Ratings system.

It is time to explain my ratings. First, I decided to use a five-star rating system to help me keep track of wines that I really enjoyed – but it is purely arbitrary and will depend on whatever my whims are on a given day. I am also using a five-star system instead of a 100-point system because I think the 100-point system is misleading – I would applaud anyone who can tell the difference between 90, 91 and 92 point wines. Instead, I prefer smaller groupings, which I think the five-star system (with half-star increments) allows.

Second, a wine's rating will be based on three factors: (1) quality; (2) aging potential and (3) value. In particular, I emphasize quality and value – if a wine is strong in both of those factors, that may account for up to a 1-star adjustment (where an adjustment occurs due to quality and value, I will note so in the description). Further, while a wine's aging potential is important, that is a relatively minor factor for most consumers. Thus, a wine's aging potential – while important – will account for at most an extra half-star.

With that explained, it should be obvious that I would avoid a 1-star wine – for the record, I've only ever had one wine that would warrant a 1-star (though that was probably corked). A three-star wine should be average –either of average quality and price, or good quality but excessive price. I strongly doubt that I will ever identify a five-star wine – such a rating would require a wine to be fantastic in quality, have excellent aging potential and be a great value. I'd love to find a wine that meets those standards – however, the secondary market has probably foreclosed such a thing from happening for the foreseeable future.