The high points debate

The issue of points inflation is certainly gaining momentum, as the points-master James Halliday published his 2017 guide. (There is also an inflation of publishing guide books early). Huon Hooke, the well respected Sydney Morning Herald wine writer, has been critical on Radio National, calling the 100 point scale increasingly useless. There is certainly a virtual circle of scoring high. It ensures you are quoted on the winery's website and get bottles submitted next year. The wineries obviously like it and the quoting enhances the reviewer's brand. James Halliday defends by saying while his scores are high, there is internal integrity to the system and Australian wine has improved. But what is the point of a system that essentially ranks wines without fault between 94 and 98 points? The comment of 'don't look at the points, read the notes' is lame, as everybody looks at the points. Overseas reviewers have been puzzled by this high scoring, and there is a risk that Australia is not taken serious as a result of it.

Independence is important. I do not rely on samples, although I do not reject them. I do not rely on being quoted, as this blog persues no commercial interest.

Any thoughts and comments?