That’s a different, casual kind of perfect, but an important perfect. I’m obviously talking about drinking a wine and saying to myself, it is inconceivable that a wine (or this wine) could be any better, different yes, but not better. The kind of perfect you describe is what many of us experiential people that regularly drink wine feel often at various moments. It could be the company. It could be the venue. It could be the joyful simplicity of a classic Beaujolais paired with a simple chicken dish, or as you note, a crisp Kabinett while sitting in the backyard, warming breeze coming off the lake. In our cycling parlance, my Pinarello Dogma is the greatest bike I have ever owned or ridden. I cannot imagine changing one thing or how it could even be improved. It’s perfect to me. But so is my classic Colnago Carbonissimo. It’s old, it’s heavy, the components are not longer crisp. And yet when I ride it, I experience the simple, unparalleled experience of joy, freedom. Sociando Mallet is that Colnago to me. I know it’s rarely exceptional, say like 95+, but when I drink it, it brings me great pleasure, always. It’s about the most dead-center wheelhouse Bordeaux for me. There are a handful of them, but this one seems to entice me the most (and yes, affordability to relevant there, too).
Both are important “perfects,” but they are different, at least to me.
Hmmm, do tell, since that’s perhaps the only wine on your cool list that I can find or afford. Any notes? I know Levenberg has raved about the 2014 as well.
You can also find and afford the 2014 Climens. And, once in a while, Envoyer will sell another batch of the 1993 Ampeau for a much better than expected price. I got some last year, but it has not been shipped to me yet.
Much truth in this. I’d love to see a publication post an editorial resetting their score range and criteria. First criteria: no recent release wine can get a score over 95. That leaves the necessary room for improvement that can only be proven with age. Since 20 points is plenty of total range to score wines, in my mind, and since the 100 scale seems more appealing to most people than 20 point scale, I’d set the bottom end at 80. Then use the whole range.
I think the 95-point cap would be a little draconian, and probably only exacerbate the problem of score compression. After all, how long would the 2015 La Tâche have to spend in 95-point purgatory before ascending the scale?
While we tend to focus on critics—rightly—it’s also worth acknowledging that part of the problem is that score-driven consumers will neglect a wine scored under 90 points. A critical ‘reset’ (and that would mean different things for different critics) would see a lot of wines suddenly neglected.
I agree, William. Not sure how you put the cat back in the bag.
Personally, I think guys like you, Neal Martin, David S (can never spell his name), with detailed notes and comments on vintages, regions, domaines and wines, rather than twitter-type notes with nothing but platitudes and big points, i.e., Suckles and Galloni. But it will take time . . . .
Like look at this crap:
Vinous: 95-98 Points
The 2016 Lafite-Rothschild is polished, silky and captivatingly beautiful. There is a level of precision to the flavors that is simply mind-blowing. Even so, the 2016 remains ethereal and light on its feet, with all the grace of a ballerina. I imagine the 2016 will develop into a stunning wine once it comes together a bit more fully. Even so, it is striking today.
More seriously, when I first started looking at Wine Spectator, around 1990 or so, you would never see a 100 point score. Never. It was rare to see even 95. A 93 was an exceptional wine. But 93s still drove plenty of sales, when that score was acknowledged as something special.
Professional critics have painted themselves into a corner where, to get any attention and drive sales (which I assume is necessary for a publication that takes advertising to exist), their scores have to out-do the scores of other pubs. Retailers always choose the highest scores to attach to their offers (be it email or physical shelf-talkers), right? And that’s the advertising the publication needs to thrive.
So maybe it’s not possible to put the horse back in the barn, but the current trend is unsustainable.
I have kept a small number of old IWCs in print, including the one with David Schildknecht’s reviews of the 2001 Germans. Looks like there was only one Eiswein in 2001 as far as he reported.
I bought two halves on release and have never tasted it. Might be time.
And yet if he actually told you what flavors he perceived someone here would lambast him for that. And god forbid he said the wine had an attractive salinity.
I love salinity! You may find it often in my scribbles.
I have no idea how people can write so many notes on so many wines and retain freshness and individuality on each note, I really cannot, but come on, that note on the Lafite is worthless. Is it even a red wine?
and so is the score (well, all scores, but this/these in particular). Is it 95? 96? 97? or 98? it’s a wide berth they give themselves, consistent with the zero accountability thingy they all manage so well. These are our professionals? People who can narrow down 4 of (the current) 13 point spread. Laughable. If you’re going to use points, use them, don’t stake out 1/3 of the territory and pretend to know what you’re doing.
In the interest of the thread, I’m not going to spend time talking about 100 point wines. Perfect wines, no such thing. Wines that are unforgettable - in the best of ways - instead I’ll spend my time on finding more of these/them and sharing with friends.
Yeah, I can’t really get all worked up about the (in)adequacy of the note. Here’s what I know for sure after reading that note: the taster liked it a lot, and it wasn’t ponderous. Both the text and the numbers associated with it communicate that enthusiasm. I am not sure whether I would have gained more insight from the note if it had included “currants” or “cloudberries” or “gooseberries.” It tasted like Lafite, and a good one at that, but something short of historic.
Well, I assume anyone buying a Lafite would know what it is, but assume that note was on Chateau Mullet. How would you know whether it was red, white, sweet or dry? How would you know what it actually tasted like? How would you know if it was traditional or modern? How would you know whether it was an archtype Pauilliac? Thread diversion to be sure, but the note is pretty worthless other than conveying enthusiasm, which I think is consistent with the general criticism we read on these boards about the current crop of most critic notes. Tell me what it smells and tastes like, the structure, and some prognostication on drinking window. I’m a simple man. And yes, I know my notes suck, but none of you Berserkers pay me!
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}