As an epilogue to my thoughts on Robert Parker and the subjectivity of his ratings system, check out Rockss and Fruit's blog post rating various popular culture icons using Parker's 100-point system. Paris Hilton gets a 50, just for being human. I'm not sure I would give her even that much credit. It just goes to show that there is no accounting for taste.

In fact, using the 100-point wine Parker scale for the rating of public figures is a good example of how its subjectivity can be a problem when it is abused in a real consumer setting. The scale appears to help consumers wary of purchasing an inferior product by allowing for a simplistic comparison of scores awarded by a minute group of "experts." Though with little accompanying material to explain the rationale behind the score, who is to say that their personal rating system aligns with my own? This system loses a great deal of cache when used to grade such multi-faceted objects such as celebrities or wine. There is no such score in similarly subjective industries. When, for example, was the last time you went out and bought a 91-point pair of jeans? Maybe, given your height or body type, the 91-point pair makes your ass look big? Maybe the 87-point pair would have been better for your ass.

The issue is much more murky when the expert point value largely determines how the product is constructed or the price you pay. Imagine, if you will, going to the movies and paying $12.00 for a film that received Ebert and Roeper's two thumbs up, but $7.00 for one they rated thumbs down? Yet this is exactly what has happened in the wine industry: winemakers make wines that appeal to Robert Parker because consumers are more apt to buy wines that Parker rates highly. It is the opposite of democratization of wine.