The History and Issues of Parker Wine Scoring

I have a short quiz for you about the Robert Parker 100-point wine rating scale, which many wineries, companies, and people hold in high regard.  Here are the questions:

 

You would like to buy a bottle of Riesling.  In the store, side by side, one wine has a sticker showing 89 points, and the bottle beside it with a sticker showing 90 points.  You read the bottle notes on the back label and both Riesling wines seem okay to buy.  

Many people may not have thought about the 100-point scale too deeply, but when you get questions, such as I have outlined, you can see that there are difficulties with this scale.  Where did this 100-point scale come from?  Let me give you some background.

The 100-point scoring system was introduced in the late 1970s by Robert Parker, a former lawyer who transitioned into wine writing with a strong desire to change how wine was evaluated. His motivation came from frustration with the lack of clarity and consistency in traditional wine criticism at the time, where many reviewers were closely connected to producers, creating potential conflicts of interest and a lack of independence in scoring. The aim was to establish a more straightforward, consumer-friendly framework that would help buyers quickly understand quality levels without needing deep industry knowledge, offering a more transparent and accessible way to compare wines across regions and styles.

 

The 100-point system took shape through collaboration between Robert Parker and his friend Victor Morgenroth, who helped refine the original concept into a usable scoring framework. It made its public debut in the inaugural issue of The Wine Advocate in 1978, marking a turning point in modern wine criticism. Unlike the traditional 20-point systems used by many European critics, Parker’s approach expanded the scale to range between 50 to 100 points, a structure he argued provided greater nuance and allowed for more precise differentiation between wines that might otherwise be clustered together under broader scoring bands.

Score Range	Meaning
96–100	Extraordinary wine with profound character and complexity
90–95	Outstanding wine with exceptional traits
80–89	Above average to very good; shows finesse and flavour
70–79	Average; soundly made but lacking distinction
60–69	Below average; noticeable flaws like excessive acidity or off aromas
50–59	Unacceptable; seriously flawed

 

Further refinements:

The scoring starts at 50 points, which every wine receives automatically for simply being a wine. The remaining 50 points are awarded based on the following criteria:

 

Category	Points Available	Description
Colour & Appearance	Up to 5	Evaluates clarity, depth, and hue of the wine
Aroma & Bouquet	Up to 15	Assesses the complexity, intensity, and appeal of the wine’s nose
Flavour & Finish	Up to 20	Judges taste, balance, mouthfeel, and how long the flavours linger
Overall Quality	Up to 10	Reflects the wine’s aging potential, harmony, and overall impression

 

So, for example, a wine that scores 92 points might have earned the following:

Some wines may not be made for aging, but be exceptional in every other way, so would they ever reach 100 points?

 

Many reviewers use the 100-point scale, but how many know how the wine is scored?  Do they know about these four different categories and mark down values for each to come up with a score, or do they just taste the wine and say “92 points”?  I would guess that the latter holds for many wine reviewers.  I suggest that you check the website of the reviewers that you follow and see if they specifically outline how they grade wines.  If the website does not have any information on their grading system, send a query to the website to outline their methodology.  This can only help to make wine rating more transparent.

Critics have long argued that Robert Parker’s preferences, particularly his appreciation for bold, fruit-driven wines, have had a noticeable influence on how wines are made around the world. Even so, the 100-point scoring system continues to stand as one of the most powerful forces in wine marketing and buying decisions. With that influence in mind, it is worth taking a closer look at how some producers have attempted to “work within” or even “work around” the system over the years.

 

Why game the system?  A high Parker score can:

From what I’ve read, these are the tactics that have been used to game the Parker Rating System.

One of the most common ways wineries tried to influence scores was through style manipulation, often referred to as “Parkerization.” Producers crafted wines to align with the preferences of influential critic Robert Parker, favouring deeply coloured reds with ripe fruit, elevated alcohol, concentrated flavours, and generous oak aging. The ripple effect was felt across regions such as Bordeaux, Napa Valley, and the Rhône Valley, where many wines began to taste more alike than different. Critics of this trend argued that regional character, elegance, and terroir expression were often sacrificed in pursuit of higher scores.

Another tactic involved optimizing barrel samples before critics tasted them. Since many reviews were conducted while wines were still aging in barrel, wineries occasionally presented samples that were not fully representative of the final bottled blend. A polished and concentrated barrel sample could attract an impressive preliminary score, generating excitement among importers, collectors, and consumers long before the wine reached the market. 

Score shopping also became a common marketing strategy. Rather than relying on a single critic’s opinion, wineries submitted their wines to multiple reviewers and publications. When the scores came back, only the most flattering number was highlighted in advertisements, shelf talkers, and bottle tags. If one publication awarded a wine 88 points while another offered 94, consumers could safely assume which score would dominate the promotional material.

Reviewer targeting added another layer to the relationship between wineries and critics. Some producers invited select reviewers to exclusive tastings, private dinners, or luxury winery visits in hopes of building goodwill and increasing the likelihood of positive coverage. While these interactions rarely crossed into outright bribery, they occupied an ethical gray zone where hospitality and access could subtly influence perception and judgement.

Scarcity and hype were also powerful tools in the scoring game. Limited production wines, especially those carrying very high ratings, were often marketed as rare treasures destined to disappear quickly from the marketplace. A wine described as “only 300 cases produced” alongside a glowing 98-point review could ignite a buying frenzy almost overnight. The perception of rarity, combined with elite scores, frequently drove prices upward and created waiting lists among collectors eager to secure an allocation.

Over time, the wine world began to move beyond the dominance of a single influential palate. Alternative voices, including wine bloggers, sommeliers, independent writers, and community-driven platforms such as CellarTracker, helped broaden the conversation around wine appreciation and challenged the idea that one critic’s score should define a wine’s value. At the same time, a new generation of wine drinkers started gravitating toward authenticity, regional character, freshness, and balance rather than heavily extracted, high-octane styles designed to impress with sheer power. This evolution has also encouraged greater transparency within wine criticism itself, with many reviewers now openly discussing tasting conditions, sample provenance, and the potential for personal bias when evaluating wines.

 

With MyWinePal.com, we use a 5-star ratio scaling system, that we feel is easier to understand by most people and is mathematically valid when comparing rating values.  You can read about MyWinePal’s rating system here.