Chateauneuf 2007 is the 2nd best vintage of the last 20 years accoding to Cellartracker

WINE TALK
21

I’m shocked at the huge note count lead 2007 has. Looks like 50% over any other year.

22

I don’t think lighter or richer is the right distinction. I doubt anyone would really think Rayas, Charvin or Pegau to be, by any definition, lighter bodied wines. My preference for them over Clos Saint-Jean has something to do with overripeness (or ripeness if you prefer) but nothing to do with richness.

I love Gorgonzola. I like Epoisse in moderation. My neighbors in Violes have a cheese whose name I forget that is stinky beyond my tolerance. But I don’t really think the analogy is a good one. Clos Saint-Jean, for me, is no more objectionable than Coca Cola, but I wouldn’t seek it out.

23

Easter eggs / trick: if you click on the score for a specific wine in CT a window will pop up with the scoring range and standard deviation.

For example compare Pegau 2010 vs 2007, quite a difference.

2010 https://www.cellartracker.com/wine.asp?iWine=1069411

Average score (all users): 94.5 pts.
Average (I’m a fan): 93.5 pts.
Median score: 94 pts.
Std. deviation: 1.81
95-100: 49.56% (56)
90-94: 50.44% (57)
85-89: 0
80-84: 0
< 80: 0
Flawed: 0

2007 2007 Domaine du Pégau Châteauneuf-du-Pape Cuvée Réservée, France, Rhône, Southern Rhône, Châteauneuf-du-Pape - CellarTracker

Average score (all users): 93.1 pts.
Average (I’m a fan): 92 pts.
Median score: 93 pts.
Std. deviation: 2.53
95-100: 23.88% (85)
90-94: 70.22% (250)
85-89: 3.93% (14)
80-84: 1.97% (7)
< 80: 0
Flawed: 0.24% (1)
Based on 413 notes and 356 scores from 264 users.

24

Hi Philippe and Jonathan,

Clearly individuals have unique OPINIONS on wines and reading those opinions is part of educational aspects of this fascinating hobby. Over time most of us learn whose palates are aligned with our own. This process goes from educational to entertainment when we lose respect for each others individual tastes. It always amuses me when someone tries to convince me that my tastes and WRONG and their tastes are RIGHT. Go figure [cheers.gif]

25

People make this assumption often on this board, and I tend to disagree with it. Given two options:

(1) Parker gives certain wines and styles high scores, and thus large numbers of people buy and claim to like those wines in order to agree with Parker, though they might not have liked those wines otherwise, or

(2) Large numbers of people like the same kinds of wines as Parker, and thus Parker has been very influential in pointing people to specific wines in that style they like

It seems to me that (2) is 100 times more likely to be the case than (1). It just makes a lot more sense that Parker had his finger on the pulse of the larger buying public and thus became an influential critic, as opposed to large numbers of people buying and drinking things they don’t like for years and decades just because one critic recommended them. Additionally, from what I can tell in my experience of drinking wines with all types of people, I think the vast majority tend to like bigger, riper, lusher wines.

26

Chris, I fully agree with your argument.

Option 2 is simply a lot more likely than the very contrived first one. Logical indeed.

Peter

27

Today, I learned that the average of a bunch of random numbers random people put in a collection on the internet defines whether a vintage is good or not.

28

And that is any less valid than your opinion how?

29

I make no claim as to the validity of my own opinion, except for myself. I never have. Most others would do well to admit to themselves the same.

But to annoy those who continuously try to counter my own worthless opinion with worthless opinions of their own, I’ll restate mine on 2007 Châteauneuf-du-Pâpe: it is utter shit.

30

On the view of your opinion, I think I have found something we both agree on… [cheers.gif]

31

Oh! Selective quoting! You’re so clever!

Really, you ought to loosen up a bit. You’re taking some random guy on the internet’s opinion way too seriously. (I’m flattered!)

32

Chris
Within 2) I suspect many didn’t know what they should like, so followed the confident pronouncements of Parker as a way to be taught about wine. This has happened for decades (probably centuries) but never perhaps on the scale that Parker could achieve.
regards
Ian

33

Notice the smiley face in my post. FWIW, I do not take you, or posting on a BB seriously.

34

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. No doubt, many people first dip their toe into fine wine with the aid of critics and scores, so it does play a role. I just think that if Parker and Laube were not in step with a large swath of buyers, they never would have developed and maintained their prominence.

Another thing is to look at other realms. The music and movies that are the favorites of critics don’t tend to move popular opinion much. People like Fast and the Furious and Adam Sandler movies, they don’t flock to critical darlings. They tune out music critics and gulp down pop music. It doesn’t make sense to me that people would keep buying wines they don’t like just because Robert Parker scores them highly.

35

Hi Chris
I think people feel safer with music and movies - they have the confidence in their own judgement, or (when growing up) the critic that matters is the big/cool kid they’re hanging out with. That is also mainstream, so not a direct comparison to Parker (though he had remarkably wide influence for a specialist).

With wine there is a horrible mystique, hence the commercial success of so many critics. They exude confidence and people trust them because the don’t have confidence in themselves.

I think there is truth that many do naturally align to his palate. Indeed (rather oddly if we believe he is moving more than ever towards ‘big is better, biggest is best’), as his influence reduces, his preferences may be even better aligned to those entering the hobby, where ‘impact/intensity’ is easier to understand than subtlety, elegance and nuance.

regards
Ian

36

Jeff, it may have been intended as a joke, but came across (to me at least) as a bit weird/strange.

37

Yes, so you say, but when looking up your notes on CT I found that you like the 2007 Vieux Telegraphe quite a lot.

So exceptions to the “shit-rule” do apparently occur [cheers.gif] although you were even more fond of the 1990 Hommage a J.Perrin, which would have been useful to me (I own a single bottle), were it not for the fact that a bunch of random people put in a collection on the internet obviously has no clue whether a given vintage or wine is good or not.

Adrian on one of the best red wine he’s ever had:

“Flickinger Warehouse Tasting (Chicago, IL): The first letters of my handwritten tasting note say “OMGWTFBBQ”. This is insanity. Easily one of the best red wines I’ve ever tasted, and it’s a Châteauneuf too. Well, I’m not one to discriminate on the basis of appellation. This takes a bit of that perfume of the 1989 and trades it in for even more depth and power. There’s a lovely hint of fresh herbs here as well, balanced with against an inordinate amount of very, very ripe fruit. On the palate, there’s crazy acidity, that gives this beast some serious momentum.”

By the way, I agree with you on a couple of the “shit-wines” you reported on in your other thread about this pet aversion of yours.
Some producers weren’t able to cope with this relatively cool vintage [whistle.gif] and went for extreme ripeness thus rendering wines that tasted wonderful in their youth, but plummeted in recent years. Pierre Usseglio for instance [cry.gif]

Peter

38

Seems to me you get it perfectly well.