the classic predictable reviewer was Clive Coates who was/is what I call a hierarchist, always rating grand cru above premier above lieux dits, etc. Completely predictable.
Yeah but he was way too sophisticated for people like me. I like James Suckling. Whatever wine Iâm drinking at least I know itâs probably 93 points.
For a lot of people, a high score from the WA has historically influenced the flip value of the wine. My guess is that this is a good bit of the reason why people who buy a wine anyway want a WA score. Also, bragging rights - Look at me, I am drinking a 98 point wine.
I started drinking Burgundy in the 1970s and certainly have a group of Burgundy producers whose wines I love. But, just from reading his comments on this board (and looking at the pictures he posts), I have learned a tremendous amount from William Kelley on farming practices, new up and coming producers, etc. There should be more to wine articles than scores and in reading the best wine writers there generally is.
I must admit that for me some of the same producers shine through every time I go to a Paulee grand tasting. I cannot think of one of these tastings I have been to where Mugneret-Gibourg and Hudelot-Noellat are not among my favorite producers, for example.
Not to forget that 99.9% of all wine consumers donât travel to the regions, donât buy the same wine every vintage, are not on boards and in groups discussing the wines with others and hence need some guidance on the quality of the vintage, the wines, and what winery has changed and improved a lot (as an example: how the hell would I have found Carmes Haut Brion if it wasnât for the critics pointing out that there is a new ownership, management, winemaker and much improved quality).
Of course, but I was specifically responding to the question of why someone who is on the mailing list anyway and will buy the wine no matter what (presumably because they like it) cares about a score.
And such a shame. Les Carmes Haut Brion was actually a better Bordeaux, at least more interesting. Now itâs damn good, but more universal in style. If you like that, good for you, but it will also cost you 2x-3x more than it used to cost. All of these new critics and modern critics constantly pimping new this and new that, and âimproved qualityâ usually means the Chateau brought in a modernist consultant as well with a goal of formulaic production that scores them big points among those critics that swoon over that modern style.
Iâm not sure how I learned about Les Carmes Haut Brion, but have been drinking it for many years. While I do not know what âyourâ palate is like - just that you really really like the critics - I recommend you find some mature Les Carmes like a 2000. I adore that vintage. Classic Bordeaux, class Pessac-Leognan. The new wine is classic nothing, but again, it is damn good, with IMHO, the Cab Franc saving the wine.
I agree about La Paulee (at least the last few which were not that crowded), but for me, tasting at the UGC is not a simple task (keeping in mind that I attend the NY tasting at Cipriani). Itâs hot, itâs packed, and the bottles are very often freshly shipped. Iâve compared notes with those that attend the UGC in other cities, and we get wild swings.
Not sure what youâre reffering to but what happened to Carmes is probably the opposite of what you describe here. A Bordeaux winery that does whole closter fermentation and a lot of amphore ageing, keeps the alcohol level below everybody else on the left bank, is probably the opposite of what âmodernâ style means, a âmodernistâ consultant would advise and a âmodernâ critic would like.
). Please keep posting.![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}