Our Dec. 20 column on Wine Spectator's Top 100 Wines of 2002 list generated interesting feedback. Some readers wondered how it was possible that the No. 1 wine had a lower score than wines further down the list. Other readers raised the more fundamental question of whether it is even possible to give a numerical score to something as ethereal and sensual as wine.

The first question is easy to answer. Wine Spectator professes that the ranking for their annual list is based on a combination of "score, value, availability and excitement," not just raw point scores. A 96-point Krug Champagne may ultimately give greater pleasure than a 93-point Guigal Cha^teauneuf du Pape. But at a price of 16,000 yen, is the Krug a more exciting find to wine drinkers than the 3,000 yen Guigal? Wine Spectator thinks not.

The same logic applies to production levels. It is fine to extol the virtues of a 250-case micro-production Napa Cabernet, but to those of us in the real world, it is more relevant when a 20,000-case Bordeaux reaches the same quality levels. Ultimately, Wine Spectator's list is meant for fun -- not as a definitive guide of what should and shouldn't be drunk. And if awarding the "Wine of the Year" title to a 3,000 yen Guigal negociant bottling gets more people to sample the great wines of Cha^teauneuf du Pape, then we say more power to them!