Where is this medical center where they let you drink wine??
I am sure I will need the name sometime in the future.,
1 Like
Sorry sir, but you have created a system to reinforce your personal preferences. I have read all your posts, and as an engineer who spent 25 years doing data analysis, that is the only conclusion I can reach.
1 Like
I’ve been reading these posts too, and think they’re kind of nuts too.
Posts about scores, rankings get tiresome.
To the last 2 posters: You are of course entitled to your own opinions, as am I (mine is obviously different). I think everyone should choose the method (if any) they prefer. My method seems to enhance the enjoyment of left bank red Bordeaux for me, and for my wife on the rare occasions she drinks red wine. The scores I use in my system are all my own. Friends to whom we have given left bank red Bordeaux wines scored by me at 93 or above really seem to enjoy the taste. Anyway, what is so wrong about reinforcing one’s personal preferences? Also people who do not like reading about scores and rankings might try to refrain from doing so, but I know it can be very hard to practice what one preaches. RTPL
deleted as redundant
To Chris F. : I think you will like the 2012 Rauzan Segla. I have so far had little of the various 2012 wines from Margaux that I named, but the year has been termed an “early drinking” one. Other 2012 wines I have tried have in general done better than expected. RTPL
deleted as redundant
To Mel Knox: I doubt if the center would want to be named here. It was a doctor who permitted a glass of wine a night, and only after a marked improvement in my condition. RTPL
deleted as redundant
Seconded.
Posts about scores, rankings get tiresome.
This too.
Intricate systems where you put in your own scores and coefficients are a great way of scientifically imposing your bias. It’s cool, whatever means you can justify buying wines you like (and even finding value for money wines under your system)
To Otto Forsberg: I suggest you read my post number 24, if you haven’t already. Please point out any maths errors I made (always possible). I just use my own wine scores and Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings in what seems a very simple system. Others can obviously do likewise (using their own wine scores) or I would expect far more often go their own way, which is perfectly fine with me.
To Henry B: The Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings are not my own, and I suggest other people use their own wine scores (if they have a decent palate) or those of anyone else they prefer rather than mine: I do not expect anyone else to use my wine scores on the rare occasions these are available to them. RTPL
deleted as redundant
I’m getting the sense of reinforcement of a lot of redundancy…
The Wine Advocate Vintage Ratings (W.A. V. R.s) for areas of Bordeaux seem somehow more objective (and certainly more all-encompassing) than the individual scores for wine by people including myself. As far as my own scores go, if I am wrong, so what? The wines chosen seem to give others as well as myself a good deal of pleasure at reasonable prices, as I feel sure so do the choices of others. RTPL
To Markus S. : Your amusing point is well taken. I wish I was much better with typing and computers, and have a bad habit of posting when I am too tired (I sometimes have to exchange emails with the UK, and the 8 hour time difference is a problem).
To all: Despite the greater objectivity of the “W.A.V.R.s” I consider the subject of sensible pricing much more important than that of modern classification, though I will continue to use both. RTPL
To Rich Brown and other well-wishers: Many thanks, I am considerably better and left the medical center yesterday. I am now in an apartment at the same retirement center that my wife and I have, though we regularly live elsewhere.
I wonder if anyone is interested in a rating of left bank red Bordeaux wines from 2004-2016 (excluding 2013). scores through 2012 were by Robert Parker, for 2014 were by Neal Martin, and for 2014-2015 were an average of those from Neal Martin and Antonio Galloni. The ratings serve to indicate which wines for the period qualify as first growths. RTPL
1 Like
Some of the results of my 2004-16 (excluding 2013) rating were surprising. I do not yet have access to my source material, but if I remember rightly I think Pape
Clement came in equal fifth. I assumed that Latour and Lafite in Pauillac etc., Chateau Margaux and Palmer in Margaux, and Haut Brion And La Mission Haut Brion in Pessac Leognan would be the leading 2 wines in each area, but I cannot remember if I was right or wrong. I used my “system” to see which wines qualified as “first growths”. There were quite a lot of them in that limited period. I rounded scores to the nearest decimal point. To my surprise Malescot-Saint- Exupery in (I think) Feb. 2018 qualified by the skin of its teeth, but not in Mar. 2018 when Neal Martin lowered its 2014 (I surmise) rating by one point. RTPL
In the following W.A.V.R. = Wine Advocate Vintage Rating.
For St. Estephe/Pauillac/St. Juien the average W.A.V.R. is a rounded 93, in Margaux it is a rounded 91, and in Pessac Leognan it is a rounded 92.
193/2= 96.5, and 96.5 -2.5 =94.0, 191/2 = 95.5, and 95.5 - 2.5 =93.0, & 192/2 = 96 and 96 -2.5 =93.5 .
In Pessac Leognan Domaine de Chevalier Rouge barely makes it, and in Margaux Rauzan Segla makes it with little to spare.
Quite a few make it in Pauillac etc., including (to my imperfect memory) Pichon Baron and Leoville Poyferre. RTPL
To everyone: I apologise for not giving or referring to much earlier an explanation of “my system”, which can be found under my postings about “Modern classification of left bank red Bordeaux”. Briefly, the average score for the top 2 chateaux in an area (e.g. Latour and Lafite in Pauillac) will be very close to (100 +W.A.V.R.)/2 , where W.A.V.R. = Wine Advocate Vintage Rating averaged over a period of one or more years. Then the bottom sccore for 1st growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 2.5, the bottom score for 2nd growth quality = (100 +W.A.V.R.)/2 -5.0, the bottom score for 3rd growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 7.0, the bottom score for 4th growth quality = (100 + W.A.V.R.)/2 - 8.5, and the bottom score for 5th growth quality = (100 +W.A.V.R.)/2 -10.0 . In an individual year when the W.A.V.R. is less than 90 it is raised to 90, so that the bottom score for a 5th growth cannot be less than 85.0 . RTPL