I think the Suckles sucks the big suck - canceled my Wine Spincter subscription 15+ years ago because of him - but being devil’s advocate here, if you line up 5 wines that you think are perfect, don’t you think it’s possible to arranbge them in accordance with your preference? This question does not apply to those here that eschew points, but if you do score, isn’t that possible? Three perfect wines I’ve had come to mind, but I’d still drink them in this order: 1989 Petrus, 1982 Mouton, 1989 Haut Brion, even though that Haut Brion, IMHO, is that model of a perfect Bordeaux. And if I could only have one, I still grab the Petrus. It’s my slutty Pomerol side.
Have you had the wine? Hadn’t planned on drinking them young anyway but I’m curious
Yeah, I don’t have a problem with the concept. Especially if the review is supposed to be an expert’s assessment of the wine, instead of a reflection of personal preference. I can totally see “I think these wines are all without fault but given a choice, I’d choose this one.”
I think this is one of the problems (and there are many) of the 100 point system. you are not looking at a sheet and ticking off flaws; a 100 point wine is much more than that, and should be used incredibly sparingly. For 100 points, the wine has to transcend my ability to score it, and the very few times I gave it, time stopped, and I knew it was perfect. I will take a few minutes to enjoy the pleasure before any kind of analysis. If ever I look down at paper after taking a mouthful and reach for a pen, it ain’t a 100 point wine.
But you didn’t answer my question. Like you, I have only called 4 wines in my life a “100-point wine”. Are you really tell me that side by side, the ones you have rated 100, you could not put them in any sort of order in which you would prefer to drink them? Or better yet, if you could only have one of them? Not busting your chops, just asking the question.
This is the beginning of the end of the 100 point scale. As has been predicted by many, including me, the scale doesn’t top at 100, and Suckling just proved that. Ranking the 100-pointers puts them ABOVE 100, basically. Incredible
On the surface I don’t see why this is controversial. Suppose you are a teacher grading papers. It’s totally reasonable that multiple papers could achieve your criteria for 100 points, but you would expect to still be able to rank them.
The problem comes if someone says “perfect wine” (which I believe Parker did many times; I’m not sure about the others). It’s defensible to have any number of perfect scores, but if you think there are a lot of perfect wines, then you’re on the shaky ground where you should not be able to rank them.
I’ve had it. It was cranberry juice followed by alcohol for the first few hours and I was sad. But after 12 hours it started to show itself. Sort of. I’m no fanatic about waiting on Bordeaux (I think they can be really pleasant when young, sometimes) but this was like trying to interpret a taste out of a fire hose. I’m sure it’s going to be amazing, but I’m not touching another bottle for a long time. YMMV.
While it’s far from a realized goal, I think you can separate personal preference and score, so some wines could meet the technical threshold while you would have personal preference for one over another, you’re not required to love each 100pt wine equally. Obviously most critics fail to achieve that, in particular Parker seemed to reflect his own taste when scoring rather than any technical standard.
Does that make me completely perverted for my case @ < $90 per out the door…
117, 116, 115…
Dan Kravitz
#reprobate
Having had the 2015 Canon at least 6 or more times, I found it to be stunning from barrel and now bottle. Cranberry comes from unripe fruit. There is no unripe fruit on this wine. I loved it enough to buy 2 cases for about $80 when the wine was first offered. You can see my notes on 2015 Canon for a point of view if you wish… Learn about Chateau Canon St. Emilion Bordeaux, Complete Guide
Cranberry comes from unripe fruit? I have not heard that before. But I do know from your website that Canon has 30% Cabernet Franc. I frequently pick up cranberry notes from Cabernet Franc. I have not had this wine, so I obviously cannot comment on the wine, however. I was also to read that Canon intends to increase the Cabernet Franc profile of the wine, perhaps leading to less ripeness. 
I think 100 points needs to denote something a lot more profound than “not technically flawed”. That’s a pretty low threshold. To me, a 100 point wine should evoke the feeling that “I cannot imagine a wine ever being any better than this”. Or even, “I could not have imagined that a wine could be this good!” It’s not a 100 point wine if there’s better wine out there. Obviously that isn’t how things are being done these days. There must be a hundred times as many hundred point scores as there should be.
On the other note, I’m not sure a critic should try to separate their own tastes from their scoring. How can they? They have but one palate. Shall they guess what most others would like and try to score that way? If I taste a wine and declare “This is a perfect wine!”, I obviously mean perfect to ME. It would be quite haughty of me to tell you that it also must be perfect to you. Critics all have their proclivities. When you find one whose proclivities you share, that’s when their critiques start to have more value.
Telling other people how a wine will taste to them is sorta the main job of critics.
Clearly most critics are not using the 100 point score the way a lot of consumers would prefer.
I’m with you on all this. most readers dont view a 100 point score as a technically sound wine, they view it as a wine that when they drink it should be life altering. personally, I am with everyone who thinks that a single taster should really only be able to award a few 100 point wines in a lifetime, or they are doing it wrong. a bunch can come close, and 99 is still a very good score, but even that should be rare. i do think a 100 point wine should make you feel something special.
That being said, I think even in those special wines its definitely possible to still pick a favorite. I dont think it disqualifies any of the others from the same score. I could maybe give out 10 scores of 100 in my lifetime but still on my deathbed as for a wine that I scored a 97. it doesnt take away from the 100s, but the others just mean something different to an individual person
Suckling is the one Wine critic I have decided not to renew my subscription. I find he hands out 90+ scores like they are candy at halloween.
A wine that scores 95 points in my opinion should SING to you.
I remember tasting a 1959 Haut Brion… it did just that…
I tasted this at UGC, went back a couple times to refresh my notes. Good dark red fruit, touch of warmth, medium structure, nicely flavorful and rich. I gave it 92 points. 100 points? I have no idea what that meant. If I were younger, and more of a Bordeaux drinker, I might buy some at $80. For what it’s selling at now? No freakin’ way. Not to mention that there are dozens of wines from other vintages at much lower prices I’d rather have before this one. 100 points is idiocy.
That’s why there are 31 flavors, so you get to pick the wine you like. I’ve tasted 2015 Canon at least 6 times, from barrel to bottle and on every occasion, I found the wine mind-boggling! If you did not, no problem.
But saying a wine’s score is idiocy because it’s not your taste is silly. FWIW, off the top of my head, I cannot think of any professional taster or critic that does not see 2015 Canon as one of the top wines from the very strong vintage. And I know a lot of people that taste these wines. Perhaps that’s why the price has moved from $80 to about $300 per bottle!