I don't recall that I've ever paid attention to the medals, precisely because I noted at an early stage in my wine-drinking life that the medals seemed to be somewhat arbitrary. The tip off was the many gold medals from "international" competitions claimed by small Midwestern wineries. Given, those tended to be the best Midwestern wineries, but I never felt they were competitive wines at that level.
The error in point values is precisely why I started using the 5-star system. In truth, when I'm tasting a wine, I'm still thinkling in terms of point ranges, but using "broad strokes," as Broadbent says, means my ratings should be consistent against all but very substantial bottle variation.
Still, I've always argued that the various critics having only a 3 - 5 point dispersion on a given wine is quite remarkable really - it means that, while there may be differences in preference and palate calibration, in general, for the typical bottle, they all agree on the difference between, e.g., high 80s and low 90s scores.

