Good news! Every single bordeaux in 2016 is perfect!

Can’t go wrong.

Speaking of 2016 Bordeaux, my Beychevelle futures arrived at my retailer. Kind of shockingly early actually. Label glue might not even be dry.

'16 la dame de montrose arrived about a month ago to Zachys.

[rofl.gif]

For those who think points didn’t jump the shark 20 years ago, can we now put it to rest?

[soap.gif] deadhorse pileon [head-bang.gif]

Depends who is giving the points. Suckling and Perotti Brown have completely stripped their personal brands of any value with these ludicrous scores.

That is their brand.

I don’t know why you would think her scores are any more ludicrous than Neal Martin’s. Compare his barrel scores to the eight wines she gave 100 points to:

Cheval Blanc 97-99
Cos d’Estournel 98-100
Haut Brion 97-99
Latour 98-100
Leoville Las Case 98-100
Mouton 98-100
Petrus 96-98
Vieux Chateau Certan 95-97.

The Latour, LLC and Mouton were almost surefire 100-pointers based on the early reports from tasters. If you then look at other barrel scores, Neal was low, hard as it to believe, on both the Haut Brion and the Petrus; the 100-point score on the Haut Brion is not out of line based on expectations. The VCC had an unusually wide range of barrel scores, I suspect because one of the sample barrels wasn’t showing well (the one tasted by Neal, Panos and Jane Anson). Panos already upped his score in bottle, admitting he underscored it in barrel. I wouldn’t be surprised in Neal’s bottle score were higher, too. I bought the VCC suspecting (in the hopes, maybe) that it wouldn’t have missed so much in such a good vintage.

From memory and a quick glance, Neal’s other potential 100-pointers were Figeac (97 from LPB), La Mission Haut Brion (98), Pavie (no bottle score) and Ausone (99). I would be surprised if the Pavie didn’t get 100 points when the bottle score comes out.

The other thing that struck me about the top scorers was how unsurprising the list was: three first growths, Cheval Blanc and Petrus, with three interlopers, of which only Cos d’Estournel would be considered controversial. No Peby Faugeres, Smith Haut Lafitte, Clos Fourtet, Bellevue Mondotte or the like to spark some controversy or arguments about how newly-spoofed wines are faking their way to the top.

The notes I have read are not helpful descriptions…every note has 1-4 of the following words: firm, grainy, chewy and herbal.

maybe its just bottles over 1,000 pounds are now auto 100pointers?

But if they’re all 100 points… does that mean I should buy the cheap one or the expensive one?!? What a conundrum…

Buy them all,
You know someone at the table will complain in 20 years if you can’t produce all the perfect wines from your cellar😁

Or the grotesquely modern one versus the classic!? Evidently there is no distinction. Would love to see Gilman’s take on that Pavie and Cos.

Her tasting notes are very formulaic, a legacy I’m guessing of her MW training. There is a list of aroma/tasting descriptors, followed by a description of the body, followed by a description of the structure (tannins and acid mainly). Almost every note on reds, particularly Bordeaux blends (i.e., including California), describes the structure, and there are only very limited ways to describe tannins and structure. And most Bordeaux classified growths are firm. I find her tasting notes quite descriptive; whether they are accurate or will prove to be accurate in the long run is not something I am in a position to judge.

But as I pointed out above, the list overall is weighted toward the purebreds. What stood out most to me was the absence of anything new or surprising.

Incidentally, Neal Martin, Antonio Galloni and Suckling all scored Pavie at the top of their range (and NM had the Cos also at the top of the range), so this inability to distinguish classic from modern appears to be a common failing. Neal Martin’s note on Pavie said:

"The palate is medium-bodied with succulent, ripe, supple tannins that gently caress the mouth. It feels beguiling and charming, totally different in style compared to say Cheval Blanc, offering a more sensual take on the 2016 growing season. "

Not exactly “grotesquely modern.”

I am not so sure the failure to distinguish between classic and modern is a common failing. For some, maybe. I have kind of reached the conclusion that it just does not factor into the scoring. That is, and in a very simplistic way, classic and modern can both be well- made wines with all the depty, etc one could expect, but classic vs modern becomes more a style issue that we can like or not. I tend to try to look at the descriptors and compare to my experience to see if I can identify wether a wine is likely to be too modern for my tastes. Would it be helpful if the critics came right out and said that certain wines fall more into one camp or another, or has characteristics consistent with? Yes.

Are you saying that Cos is grotesquely modern? Their style changed substantially in 2013 when Aymeric de Gironde took over… as put by Jeannie Cho Lee:

“2016 had the potential to make powerful, concentrated, dense wines and the team at Cos decided to make a lighter, refreshing style. This is a dramatic move away from the highly extracted, dense, ripe styles favored by Jean-Guillaume Prats when he led the property from 2001 to 2012. While its neighbors made some of the most tannic, powerful wines, Cos d’Estournel, is veering towards extremely light, denying the power and the intensity available in this vintage.

And even Pavie is making lighter wines:

“ At Pavie, 2016 had less extraction compared to other great years like 2009 or 2010, 10 days less to be exact, and new oak was reduced from 100% to 70%.”

Perhaps worth a reassessment…

Gilman took on the 2009 Cos as he found it grotesque. When he went to taste the 2010, he was asked at the chateau whether it wouldn’t be too “painful” to taste the new vintage. As it happened, he rather liked it, and gave it, I think, a 92.

My problem with Cos is that it is not a very distinctive wine. The best wines such as 1996 are tasty but not particularly interesting compared to say a Montrose, Pichon or a Ducru. That is probably why I find the idea of a 100 point Cos so weird; a perfect Cos will lack the complexity to allow it to be a 100 point wine.

I am not going to comment on Pavie, except to say I have not tasted the young wines since 2012, and can’t say I miss them. I have heard from trusted sources that they have been dialing down the extraction and oak. The underlying terroir is magnificent, so maybe…

At the risk of being flippant, with their history from 2000 or so forward, and the current price point, a reassessment for me is an exercise in insanity. So many more honestly-made, consistent, reliable, classic wines that are more fairly priced. And what’s that say about a Chateau that cannot even find its own style, but instead, changes with the vagaries of the critics, the retirement of Parker, and public perception? It’s chasing the pendulum. Incidentally, I would not call 14.55% a lighter wine.

PS. I have had the 2015 Pavie but have not had the Cos since the OTT 2009 vintage. So I get your point, I could be over-generalizing, but these estates have lost me for good.

Figeac is a surefire 100 now, eh?! :wink: