I'm thinking I might have to change my scoring system

So, the more I think about wine, the more I think I might need a bit more depth in my scoring system. I mean, the 4-point system seemed brilliant in it's simplicity when I first decided on it. After all, the Michelin Guide is the most respected restaurant guide in the world, and 3 stars is their highest rating. 3 Bicchieri is the highest rating from the Gambero Rosso. However, I keep running into situations where I've decided that a wine is a 3-Awesome wine, then I taste another one that I also think is a 3-Awesome wine, but then I have to think about whether one of them is better than the other. Plus, neither the Gambero Rosso nor the Michelin Guide ever actually give out zero stars/bicchieri. A restaurant that gets even one star from the Michelin Guide is expected to be excellent. I, on the other hand, plan on writing about wines at all different quality levels.

So, I'm thinking I need to add an Awesome. Zero Awesomes for wines that I reccomend avoiding. 1 Awesome for wines that are drinkable, but I've definitely had better. 2 Awesomes for wines that are good. Certainly there are better wines out there, but this is a wine that gets the job done. 3 Awesomes is a wine that I whole-heartedly reccomend. It's a great wine in it's category, shows good value and ageworthiness for it's price. 4 Awesomes for a wine that is absolutely classic. This is a wine that you will remember, a wine you will talk about late at night when you recount some of the greatest bottles you've had in your life. As my friend Dave would say, the kind of wine you'll tell your grandkids about.

Opinions? Comments?