question for Pavie people

Is the 95 Pavie as bad as Parker rates it (78)?

He was generous. Weak, dilted and fruitless. The property was for sale and the vintage was a stinker at Tex’s now fav…

Thanks for the info. I’m glad I didn’t buy it from KL ($70).

Went with a 96 Leoville Barton and an 02 LMHB instead.

I made the mistake in 2000 of buying 6 375’s for $15 each. Not worth it.

I have discussed the late 80’s to mid 90’s Pavies with a local guy that has as good a palate as anyone out there…he pretty much thinks they all suck before '98.

Actually Bill, I have had a couple 86, 90 that were nice if not age worthy clarets.

Jack, I don’t doubt that some servicalbe wines were made. From Richie Rich, none were made in the style of today that I covet.

This calls for a Pavie vertical.

The sun coming up in the morning calls for a Pavie vertical.

But Bill, they only started making wines in a style that you would like when Parker’s palate got nuked.

Did somebody say dinner at Landreth’s?

The '98 had completely fallen apart by 2007 or 2008 - no mouthfeel, no aromatics, no fruit, no nothing - but maybe that’s a subject for a different thread.

that seems to be contrary to Cellar tracker notes?

I only know my own experience - and I was shocked at what a dull, limp, lifeless wine it was - particularly given Parker’s ravings in that old Hedonist’s Gazette piece about the '98s.

I think the jury is still out on these over-oaked fruit bombs which are so flashy out of the gate - some of them may survive for the long haul, but I fear that many of them just won’t go the distance.

[PS: Wine of the Tasting was the 1998 Palmer - now there’s a wine which will go 50 or 75 years - maybe even a century.]