ago?
There are arguments for this, though history is littered with 'progress' that ends up being a retrograde step to quality, enjoyment and the environment. From trellising to clonal selection, to winemaking techniques, sometimes modernisation has made plenty of wines more enjoyable, and sometimes it's turned out to be the opposite. Fashion is arguably a bigger influence, not least in Australia in recent years, where many are driving towards lower alcohol levels and ditching some of the 'bigger/more intense is better' approaches.
An easier answer lies in the bottle shop 'shelf talkers' emblazoned with a points score and if you're lucky, a snippet of a tasting note. So which score does the bottle shop choose, the one scoring the wine 94 points, or the one scoring it 96 points? Even if the former is a well-regarded critic and that score represents a very high score from them, the bottle shop will use the 96 point score. Next year the 94 point critic moves up to 96 points to try and get more coverage, but the 96 point critic moves up to 98 points to protect their place, and so it goes on. It's how people like James Suckling work the system. The wineries love it, as high scores look good and help demand. The bottle shops like it because those wines shift faster. Even some punters like it, at least when starting to get into wine, and trusting the critics to guide them. Getting a 98 point wine for less than 30 bucks can feel like a victory. In time many realise the folly of letting someone else dictate what they should like.