I wish I was a subscriber for a day to read the note.
Probably goes something like this:
“I could feel my tongue after drinking this, so I immediately docked 15 pts. There are strange notes of herbs and minerals - very offputting. The color is nice though.”
Btw, if you need a laugh or two after a tough day of work, free scores are here on WS site. I’d rather have free notes, but what can you do.
http://www.winespectator.com/magazine/show/id/40942" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
If I scored wines I can’t imagine how the 06 SC Mountains would get as low as 86 to me. And being that that is declassified MB fruit… ![[dontknow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/2/259bbc27e64baab255bbf586025626180d3e97e8.gif "dontknow"){kind=small}
People love to rail on JM and RMP but JL has been MUCH further off base to me for a few years now.
Well said, Cris.
This is hilarious. And in ten years, JL will write a blog about how terrific this wine is and what staying power it has.
JL actually had a recent blog in which he drank the 2004 Williams Selyem Weir Vineyard PN and gave it 92 points informally. It got 89 points on release. Well, gee, perhaps these Selyem wines have such structure that they need to age a bit …
Forget it. I’m stopping. Too much going on to put together a proper rant.
90% of the wines I consume with family and friends are probably rated under 85pts. from publications. (but I don’t really check before I buy or crack them)
But I always new there was something wrong with me…
Why the difference between 2005 and 2006?
MATCH
Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Baconbrook 2006 82 $75
Cabernet Sauvignon Napa Valley Baconbrook 2005 91 $75
And always the QPR gem:
SCREAMING EAGLE
Cabernet Sauvignon Oakville 2006 91 $750
Exactly why I don’t check scores from most of these jokers anymore. My sick curiosity wants to know what JL would score a lot of the stuff I like to drink daily like Muscadet or Apremont whites.
LOL!
He lost me when he lambasted Montelena for TCA and rated the Estate wines so poorly.
The best no doubt are his retrospectives, where WOTY wines are rated 85 from just 10 years ago 
.
A few years? He’s always been inconsistent with Monte Bello (and other SCM wines), often seriously underrating them. He’s gone his whole career not learning, or caring, how wines age. He doesn’t like aged wine or wines that need aging.
LOL.
He probably thinks Muscadet is a new, hot property in Napa.
at least he’s consistent in his preferences. i also admire his honesty, and willingness to change his mind (re: retrospectives). although i rarely agree with him, i do have to say that i never doubt that he’s calling as he sees it.
Another classic one is the Beaulieu Georges Latour at 83 pts.
I havent had the 06, but he has it in for them, like Montelena.
First, I will say that Laube and I have locked horns on his blogs several times in the past. Items such as the overriping of grapes and use of oak being the normal culprits we have clashed on.
But some of you guys are treading on some sacred ground, which always gets me into trouble. That is the blind tasting of newly released young wines built (and needing) to age right next to big fruit forward “drink now” wines. 
I continue to say that even the pros don’t do it very well, and most amatuers are worst than the pros. You give the pros a lineup of 20+ wines,blind, in a flight with one or two great ageworthy (but currently backward) wines in the lineup and those two get killed consistently. This is especially more true today, as Laube has aged and his tastes have shifted over to the huge fruit/oak/alcohol treatments. IMO, fifteen years ago, when Laube was in his prime, the ratings coming from him would have been very consistently different than today. But we all get older and our tastes changes, some of us just don’t rate wines for a living.
Huh well, I havent had the Montebello, but the wines Ive had from that list in 06 are not that far off (as far as relative preference, I dont use points) from my take on them. Id rather see that than the 95+ parade that the other place has become. At least its blind.
I better stock up on that 2007 Bota Box. It will definitely be an even better wine at age 15 than the Monte Bello. Err?
Ssshhhh, I did not just post this
“Tastes ripe and taut, medium-bodied and hollow at points, offering tight, flinty mineral, sage, dusty berry and dried currant flavors that are lean and tight. The best of two bottles tasted. Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Petit Verdot and Cabernet Franc. Best from 2012 through 2018”
Funny - someone asked me at dinner the other night how I pick the wines I drink. I hadn’t really thought about it until he asked. I go on region, then vintage then producer. For California I mostly skip the vintage part. A good review will point me to a wine, but a bad one for a producer I like doesn’t carry much weight. I have some 06 MB and am not really concerned about the poor review. I’ll bet most people buying this wine feel the same way.
Well, there you go. Some people don’t like lean Cabs. I avoid them like the plague. So does Laube. Why the fuss?
Actually i find his ratings a refreshing change - if you look the whole list of reviews, the majority of wines fall into the 80-90 range and without commenting on the score for this single controversial wine, in general scores have been so inflated recently that it is nice to see a wider and possibly more realistic range - it often gets lost in the whole ratings trap that 85-90 are actually really good wines - maybe they cant sell well but their still pretty good
Scott
Maybe some retailers will close out of the bottle because of the low ratings.
I don’t think very many buy Ridge on ratings…it’s a ‘wine geek’ wine…