Do you think parker was "right" about 1982 Bordeaux? Is it better than other vintages from that era

WINE TALK
1

Do you think parker was “right” about 1982 Bordeaux?

  • Yes, he was rigjt
  • No, he wasn’t
  • I have another answer (explain)

0 voters

Do you think parker was “right” about 1982 Bordeaux? Is it better than other vintages from that era?

2

At one time I was a Bordeaux enthusiast. 1982 was certainly a remarkable and somewhat unique vintage. I was actually told by my wine merchant to avoid it. I didn’t, but I wish for the sake of resale that I had bought much more heavily. I have found over time that while I’m happy to choke down 1982’s, I really prefer more classic vintages. Of course, now I much prefer burgundy, but that’s another matter.

3

He wasn’t “wrong”, in that 1982 produced many strong wines, a decent proportion of which are ageworthy (and there were, of course, the famously wrong naysayers). However, the same can be said about 1990 and a handful of other warm-weather vintages favored by Parker. Several recent retrospectives, including one by Neal Martin, suggest that the vintage is not one for the ages, and that a lot of the wines need to be drunk up. The hot-weather Cabs and Bordeaux seem to last longer than the classicists expect them to, but never as long as Parker insists that they will. Parker’s drinking habits also seem to belie his aggressive and unsubstantiated drinking windows; he has already emptied two cellars’ worth of 2007 CdP and ten of new milennium Cali Cabs and Syrahs!

4

I think Parker was essentially right about the vintage, although the battle of superlatives, coupled with vintage generalizations can be very tiresome…

I was in Bordeaux working for a négociant at the time and I remember the futures campaign in the spring of 1983 very well.
What I would contest is Parker’s having seen this as some kind of visionary whereas others did not.
That’s ridiculous. What Parker did was to get in there and publish quickly, more quickly than anyone had done before.
He had an innovative, vivacious style and didn’t pull punches. He did, in effect, break the “old boy” mold, and marked Americans’ liberation from the monopoly of English wine writers.
Has he since been sucked into respecting hierarchies and taken friendships developed over the years into account in his sacrosanct scores?
I wouldn’t know…

Best regards,
Alex R.

5

…stirring the pot there, are we? [wink.gif]

6

Berry,

I think you only judge if Parker was right about 1982 by looking at when he reviewed them and then looking backwards (he had no idea what was coming in future vintages — I, for example, prefer 1986 over 1982, but Parker couldn’t have known what 1986 was like when he reviewed 1982). At the time, several vintages of Bordeaux from the 1970s had been severaly overhyped by some members of the British wine press. And while vintages like 1978 and 1970 were praiseworthy, 1975 was certainly overly praised and other some vintages from the 1970s were said to be somewhat better than they actually were. So, when 1982 came along it was certainly praiseoworthy and Parker was right at the time.

Alex, in the U.S. retail market, there were some reports from some writers that the vintage wasn’t all that it was hyped up to be. So while Parker was certainly early in his praise (and certainly not alone), there were some who felt differently. I think the wines have largely proven Parker (and the othrs who also felt that it was a great year) correct.

Adam Lee
Siduri Wines

7

I don’t know if Parker was right. He certainly liked to let everyone know that he was the ‘only’ one’ who saw any value in the vintage. I do believe that based on the wines that I have drunk, 1982 was the best vintage of the era; maybe the best in the last 30 years.

8

I agree with Charlie’s summary. The '82 vintage remains my benchmark for any vintage from the '70s-'90s. The 2000 forward vintages are too young for me to assess in this context, but I do think 2000 has produced some wonderful Bordeaux. I went in deep on '05, and feel confident that they will deliver. I like the structure of the '05s more than the up-front upulence of the '09s, comparing same estates, so my money on current vintages remains with '05.

9

Not one mention of 1985? I prefer 1985 over 1982 every day and twice on Tuesdays.

10

Yes, that is an important piece of context. Robert Finnegan, who was the dominant newsletter writer at the time (Parker was an upstart), was very critical of the 82s. I believe Terry Robards in the NY Times was as well. So when Parker came out swinging, defending the vintage, it was somewhat controversial here. I believe some of the British writers were reserved about the vintage initially, too, a bit wary of the ripeness.

I have mixed feelings about the vintage. There were lots of great wines, including many cru bourgeois that were spectacular bargains. Was it the greatest of the 1971-1988 period? Probably. But 83 was arguably better on the Right Bank. And, like John S. above, I sometimes find myself preferring wines from the more “classic” vintages, which can have a refinement in contrast to the lushness of the 82s.

11

John, I agree with you about the views of Finnegan and Robards, but I remember buying an issue of Decanter Magazine and the author (I don’t remember who but it was one of the big British writers at the time) praised the vintage and liked basically the same wines Parker did. Of course, the British did so in a more reserved, less hyped way. I remember the Decanter article well because it gave me more confidence to buy 1982 futures.

I think 1982 is a great vintage. The only real issue I know of is that there were many fewer Bordeaux properties making quality wines at the time so that there a lot of mediocre wines out there. But the material was there.

12

Wow, Carlos - you prefer '85 to '82?

I’m not sure what wines you’re drinking, but I don’t think a single first growth in '85 holds a candle to it’s '82 counterpart, and most of the 2nd growths have performed similarly. I’m not even sure I like '85 better than '88 or '83.

Likewise surprised with Adam’s comment about his preference for '86. I still have a lot in my cellar, and while I feel confident that some of the wines will eventually be great, many are still drinking much younger (and are far less pleasurable) than their '82 counterparts (Lafite & Gruaud Larose immediately come to mind), and some like Latour, Pichon Lalande and Montrose will never approach the performance of their '82 siblings.

In fact, while I do think Parker got it right about '82, I think we can make the exact opposite argument about '86, another vintage he was very bullish on when it was available for futurs purchase. While he did warn about the tannin and structure of the vintage, in his initially-published drinking windows there was nothing to really indicate that many of these wines would remain sternly tannic and ungiving 25 years after the vintage.

13

Interesting observation (or “question”) given your staunch defense of the recent self-congratulatory PR campaign re: St Emilion reclassification. If we agree that “respecting hierarchies” is a mistake, how can creating them be a boon for consumers? (ANd I am really not trying to start a fight; just trying to understand)

As for the OP, what do you mean by “era?” Fron the perspective of someone tasting in 1983, which recent vintage was better? And what do you mean by “better?” More consistently great, producing the most fabulous wines but in limited number?

14

.

15

Well, how does parker define great in terms of vintage? Use that definition since he is the context.

16

Neal,

You make a good point, but my use of the word hierarchy here should be taken to mean price and reptuation - which owe much to Parker in the first place! - more than classification.
For instance, Lynch Bages is universally considered better than it’s ranking, Rauzan Gassies less good, and Pomerol doesn’t have any ranking at all.
Such wines fit into a parallel hierarchy if you will, one that is frequently more volatile and ephemeral. I think we both agree that being attuned to critics and price are a useful complement to official classifications. I’d go so far as to say one without the other is incomplete. Hope that make you happy (smile).
Therefore when I speak of Parker being possibly sucked into paying allegience to the existing hierarchy, I’m speaking yes, of the classification, but also “received wisdom” as to where wines fit in commerically
I

17

In the past, Parker has been scathing about first growths, I believe. Is he still today?
Is he indulgent towards wines that he has helped to lift from obscurity in vintages following their “discovery”?
And then there is the critic’s dilemma, and it’s only human: should you be honest about a disappointing wine if you are on good terms with the owner, or “fudge it”, by being more non-commital than damning?

(sorry for the interrupted message).

Alex R.

18

I do understand the argument of classic vs. lush. I have had some beautiful wines from 1975, 1981, 1983, 1985… If 1982 was a lush vintage, I still believe the wines -most wines- were still made generally by ‘classic’ winemakers, or in other words, in a ‘classic’ way. Parker may have called the vintage but he didn’t influence it, at least in terms of today’s wines.

19

What’s with all these Bordeaux discussions lately?? [snort.gif]

20

Robert Finigan was a good friend of mine before his death, and up to the end, he continued to tell me he believed he was correct (at least to his own palate) about 1982. He often commented that he preferred, for example, 1985 to 1982 by a long shot.