Walking through a wine shop last week, I was bombarded by signs that listed “numbers” for various wines. These are the scores that some wine critics use in assessing the quality of wines.

I don’t use numbers for rating wines since I don’t think wine is a linear product. And I have been a huge foe of using numbers for such a subjective concept for a long time. But a recent article I wrote for my private newsletter on wine elicited a great deal of response — from wine makers.

The thrust of what I wrote was that unless wine has a good structure, one that includes good acidity, it won’t work with food — which is where the world’s greatest wines aspire to be: on the dinner table.

A superb Napa Valley winemaker, one who makes some of the best wines around, agreed. He said that a lot of the wines that get scores in the high 90s (on a 100-point maximum) are what are called (facetiously) “hedonistic.”

As an example of what I consider to be a horrid example of the current passion with some wine critics is a wine that was rated No. 1 in the world (!) by a major glossy wine magazine a couple of years ago. It was a soft, pudgy merlot that seemed like a parody of wine.

Wrote the winemaker: “We (chemically) tested (that) merlot and although the label said it had 15.5 percent alcohol, (we found that the) true alcohol was 16.5 percent.” The winemaker added that the sugar was at a detectable level. So it was decidedly sweet on the palate.

The winemaker’s point was that the wine in question was not a real wine in the old, traditional sense of something to go with food. Rather, it was a confection, a parody of fine wine. I tasted it in a blind tasting and found it to be out of balance, overwhelmingly oaky, a bit sweet and in no way a wine that would work with food.

Yet that is precisely what some publications seem to like in their wines, which is 180 degrees from classic.

Who can argue, however, with success? The wine was rated best in the world, ahead of some rather awesome wines. To which the Napa winemaker said, “It’s hard not to be tempted by what works in the market place. … Why don’t you point out that it is the retailers who have created this Frankenstein? Most of them only want to post … scores.”

And finally, his last line was a classic: “Winemakers are making wine for a select group of critics.”

Clearly, I’m not among them.

On to Australia

I attended the gala dinner in New York City marking the 10th anniversary of Australia’s launch of a huge international marketing campaign called Vision 2020. Since I am a huge fan of Australian wine, I had to be there.

And the numbers revealed are staggering. In 1995, before the launch of this energetic marketing program, Australia send 1.5 million cases of its wine to the United States. The campaign had as a goal 30 million cases in the U.S. market by 2020.

This calendar year, Australia expects to hit the 26 million case mark, meaning that to hit their goal, they have 15 more years! Obviously, a new strategy needs to be implemented: We seem to love Aussie wine! (Not to mention value.)

Sam Tolley, chief of the Australian Wine and Brandy Corp., said the new direction for Wine Australia was to focus on the distinctiveness of the sub-regions of Australia and, in effect, that a $20 bill spent on an Australian wine will get the consumer $30 worth of pleasure.

At a huge tasting last Thursday, I saw that most graphically.

Wine of the Week: 2002 Penley Estate Cabernet Sauvignon/Shiraz, Coonawarra, “Condor” ($20): Stylish blueberry and black cherry fruit with a bright, racy berry finish. Substantial tannins call for it to be served with steak, but with protein foods the wine becomes succulent and simply delicious. From one of Australia’s classic cabernet regions. Imported by Old Bridge Cellars.

Dan Berger resides in Sonoma County. He publishes a weekly newsletter on wine and can be reached at danberger@VintageExperiences.com.