What percentage of wines do you feel deserve 100pts?
I realized recently that I have never given a wine 98+. To be fair, I have only rated about 1100 wines, but those were mostly carefully selected wines as well.
Also, if you rate wines, how often do you give 98, 99 or 100?
Even though these a numerical, point by point, it should be logarithmic, similar to the Richter scale. So the number of 100 point wines should be the rarity.
I have never given a wine over 92 points.
I think of a 98+ as an awe-inspiring, almost life-changing experience that stays with you for years if not your whole life. Thatâs happened twice for me so far, giving a 98 to an â81 Tondonia GR blanco and a â70 Mouton. Itâs possible I have had technically better wines but without the setting I havenât put them in that category. Still waiting for the kneel before your maker 100 moment 
I am probably a contrarian here but I look at it differently in the sense that I do not feel bound by a fixed % or number. When a wine is delicious (based on my subjective view) I tend to be more generous when I believe it hits all the right spots for what I think it should be. In ~1200 notes, < 50 were 98+ (~4%), only five wines got the magic triple digits. To be honest, I wish I had more 100s (donât we all). I went professional in something other than being wine critic so take my numerical generosity with a grain of salt.
wow. that is a pretty critical scale. Any thoughts behind it?
I feel like nothing should be given a full 100 upon release unless it is life changing at that moment. Almost every 100 rated wine is rated on potential alone, and that allows for imagination, hope, and bias to cloud the reviewerâs judgement. I wish people adopted a 98+ instead of 98-100 format so stores wouldnât post them as 100 point wines.
Iâve never had anything close to what I consider a perfect wine, just perfect moments with wine. I believe they are out there for my taste, but certainly not in the quantity presented by most review sites (probably havenât rated a wine much higher than 95, but I donât have a crazy number of reviews). Review sites should only allow 100 point scores when the wine is reviewed in the drinking window they recommend, and there should only be a handful of them per reviewer per year. A reviewer should only rate something 100 if they would Random-Number-Generator-select that wine vs. every other 100 pointer theyâve ever tried or are resetting their new standard.
ButâŚwouldnât it be great if lots of wines were 100pts? I mean, Iâm kind of over the whole 100 pt scale thing regardless, but if #'s matter to you - why not drink that well nightly, why not have oodles of 100pt wines available to everyone, not just the very wealthy? Elitism?
Can I say rare enough to be extinct? 
I wouldnât say numbers matter. They are just some proxy used to solidify a past experience in memory for me. I rate wines often, but I generally dont share the ratings with others. Occasionally memory fails us so when I look back at a wine that I gave a 93 2 years ago and have somewhat forgotten about I might think âcrap, was that wine really that good? Should go back and have another or buy some more?â
It is so hard for me to explain what a number score means but anything over 90 is excellent. When I drink wine I am usually with family and friends and that affects how the wine âtastesâ because of the uplifting mood and atmosphere. That seems to add more points to a wine and I try to be more ârealâ about it which causes me to be more critical. Hope I am making sense. Sorry, I am outside and Im trying to respond while trying not to get distracted.
The very first time Iâve ever seen a reasonable justification for Sucklingâs place in our hobby 
I honestly couldnât care less. 100 points doesnât mean anything concrete or specific or applicable to everyoneâs palate, and it stiil wouldnât if it happened even less frequently. I take 100 pts to mean an individual thought the wine was not just great, but unusually special, better even than many other great wines. Thatâs as meaningful as I need it to be.
Iâm still a fan of the Zanotti binary rating system. 0 not worth drinking, 1 worth drinking.
I use the Leibniz binary rating system, but yes.
I canât imagine scoring a wine as perfect with such limited experience - I cap out at 97. Thereâs a couple that might have been 98 or 99, but I think you need a lot of experience to determine what perfect means. I also donât think there should be a limit to how many perfect wines are reviewer calls. If a wine is perfect, itâs perfect. This isnât a bell curve. That said, I feel like itâs got to be pretty limited. So many factors have to fall into place to make something perfect.
Iâd like to note I enjoy the 4 point scale that Tim Heaton uses (and keep meaning to start employing it):
Very Highly Recommended
Highly Recommended
Recommended
Not Recommended/Not Interesting
With +s thrown in there for something that stands out at that level.
I agree. Iâm not talking about someone elseâs 100 points but when you yourself consider a wine to be 100 pts. That is of course if you ever rate wines or think of this at all.
Very well said and totally makes absolute sense. Harmony as we speak!
