Wine Ratings

How do I extrapolate wine ratings? Is any 95 point wine better than any 89 point wine?

Say Robert Parker rates a 1994 Chateau Margaux at 89 points (ballpark, just an example) and a 2006 BlaBla Cabernet at 95 points. Does it mean that in a direct comparison the BlaBla will perform better? Or do ratings only apply to the same vintage and region, say, the 89-point 1999 Pauillac is worse than a 95-point 1999 Pauillac, but can not be directly compared to an 89-point 2000 Margaux?...

Public Comments

1. 89 yes
2. Honestly, the ratings are based on taste and a relative scale based on flavor, mouthfeel, and the opinion of the taster. They're compared to others of that varietal, but it's still relatively subjective. A 95 point cabernet is scored among cabs, and so on. If you don't like zinfandel, then you're not going to like a 98 point zin as much as, say, a 85 point cab...if you're particularly partial to cabs. Even more confusing...what one person would rate 90+, another (or even you) might like it less than another rated in the low 80s...it all boils down to drinking what you LIKE. Ratings are just a relative starting point. If you like the 89 better than the 95, then no, the 95 isn't better...and vice versa. Confused yet?
3. Robert Parker is a big fan of those heavy fruit bombs so he is always biased towards them giving them higher points than compared to more elegant wines. Not to say the wines he favors dont deserve those higher ratings. But another problem is wines often only get rated once when they are released, very rarely do they go back and re-try the wines and rate them again. So a wine that might get a 98 when first released could deteriorate over the years or what might get rated as an 83 could evolve into something extraordinary.