To this former teacher, the problem is that reviewers are giving far too many "As" (90 points or higher) and high "Bs" (85 to 89). Because the system is so watered down, average scores (75 to 84) mean little to the consumer. The concept of the bell curve, which was thrown out of education about the time I voluntarily left the school system, should be revived and applied to the business of wine critiquing.

There is no doubt that we need to raise the bar when it comes to evaluating wines by number. By raising the standards, we could better distinguish one 90-point wine from another 90-point wine, which would be a boon to consumers.

Raising the bar, however, won't be an easy sell. To most winemakers, a score below 90 points is unappealing and a score in the mid-80s or lower is unacceptable. American winemakers and their foreign peers have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

Defended by those who reap the benefits of high scores, the 100-point system practically has a life of its own. And what about the possibility that reviewers might be awarding too many high scores because they (and their publishers) are aware that producers (and their marketing directors) may only advertise when their wines are rated 90 or higher? Those who endorse the present system might also argue that tremendous overall quality increases have naturally led to a higher percentage of wines in the 90 and over bracket.

So, why not raise the bar?

Regardless of the reasons, the fact remains that the 100-point system has scores skewed at the top, and it is the wine consumer who is hurt most by this scenario. Providing useful information to the consumer about to part with his money is the one and only purpose of a scoring system. So what good is being accomplished when dozens of disparate wines receive the same high score? Even worse are those instances when two wines at the same price point end up with the same rating even though one is made by a winery with an extensive and impeccable track record and the other is made by a new and therefore unproven producer. Regardless of start-up costs and the desire to recoup capital investments, logic dictates that a newcomer's wine should not be priced at the same level as a similar wine made by an established producer (someone in business for a decade or more). Until standards of judgment are raised, however, this situation will occur more and more frequently.

Track records, or a lack thereof, are important considerations that reviewers should factor into the final evaluation of high-priced wines. One situation I recently encountered brought this message home: In a blind tasting, which tends, like all such tastings, to follow a purely hedonistic approach, Arrowood Winery's 1998 Special Cuvée Chardonnay was rated the same as a Flowers' 1997 Sonoma Coast Chardonnay. A relatively unknown entity with no real record, the Flowers Chardonnay was from the wild, yeast-fermented, non-interventionist, full-bore malolactic, unfined and unfiltered school of winemaking.

On the hedonist's scale both initially scored 92, but they are not wines that can be said to be equal, nor could both be recommended as equally fine.

The Arrowood Chardonnay was made by a gifted winemaker with more than 25 vintages under his belt. Experienced tasters who have sampled Arrowood's Chardonnays over the years know how they hold up in the bottle. They age well, but more importantly, they will not fall apart overnight. Too many things could go wrong with an unproven wine.

Once the maker's names were divulged, the panel agreed to add the category of "track record" (a necessary criteria under the circumstances), and adjust the scores accordingly. The Arrowood special Cuvée Michel Berthud Chardonnay ended up scoring three points higher than the Flowers.

Making such an adjustment after the labels were revealed is not wrong. In fact, I think it is a part of the professional wine reviewer's duty. It is similar to making a notation about value based on the wine's retail price. Likewise, a producer's track record should be grounds for some sort of general overview. Most other wine-scoring systems give considerable leeway to a personal adjustment. For instance, part of the original UC-Davis 20-point scoring system, which was replaced in the popular wine press by the 100-point system, allowed plenty of room for a personal "fudge factor" in its "overall quality" component.

The failure of critics to consider track records of wineries and winemakers may have made it possible for newcomers to ask high prices for their inaugural and subsequent vintages. It is totally absurd for a new winery to feel no compunction about offering a $40 Chardonnay and a $50 Cabernet.

Readers may recall the Smith Barney advertising campaign that ran in the 1980s and featured the sage words and authoritative tone of the late actor John Houseman. "At Smith Barney, we make money the old-fashioned way. We earn it." At the time, the ad was effective and the message was driven home.

The concept of having to earn consumer confidence by actually performing well over time needs to be revived and applied to the scoring of wine. By so doing, the logjam of wines receiving ratings of 90 or more will be broken up, and the 100-point scale will gain the credibility it needs.

Contributing Editor Norm Roby publishes the Guide to Winery Direct Wines, a multimedia wine consumer journal at www.robywine.com.