David is right in principle and what he says is certainly true at the heart of it but I do think that there is a fair and rational purpose to scoring wine.
I wax poetically all the time about wine and my greatest experiences with it is to sit down with a single bottle over multiple hours and watch it develop in the glass. That said, just because we can’t communicate the perfect representation of the ideal wine experience doesn’t mean that we should treat it as a constraint (rejecting anything that doesn’t achieve this ideal).
The point method is a rational framework that has some use even if it’s fundamentally flawed towards achieving this “ideal” wine experience. There is a certain absurdity to it of course which makes it an easy target, but I think this belies it’s usefulness in multiple ways.
I think the biggest problem is that while points are a universal measure, styles, vintages, varieties are not. Trying to compare a 92 point 2010 Burgundy from Chambolle Musigny doesn’t really mean much compared to a 92 point 2007 Syrah from Santa Barbara. Nevermind winemaker style or vineyard specific characteristics (terroir). This so many elements to really compare it seems futile and there is our “absurdity”.
However, what about comparing an identical variety, made in the identical vintage, from the same region? Is it useful to give a 2010 Chambolle Musigny 92 points and another 88 points? Even if it doesn’t communicate the soul of the wine perhaps it does communicate some level of quality of craftsmanship and vineyard quality.
Now consider that we are dealing with tasters of different experience levels. I can discuss the minute distinctions in aromas with one taster along with the composition of the density, texture, acidity and structure. But with another taster who is still developing their palate? How do I communicate quality to someone who is just getting started? A 92 point wine compared to an 88 points wine makes a great deal of sense for someone who is looking for a quality Chambolle Musigny but doesn’t have the ability to communicate yet in a more analytical (and romantic) nature.
While wine is a totally intimate and personal experience, it also one that is generally better shared. Trying to communicate that in different ways doesn’t betray the romantic and personal element of wine. How you relate to wine and any particularly bottle is undoubtedly yours and that will never change. How you relate to others in order to communicate that idea can look any number of ways. Sometimes a few notes and a 92(+?) type score can at least give someone a snap-shot about how you felt about it. As long as it’s somewhat faithful to your experience, it’s useful - if we sacrifice communication because we can’t relate “perfectly” then it remains a singular experience that can never be shared.
My fear with just about any specialization or intense study is that as we begin to create distinctions we also create barriers. Being able to communicate is an absolutely critical part of wine but also the human experience and human wisdom. There’s a practical element to communication even if we find it difficult to express. While it shouldn’t be banal like a few stand alone points or “two-thumbs” up, it can use a few of these things in order to create a meaningful idea that others can relate to.
). For me, no star means anything from “bad” to “meh,” ie don’t bother with this again. One star is “reasonably good, worth drinking again, but don’t go out of your way,” two stars “very good, worth getting more” and three stars is “exceptional.” This way there is no maximum score–someday I may rate a wine four stars (or even five but I doubt it). Out of 1100 TNs I have 430 with one star, 160 with two stars, and 19 with three stars (yes I know giving stats proves that I’m obsessed with numbers–well what can you expect from a scientist 
).![[highfive.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/d/db21b9263a9105e51f6f8b11e61dd4de095611f9.gif "highfive"){kind=small}