Marc
IRO older wines, there are people (myself included), who enjoy wines that are not just mature but over-mature. Others may be much less tolerant of oxidative elements.
I’m not surprised that there were people excited about the subtle nuances, whilst another taster said “too oxidised”. Neither is wrong, just different palate preferences (or more accurately tolerences?).
As one who enjoys creaking old wines, those unusual aromas and tastes can be truly unique, and enjoyable and can be the most memorable experiences… even if there are elements of the wine that are a problem.
What I do find incongruous, is them using brash language, when it is the subtlety and complexity in the wine that appeals. Such language feels misplaced.
I think a disclaimer is an appropriate idea to put readers on notice that the notes may be based on tasting adulterated or wholly falsified wines. John Kapon has denied any knowledge of the fraud, but he was at least an unwitting participant both as a sales conduit (I sure wish I had the catalogs for the epic Rudy auctions) and a dupe who promoted of the legitimacy of Rudy and his wines through tasting notes. I am sure he would have no objection to a disclaimer to help prevent others being victimized through his folly, and I think only his modesty has prevented him from adding one himself.
JK has his own style of writing, that’s for sure. People are free to read or ignore. I ignore all notes peppered with gratuitous ellipses, but don’t suggest others should do so.
With full awareness of the history and the oceans of fakes I’m sure JK has written about, I always read his notes. In addition to a lot of fakes, he also drank a lot of real wine. Sometimes, his notes are the only ones available on wines I’m interested in researching without having to have a subscription. I’m smart enough to add as many grains of salt as I feel are necessary.
As for whether an array of wines from 50-odd years past couldn’t possibly all be good…BS. I have visited cellars (as have those with whom I keep company) where we’ve pulled a dozen random, moldy old bottles and popped their corks to find every one of them spot on or even youthful. Cellars with not even an ounce of doubt as to provenance and authenticity. And I’m not a necrophiliac when it comes to wine, though I do like them mature.
I’m not going to get into the discussion of JK’s culpability or even morality - too many words have already been thrown at that topic, and no doubt there are many more to come before he sinks into history - but I will absolutely support his notes being displayed on CT.
Marc,
There’s one thing that you may be missing here regarding tastings of old wines. We have old tastings once in a while (less frequently now). When we do, everyone generally brings their “best” bottles, since they are organized events among wine friends. For example, I have great provenance old bottles (or parcels where the bottles have been consistently good), I have okay parcels, and I have some hit or miss cases. If we’re having an organized dinner (whether its old Burgundy or whatever) I virtually always bring only my great provenance bottles. The “okay” bottles and the hit or miss bottles are drunk at home, where you can toss them and open a new one if necessary. So my experience is that organized tastings of old wines have a very high percentage of good bottles, due primarily to self selection.
Additional edit. One humorous, albeit expensive, example I can remember is watching Jeb Dunnuck (in his pre rock star days) have heart failure as I dumped out two 62 Unico’s and opened a third, which was drinkable but not very good. This case was always a “drink at home” case, not a wine to bring to dinners.
He is not listed as an EXPERT. His data is integrated as a content channel. This has a mix of pro reviewers, bloggers, and retailers. Why is that so hard for you to understand? That is the mechanism I have in CT to integrate some external content.
I would have thought that your little Facebook message to start this was enough, but you had to go and start a thread here, and now you just keep on tapping and twerking. Enough already. We get it.
He’s free to say whatever he wants Eric. And whether the guy is listed as an expert or has his own content channel he is still a joke and undermines the credibility of CellarTracker whether you like that or not.
Have you seen me twerk??? It’s terrible, I have no moves!!!
Well u never answered my ‘little’ question on Facebook regarding that…and it appears others have concerns about it also, therefore I am glad to have brought it up…others also seem to think he’s an expert taster…when u click on pro-reviews his name comes up (so i have to assume he is a pro reviewer)…sorry if I misunderstood the layout.
I brought this up to because I thought it hurt CT…if u think it doesn’t then fine…earlier in this thread you said u had “nothing to add”, well I guess u should have spoken then…none of us are here to hurt/degrade/blemish CT only help it(why can’t u see that) and u should want to know what your audience is thinking …I think most here love it…I know I do and only want cont’d success.
Apparently this is irritating u and that is not my goal.
+1- it is an area worth a bit of clarification given it that may not be clear to all CT users exactly how the data is treated… And why it is a sore subject given the thoughtful comments on both sides?
I had a lunch with John and thought he had a very good palate. This was a relatively small setting with a half dozen also wines. Also I am curious as your take on Allen Meadows.
I am not sure if the question Kapon being a good taster or not is the important one. He tasted a lot with Rudy and many wines came from Rudy. So the question is: Are the tasting notes in the database coming from John Kapon are a reliable source for information. We have to add the fact that John is interested in selling ancient wines so this may be the reason for a bias.
Sure – you can have the view that everybody should decide himself if he reads the tasting notes of Kapon. But then I am not sure if every reader of his notes is aware his role as a CEO of an auction house and his close connection to one of the biggest fraudsters ever.
Jürgen,
I was ust responding to Marc’s statement that was quoted on my post. He may tasted alot of fake wines and some of his notes may not be credible. He also tasted a lot of genuine wines and he has a good palate so I would still consider him as an expert.
I wonder how many fake wines scored and commented on as as ‘originals’ would put the ‘very good palate’ characterization in question in your mind? It is impossible to know how many were fake but it at some point wouldn’t it make you wonder? I am not making a statement as to how easy it is to detect or even if the fakes are actually really great, just curious on you view on respecting a person’s palate versus their body of work. Perhaps it is more of an judgement of taster authentification skills. Isf so and we dismiss the notes as accurate in score and description, perhaps a blending subculture should develop to better enjoy some older wines? Sounds like heresy but perhaps at a lower price point it would be interesting to an audience- not the least the 12 angry men
Luke,
I am not trying to vouch for John’s character. Marc wrote “I believe half this board is more of an expert taster than him.” which is not quite true.
Also if properly kept, the wines don’t easily oxidize/madeirize. I had a pristine case of the 59 Grand Puy Lacoste that when I served blind, most guessed as a ’82 or younger. I do however agree that a lot of oxidize wines get praised based on the label.
Right. I would concur with your point on that. Statistically, that would be a very tough statement for Marc to back up given the amount of wine he would have had sampled over the years of running a wine business. Better than half is not a high bar but as you mentioned your impression of his palate and I respect your input, I am wondering how you weigh the likely fake bottle notes into your overall thoughts of a fellow taster.
Putting aside the fact that Eric wants us to stop using the term “expert” – so let’s call it “pro reviewer” since that’s what the tab says on CT – is that all it takes to be a pro? Kevin, you drink a lot of genuine, high-end wines, and have a good palate, so how come your prolific reviews don’t get a special channel? I think that’s the question people in this thread are pondering. Aside from the fake issue, is just having an email newsletter with outlandish tasting notes enought to be considered a pro? There are a lot of questionable “pros” pre-integrated into CT (by “questionable,” I mean “of questionable value” because of the taster, not questionable because of the provenance of the wine being reviewed). I’d much sooner call you a pro, or Keith Levenberg a pro, before some of the others.
Scott,
The beauty of CT is that one has the choice to pick and choose the tasters whom they can relate to. In general, I don’t believe that “pros” tns are more credible than others.
