I have had a few wines in the last week that Parker scored 92 that I would probably give pretty close to an 'undrinkable' score (but barely drinkable, so lets give them the base of 50 to start).
KAESLER STONEHORSE GRENACHE/SHIRAZ/MOURVÈDRE 2005, RP 92, Machine 50+5+6(unpleasant medicinal smell)+10(unpleasant medicinal taste, an overripe mess...maybe a $5 wine in my book)+3(don't see how this can get much better, no acidity or tannin to speak of, only a faint glimmer that it resembled a CDP, for about 5 minutes, 30 minutes after opening, then it was gone and did not come back over next 2 hours)=74. Rest of glass down the sink, will give it another try tomorrow (that 5 minutes of CDP merit not dumping it today). A colleague also bought a bottle, similar notes on day 1, not sure about his day 2 experience, will find out tomorrow.
DOMAINE DE LA COLLINE SAINT-JEAN VACQUEYRAS 2004, RP 90-92, Machine 50+5+7.5(something did not smell right, not bad or corked or cooked just not right)+6(unenjoyable and unpleasant on day 1, undrinkably revolting on day 2, i.e. 'spit out' undrinkable)+4(maybe some of those horrible flavours will go away over time, and the smidge of apparent structure (whatever that is) might allow it to last until the flavours are gone)=72. Poured down the sink on day 2. Same colleague also bought a bottle for himself (at another store, so not an issue of 2 bad bottles from a bad case of wine). His reaction to drinking it - not good, something not right, not an off bottle, but not drinkable, and he poured it down the drain.
I would not accept either of the above bottles as a gift.
Another I tried on Parker's 95 rating was the 2003 Dominus. Bought a 6-pack. Then saw Laube's rating. Had not heard of him, read the comments of many re. Laube's 'skill' at rating Cali Reds, felt that most people discounted his ratings/notes altogether, but difference between his notes (and score) and Parker's had me concerned. Opened a bottle of the Dominus. Day 1 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. I thought 'obviously way too early to be popping a bordeaux-like cali wine'. Day 2 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. Certainly drinkable, not completely lacking enjoyability, but I would peg this as a $25 Napa Cab/blend. I would not call it austere (as I understand the word), would not say 'drink it now', but besides those things I agreed with Laube's score and cannot understand Parker's rating of 95.
For comparison, I have had a few bottles of 2000 Monbousquet in the last several months. I loved this wine. Same score as the Dominus, I don't get it (yes the wines are different ages/vintages from different countries in slightly different styles, and had different tasting notes, but even with that I still don't get it).
I have not had a lot of experience with half-decent wines, but I have found that I generally agree with Parker on Aussie Shiraz or Cab and with Bordeaux, the above examples don't fit in to those categories, but I am still left thinking 'HUH???'.