This is a solid post.
2 Likes
Tread carefully…
I do not agree at all. IMO, that’s a jaded statement. Wines can and do get better. It is the responsibility of each generation to produce better wines.
Older consumers, those that bought wines from previous generations thought wines cannot get better. They said that about wines from the turn of the century, 20s, 50s, 90s, etc. They were wrong.
In 1899, the head of the patent office said “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” That statement was just as wrong about inventions as saying wine cannot get better.
The amount of knowledge about plants, vines, soils, ecosystems, rootstocks and cellars is much more advanced than it was a decade ago, Massal selection is a growing science. The list of new studies and improvements is incredibly vast.
The ability to vinify parcel by parcel and even inside parcels continues to elevate wines. Using a greater degree of neutral aging vessels has added increased levels of purity in the wines. New ways of crop management, sorting, and even enclosures has and will continue making better wines.
1 Like
Yes he is. He’s not popular on this board. And he scores high on some wines, but he’s a good taster. He posts his notes early, he’s usually first. He gets people in the markets excited about a vintage. His events get people into enjoying wine.
So yes, he’s good for the industry.
5 Likes
Honestly, it was a bit of a flippant comment, dont take it too seriously. As far as my own buying habits, I pay very little attention to Suckling (as most people I know do), but each to their own.
I’ll also point out that when I met him at one of his events years ago, he was quick to comment that it is important for younger tasters to come to events like his so that they can find out which wines they like.
2 Likes
In other words he agrees with you. 
1 Like
Jeff,
How would you compare '21 to '14?
Well, if we can trust anyone giving any wine 100 points to be intellectually honest, the answer – for those wines – is “They can’t get any better.” 
1 Like
And then everyone will switch to cocktails because God Forbid anyone actually think for themselves, and “run the risk of being wrong” (which, of course, is patently absurd when dealing with something as subjective as preferences in wine). On the whole, people will get out of this hobby what they’re willing to put into it. Scared to think for yourself? Fine. Get ready to ride whatever waves of current popularity and fashion are trending at the moment. Willing to ignore what others have to say (without worry as to how your own opinions will be viewed), pay attention, and formulate your own opinions? The wine world is your oyster.
3 Likes
As I’ve said before: a lifetime of effort in pursuit of understanding is not for everyone. 
2 Likes
Yep. And too bad for them.
1 Like
For every well-proportioned wine, there is another that comes off extracted, hot, and chewy. The idea of “freshness and purity” that we’ve been being pitched for the vintage is something we’ve surely found, but it is not a sure thing. In other words, it is a year that is capable of producing some masterful wines, many that will challenge some standard bearers from a given estate. But in general, the landmines seem more frequent, while the magic of this extreme vintage isn’t coming through as clearly as promised. It is a heterogeneous vintage, without a doubt.
In Margaux, it seemed like everybody was ready to push the limits with their wines, and many went over the top.
That said, our enthusiasm and expectations are reserved until we get our hands on the wines. Until then, we leave the Left Bank tastings with the same feeling as yesterday—there are great wines, but there’s still a lot to prove to call it a great vintage, especially one that will merit premium pricing.
2 Likes
On a whole, as a group, sure. Individually per chateau? Of course, if the chateau in question never produced a perfect wine. Otherwise that would require the necessity to downgrade some 100 point wines of the past. 1947 Cheval Blanc, 45 Mouton, 45 Yquem 61 Latour and 61 Palmer could no longer be as good as it gets because now techniques are better?
I’m a contrarian to that thought.
I’ve had too many wines from the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s which have proven themselves worthy and will certainly not be outdone from anything from 2010+.
It would mean that all wine critics need to adjust their scores retrospectively. If a 100 point wine from today is better than a 100 point wine from a vintage gone by then the older score was in fact never 100 points. And the 100 points awarded to the wine of today will never last as knowledge improves…
Perfection is perfection. It can not be improved upon. Which means that todays perfect wines are not more perfect than yesteryears. And… not better.
If one thinks perfection can be improved upon with the passing of time and new knowledge then it is not reasonable, or even serious, to award 100 points.
1 Like
I really do like his tasting events. Won’t comment on the scores.
2 Likes
Thanks.
I use Fuji X100V cameras. One with a 28mm extender and one with 50mm. I shoot fairly consistently at 2000ISO or above in RAW. I use Lightroom for the initial development and import of the “negative” as it were. Then it’s Photoshop for the finishing touches of classical darkroom techniques, such as dodge and burn, for the focus to be where I want it. Contrast and highlight/shadow adjustment is done both in Lightroom and PS. RAW is essential.
3 Likes
Not to derail the conversation, but Antonio does lovely, focused wine dinners. I went to a Giacosa dinner last fall, and it was absolutely stellar. Next year I plan to go to Napa in the city (change it up from Festa del Barolo). I get a lot out of his events, and what’s interesting is that he’s been attracting a younger audience too, which is exciting.
I agree critics should go back and revise old scores — that is, if they want to be intellectually honest and credible.
100 points means "100 points at the time the score was issued. Perhaps winemaking enjoys an overarching improvement afterwards (as we seem to constantly be hearing is the case). Then new wines are released and some get 100 points. Some are called “the best ever from here.” For any given winery, I could see a couple different vintages co-existing at 100 points each, even if one is “the best ever.” This requires one to view 100 points more as a bucket, than as a specific point on a plot. But, after awhile — maybe it’s 3 100 point vintages, or 4, or 5, or … each of which was billed as “the best ever from here” — a critic really should retrospectively downgrade some of those past scores.
example:
2009 vintage: 100 points. “best ever from here”
2010 vintage: 100 points. “best ever”
2015: 100 points. “best ever”
2016: 100 points. “best ever”
2018: 100 points. “best ever”
2022: 100 points. “best ever”
At some point, you are so many "best ever"s separated from the first “best ever” that the first “best ever” cannot logically still be deserving of the same score given to the most recent “best ever.”
Score inflation is so out-of-control that many folks are now – gobsmackingly – upset about something that scores 93, 94, 95 - 97 points. That’s effing insane.
5 Likes
Pluckys in nj does… one of the few gems. Anyone want to do dinner there, lets make a side thread
Napa, yes.
Bordeaux, no.
And count me in!