Debates about the merits of the 100pt system aside, it occurred to me recently that i’ve never had a wine that I thought was perfection. Maybe it is time I adjust my personal scale and recognize perfection as a fleeting impossibility: 96pts = 100?
I doubt I’ll ever have a wine I give 100 points to. How will I know what is a ‘perfect’ wine - I might have one later that is better. Closest I came in my CT notes was the '95 Bollinger La Grande Annee. Had I added the '96 and '97 Chave from my recent Seattle trip, and the '76 (was that the year?) Lalande I had with Philip Robert and gang, I’d have a few more in that range, which is 98 points.
I’ve only had one that was assigne 100 by someone else and it didn’t come close to the hype. Although that was probably because it was waaaaay too young. 2007 Saxum JBV. Good, but I’ve had better Saxum’s and much better wines. I think that’s the only wine I’ve had that anyone has given 100 to.
As for my personal 100, never had one…I kinda like James Vineyard’s comments above…
1997 Harlan (maggie on my 50th birthday - thanks Don!)
1997 Bryant (hanging out at the compound - thanks Don!)
Every bottle of 2001 Yquem I’ve opened from my own cellar.
The only wine that an established critic rated 100 points that lived up to the billing for me was 1990 Montrose. Every one of the 4 bottles I drank hit that mark in spades. Otherwise, such critically acclaimed wines have not hit the supercalifragilistic fabulousness mark.
Additionally, while I do not assign scores to wines – a silly exercise, at least for me – I have had any number of stunning wine experiences that I rate as highly as my encounters with the 1990 Montrose. Few of those are rated, at least by any established critics, as 100 pointers. Perhaps they just can’t think outside the box?