Decanter (Panos) on 2009 Bordeaux with ITB Quotes

Interesting stuff, great commentary by Gil…" onclick=";return false;

The best example of this is Pavie in the 2000, 2003 and 2005 vintages. RMP gave the 2000 100 points and the 2003 98+. When he reviewed the '05, he give it 98+ also.

Then things got interesting. He said the 2005 was a notch below the 2000 and “several” notches ABOVE the 2003. When I asked him to explain how two wines with the same score could be several notches different …

Radio Silence

At least he didn’t post that wine is just fun. [cheers.gif]

The inter-vintage scoring always creates interesting questions. I recall – though memory is a bit fuzzy – that Wine Spectator addressed such things a while back and basically said the scores apply within a vintage. But, later, I read something in WS stating that scores were absolute, completely objective, and applied across vintages.

This is the thing … RP does tell you to read the notes. Instances like this are bound to occur, and they illustrate just how visceral and fluid the memory and tasting of wine is. It’s another way to underscore just how silly trying to make wine ratings “objective” or “scientific” is. No point to it. The 100-point system is untenable for its stated purpose and uses.

That isn’t to say I don’t enjoy reading the tasting notes and everything … it’s just why pigeon-hole it into a couple digits? Silly business. Good reading. Thanks for the link.

The Bordelais are faced with a quandry as they will not have the tiny first tranche trick pony up their sleeves. Fomenting buying through price escalation is untennable in an asset class ravaged by demand destruction. In today’s marketplace, it will simply shun away any appetite. I think they will have to release a significant first tranche (not a tiny dollop, more like 1-2k cases) at perhaps 10-15% more than 08 eP (100 ex chat 1sts!) and then hold off of any other releases for 6 months. The vacancy of wines coupled with a (hopefully) repaired economy may spur some action with an increased (30%+) 2nd tranche, coupled with (hopeful) huge scores from Mssr Parker.

We’ll wait and see how it plays out!

Somebody alert Jeff to this post so he can come and give the Bordelais view on the topic.

There’s something I’m not understanding in your sentence I guess, or do you really mean 1sts were 100 euros first tranche in 2008?

"There is considerable doubt amongst American merchants as to how they are going to sell the new and apparently stellar 2009 vintage.

Wine merchants will buy 2009 Bordeaux futures, but they say that previous vintages are unsold, the economy is uncertain, the exchange rate unfavourable – and they doubt Robert Parker can score it higher than 2008 anyway."

So true. After buying every year for years on future, I have not bought any en premier since the 2005 vintage, and I have no intention of changing that, including the “best ever” 2008 or 2009 vintages.

Those poor saps who bought the 2006s! My condolances. pileon

Great sentence. [worship.gif]

Bill, Jeff is channeling through me…“Bordeaux is under priced. I’m not buying many en premier now, but you should. Prices are only going up. Sir, what old vintages are you opening for me next?” neener

First Growths were released in the 95-110 euro ex chat band, iirc.


The negociants did not sell first growths that cheap.

100 ex chat → 30% negocs → 130 euros to DIs like Zachys/Winex/PC *1.5 dollars per euro = $200-215 we saw on first release for Latour, Lafite, Mouton, Margaux and HB. Mssr Parker’s barrel scores did the rest (esp with the L’s).

Paging Mr Fleming and the Grammar/Spelling police.

Excellent points are made in the article.

The conversation really begins and ends here. The simple fact is that you can not ram a subjective observation into an objective metric. Or, better yet, you do so at your own peril (which RMP did with that Pavie example). What is his benchmark? And what happens when, as is the case with the Pavie, a subsequent wine exceeds his benchmark? The whole system is a house of cards based on his visceral and instantaneous reactions. It’s all poppycock. That said, and I’ve touted it before, Allen Meadows at least makes an effort to better define his 100 point scale. He uses the “perceived” quality of the wine as his benchmark, so he ranks Musigny against what a Musigny should be, and so on. At least with Allen’s system, you know that an 85 point Musigny may be better than a 90 point Bourgogne but at the same time, you know tha that the 85 point Musigny is not really up to snuff. This is in stark contrast to RMP and his WA, which has run amok. RMP has his own internal inconsistencies (the Pavie example among others) and then he has other reviewers using a ridiculuosls inflated scoring system. As a result, the Wine Advocate’s scores have lost all meaning.

Ya think [berserker.gif]

Hey, the extra ‘n’ in untenable does not detract from the sheer mellifluousness of the sentence.

Re Parker: Anecdotally, I’ve noticed an expansion of the range or criteria garnering a 100WA, which, in turn has (imo) compressed the range or criteria for the 98 and 99 point scores. It would be interesting to see a statistical survey on this phenomenon, comparing regions and like vintages and the distribution’s frequency.

Re scoring (generally): We must ask ourselves what type of qualitative comparison can one truly ascertain in making differentiations between 98-100 at this early juncture? I wasn’t around to follow scoring progression in other seminal BDX vintages, but perhaps people need to be patient with their final judgments as things tend to flesh out over time and Parker does indeed revist. Look at his 99 note on 82 Pichon Lalande. It chronicles the progression of his evaluation. Same goes to say for Gil Lempert Schwartz’ excellent commentary on the concept of absolute scoring. Perhaps endowed vintages shouldn’t receive final scoring upon release but merely updated ranges. It seems to make more sense to me? Besides, Parker giving 05 Pavie 98 while producing a glowing note is a boon for the consumer. Your Pavie will be quite cheaper as a result, while the quality won’t change (that’s for sure).


Negociants take 20% FYI.