I find the timing impeccable after Roy’s “calling out” on the erpBB.
Give em time Peter. They promised reviews within the next 12 months.
So it’ll be right after they release My Wines?
To keep on topic, scores were much lower than Roy Hersh’s, if anyone is interested. Scores were good, but 96 points topped the list.
Spectator barrel scores were a tad higher, closer to Roy’s, FWIW. And, to his credit, a brief scan didn’t find any of the big boy Ports ever getting more than a 97 from IWC, so he is puting the vintage among the very top of his reviewing career.
I need my fix.
I don’t typically follow Tanzer, but I’ve found that I can only trust a couple of raters on Port. I really only trust reviews from Suckling and from Roy. I think Parker does at best an average job on tasting port. I think you either have the palate for it or you don’t. IMHO, Suckling and Roy have it, and Parker doesn’t.
Just as an FYI, Parker has not done a formal port report in a decade. Rovani did 2003. Miller has yet to do 2007, but since everyone on the Parker board bashed him on that too, he has agreed to let the Embassy pour him some wine next month.
Thanks for the update Daniel. However, I was thinking about the older reviews that RP did do, 2000 and before. I’ve just never been aligned with his tastings on port generally. The more I think about it, the more I recall that I tend to line up with Broadbent as well on Port.
I haven’t really spent any time on newer (post 2000) vintages of Port because they’re too expensive relative to the great, mature vintages out there. I’m 50 right now, and don’t want to wait until I’m 70-75 to drink a 2003 or newer port when I can spend the same $$ per bottle on a 1983 or 1985 bottle (or older) and drink it now or 20 years from now.