Robert,
this is exactly the argument often heard when blind tastings did not deliver the supposed results. The tasters did wrong, they were not talented enough, the wines not old enough and so forth. I can tell you that even many wine makers were not able to pick out their own wines in blind tastings. Is that because they are not talented, not experienced or whatever enough?
Yes, thatās true, part of the group drinks and likes Napa too. Iām personally not a big Pavie fan either (have just a couple of bottles of the 2016 as it might work in this vintage).
I scored the 2010 with 93 points (avg. score was 94.6). Hereās my short note:
TN: One of the most new-worldish right bank wines. Very dense, ripe dark berries, sweet red berries, with chocolate notes. Very fine tannins, good freshness, high concentration, good length. The others liked it a tad more than I did. Not that it would have been faulty in any way, complexity, structure, length - everything is fine, but itās just not really my style.
For the 2000, itās a bit different. Itās well known as one of the less controversial Pavies (compared to 03, 05, 09, 10) and I liked this bottle a lot. Average score was 96.0 pts). I had a lot of St. Emilions which went bad quickly due to too much extraction and ripeness and were drying out early, but this bottle of the 2000 Pavie is not one of them. Hereās my note (scored 97):
TN: Medium+ expressive nose showing a wonderful harmonious St. Emilion expression with pure, ripe red berries, earthy notes, some burnt sugar aromas and some hints of tobacco. On the palate the wines is very expressive and layered displaying a potpourri of ripe dark red and bright red berries, herbs, VCC-like spices, cola, earthy notes, burnt sugar. Very sexy but still quite elegant and not too over-the-top like many other Pavies. Fine, smooth tannins, a good, well-integrated acidity (but probably not enough for 20 years more ageing) and a fine, creamy texture. Round and balanced with a long, red fruit driven finish. Quite complete and a positive surprise when revealed.
That is all correct, but it was not my point.
My point was: the result depends on the selection of the judges ā¦
If you are judging restaurants the best steak house will not win with a jury of vegetarians, and a vegan resti wonāt win with lovers of a bloody sirloan ā¦
Fully aware of the reference, fortunately. 
My own comment was made in jest as well.
Ok Robert, thanks for the clarification.
Sorry I missed that.
Iām sorry you explained your own joke.
Jurgen, can you please post a link to Jancisā apology. I just googled looking for it and could not find anything.
All I could find quickly is what Jancis Robinsons wrote about the controversy on her own page:
āHaving previously been friendly enough to have dined in each othersā homes, Parker and I retreated into our entrenched positions respectively pro and anti Pavie 03 for years and buried the hatchet only in 2008 when we found ourselves in the same breakfast room in Bordeaux. As the photograph in Parker and Robinson in clinch shows, we quite literally kissed and made up, with Parker volunteering, āThat Pavie thing? I overreacted.āā
I do not know if the conversations on the old Parker board are still available. I stopped my subscription 2009. I have no access to what Parker said about the case but he reported about the settlement himself.
Parker overreacted? That was certainly true. We all know that he was thin skinned and certainly no diplomat. But I mean to remember that Jancis said somewhere she was maybe too harsh in her assessment too. Well ā¦ its history ā¦ .
Thanks Jurgen. I would have been surprised if Jancis had changed her mind.
2003 Pavie is about on a par with the 2010, the most extreme version of the wine, and one least likely to come round in a short period of time.