(Wine-Searcher) - If wine critics can't agree, then what is the point of wine scores? asks Oliver Styles.

I have never been a huge fan of giving points to wines, even though I do it on a very regular basis.

It's a staple of any group tasting, but it seems inherently ridiculous to reduce to a number something that combines far too many facets of the olfactory and gustatory experience. Even subjectively, how do you begin to weigh up the gorgeous color of the rim against the slightly volatile aroma against angular tannin against the juicy fruit against the spiky alcohol? Or the faint hint of microbial corruption against the length of flavor against the price against the rest of the wines from that region or from that producer? Against the beauty of that summer's afternoon, against the personal memories it brings up, against the clock ticking down because, unless you get 50 wines tasted this morning, your report isn't going to be in on time?

How does one arrive at a number? While I can understand that many people might see it as the pinning of the rosette on the bottle, for me it is more a case of pinning the tail on the donkey.

Even for those who want to read about wines, I remain unconvinced that numbers are of any use. Look at Wine Advocate scores and all anyone talks about is 95-100 pointers or the shock-horror low scorers. The thought of a 99-point wine alone is absurd. But let's be honest: we only want the crème-de-la-crop. Jamie Goode wrote a great piece touching on this earlier this month in which he looked at this very issue: too many 100-point wines. Goode wonders if the 100-point scale can be saved. I hope not.