Wine Rating Scale

I am so tired of the numeric wine-rating scale popularized by Robert Parker. It is meaningless, every bottle wants to be 89-93. Some ideas for improvement.

Overall

That would be the Robert Parker-style score. But even in this category, we need to re-calibrate. 100 points is way too many. 20 would probably suffice. 

1: Actively disagreeable.

• 2: Utterly bland and uninteresting. Someone who is utterly indifferent to wine and in the mood for an alcoholic beverage might drink it, but for anyone with even a modicum of wind appreciation, not worth the calories.
• 3: Would drink as a last choice if in the mood to drink wine and no alternative.
• 4-15: Relative ratings for wines most people are likely to drink--max price $50/bottle.
• 16-20: for the elite.

As an Exemplar of Its Category

Assuming the wine fits a well-established category (e.g., New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc), how well does it express the qualities expected of the category? Sort of like how a dog show judges an animal's features not in the absolute, but relative to its breed.

Under the Right Circumstances

Most likely factor to influence this would be food pairing. E.g., this wine is generally rough, but with really spice food, it holds up. This category is a bit loose, if not careful, it could be an excuse for grade-inflation.

Value

Graded on the curve of price.