Maybe I'm weird, but...

[Machforce1]

You bring up an interesting point. I must say that I totally agree with you. For the most part, I am ignorant in my knowledge of wines. I have studies the subject continuously over the past few months, but I'm only scratching the surface. I relied on these rating systems because I figured that these people knew what they were talking about, whereas I didn't. I figured that if a wine got a mid 90's rating, then for the most part, it had to be good. And I will admit, they are very good, but not much better than a wine with an 85 rating. I have proven this to myself time and time again.

I went to a restaurant the other night and they were actually serving glasses of a 1990 haut brion. I was very excited to try the glass even though it cost around $30 for one glass. I finally got it, smelled it, tasted it and I did like it. But, and this is a big but, I swear to you it wasn't much better than a cheaper, younger bordeaux. The only difference I could taste was that the wine's tannins were much softer and the wine had a much more fruity finish. That's it. Whereas the younger bordeaux have stronger tannins and a less fruity finish, the aging of the wine seems to soften the tannins and the acidity. After trying many so called "fine" or expensive wines, these are the only two differences I can tell between a $100 bottle and a $12 bottle. For me, it's just not worth spending that much on a bottle of wine for softer tannins or a more fruity wine. The subtle differences, to me, just aren't worth the 5 fold increase in price.

Now, I know nothing of the politics of these rating systems. Like everything else in life, I'm sure somebody benefits from these ratings. I'm sure that guru Parker is paid quite handsomely for pumping a certain wine since he has that type of influence. It's no different on Wall Street where influential people such as Abbey Joseph Cohen are paid millions of dollars to pump the stock of a certain company whether it be a good investment or not. That's just how the world works unfortunately. Myself, I'd like to stear clear of that type of stuff and just stick with what I like, no matter if Parker says it's garbage or it's great. I know somebody will bristle up when I say this, but judging from my experiences so far, I doubt very seriously that a 1990 Chateau Mouton Rothschild is that much better than a much cheaper second or third growth. That's just my guess though. [img]http://www.wines.com/ubb2/smile.gif[/img]