Winemakers claim to hate the 100-point scoring system used by critics, even though it works well. Their complaint is that wine is so magnificent it transcends analysis by numbers.

They never say a word against critics who utilize another kind of system, one that forecasts when a wine is going to be ready to drink. My complaint is that such a prediction is nonsense.

You see it all the time. The name of the wine, followed by something like, "Best from 2009-2014."

Basically, the critics have no idea. They're guessing. Most wines—maybe 99 percent—either don't age or get worse with time. And of the ones that are predicted to improve with age, an awful lot of them don't.

The only exceptions are wines with history. Those that have consistently reached maturity (defined by secondary flavors, sediment, and other good stuff) can reasonably be expected to do so again. Thus, wine critics can calculate the aging potential of classic wines such as Bordeaux, vintage Champagne, and Grand Cru Burgundy.

Probably the most puzzling and indecipherable of all wines are California Cabernet Sauvignons, which appear to have the potential to age beautifully but rarely do. They are excellent when young, possibly even better after hanging around for a couple of years, and then they tend to lose their luscious flavors with time.

Occasionally, they demonstrate a uncanny ability to not change at all, a phenomenon also seen in vampires and socialites. Vintage port is even sturdier—I believe the true definition of infinity is the length of time it takes a vintage port to mature. If you're tempted to become a collector of pricy red Bordeaux, remember that they are seldom worth drinking unless a quarter-century has passed or if somebody else is picking up the check.