Everyone uses the ratings, but I think wine ratings based on the 100 point scale are so stupid it borders on ridiculous. Here’s why:

Is a 90 point wine that costs under $10, the same as a 90 point wine that costs $300? Of course not, but they both exist. I just pulled this off the “Wine Spectator” website: Columbia Crest Shiraz Columbia Valley Two Vines 2001, 90 points, $8. Or another 90 point wine you could buy is the Tenuta dell'Ornellaia Toscana Masseto 2000, 90 points. $300. They both got 90 points. That’s what makes the ratings so stupid. It doesn’t make any sense.

The variance of a rating from one tasting to another of the same wine can be 5-10 points. A wine is tasted one day and given 93 points, and the next week the wine could get a score of 88 from the same taster. Most wines are rated between 91 and 86. Since a wine can easily vary 5 points, depending on when it is tasted, all the wines essentially are the same. Why even have numerical ratings in the first place?

That's why I rate wines using my own scale...based on value. A $6 bottle of wine will be judged differently than a $50 bottle. One would expect much more from a bottle that costs $50 bottle. To me, it’s all about what the wine delivers compared to its price. This is my scale:

A = The wine is a great value and a great wine. A must buy!

B = The wine is better than what you would expect to pay for it and worth seeking it out

C = The wine tastes about what you’d expect for the price.

D = The wine is good but not worth the price

F = The wine is no good and/or not at all worth the money

I will add a “Y” to the score if the wine is too young. For instance, you can taste a wine that isn’t tasting up to its expected potential so it would be unfair to score it a “D” or a “F” when the wine may turn into a “A” or “B” given some aging. In those situations that I believe the wine will get significantly better with time, I’ll add a “Y” to the score.