Ha, if you think price moves because of the actual quality of the wine in the bottle, you have a lot to learn. I know you know better than that 
100 point scores drive prices, not quality.
Weāll see what 2015 Bordeaux looks like in 10-15 years, and if my prediction that itās an overrated vintage, a la 97 California Cab, comes true.
Scores get people to taste the wine. But it takes more than scores to move the market on a continuing basis.
Weāll see what 2015 Bordeaux looks like in 10-15 years, and if my prediction that itās an overrated vintage, a la 97 California Cab, comes true.
Please tell me how you arrived at your prediction about 2015 Bordeaux and that itās an overrated vintage?
EVERY ONE of the critics loved the 2015 Canon. Martin: 100. Suckling: 100. Galloni: 96-98. Jancis: 17.5. LPB: 96. Jeb: 98+.
FWIW Galloni scored it 100 in bottle. Maybe they all tasted from the same bottle
UGC, and a few various tastings at retailers around the Bay Area. If it makes you feel better, I also think 2015 Burgundy is overrated
How many wines did you taste at the UGC, give or take?
I have seen a few vintages revised by the critics but never Bordeaux. Perhaps Alan you can give me an example of another vintage where the critics screwed up.
2003
And I give you this nugget 
Robert it is a difficult if not an impossible question to answer. When I rate a wine 100 points, I am rating that bottle at that time. One of the reasons I loathe the 100 point system is that you are trying to make the ephemeral objective.
Yes of course if you put 4 bottles in front of me that I have rated as perfect I can put them in some kind of order, but it is a completely different exercise.
Alan
2003 was controversial; nobody considered it homogenously great, although a few pockets in the Medoc had their admirers. Nobody that I am aware of changed their assessment. Compared to 2015, the scores are way lower with almost no 100 pointers
As for 2009 Cos, i canāt think of anyone who changed their mind.
Ask Jeff Leve.
Greatness of a vintage is defined by how the lowest wines and average producers/ sites fare. 2015 is great in both the regions.
But yea but going by this board, somehow 2015 Bordeaux and Burgundy is overrated, but not in N. Rhone
Cellar tracker has good reviews from a lot of reviewers. Perhaps its a hedonistic wine. Alan may not like it, but thatās his choice. The majority seem to like it.
Nah, it wasnāt too hedonistic for me, just not that exciting.
I do like 2015 in general, though it is a bigger, warmer vintage. Syrah seems to be able to soak that up better than Bordeaux or Burgundy, IMO. But I like 2013 a lot more, even 2014 in many instances, and I suspect Iāll prefer 2016 to 2015 after Iāve had a chance to try more of the wines.
I am as mystified as Alan at the reception the 2015 Canon has received. I like hedonistic and it is not that. To me itās pretty, ripe, rather anonymous fruit and a pretty decent buy at $80. Itās like the critics got in a room and decided to crown the next Pontet Canet and they pulled Canonās name out of a hat
Or maybe we just had an off bottle at UGC (likely not)
Suckling is just trying to āMake Wine Great Againā with the all the 100 point scores 
Can you show me a known Bordeaux critic, reviewer, etc, that called 2003 a great vintage? I cannot think of anyone making that claim. That being said, there are a handful of great wines from 2003, mostly in Pauillac and Saint Estephe along with Ausone and Chateau Margaux and perhaps a handful of others that also produced great wine.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste. 
People do get emotional about points, donāt they? Not sure why.
obviously it isnāt scientific, but some kind of logic needs to be used. Please forgive the āpreciseā numbers given below. They are just for the sake of argument.
With the 100 points system a āvery good wineā will usually score somewhere in the 90s. Letās say that gives 10 grades of wine. Obviously, thatās a very limited number and wines that score, say, 94 points wonāt all be of the same quality. Some will be slightly better than other, but the system doesnāt allow for factions of whole numbers or the decimal equivalent. There are no 99.5 point wines.
So, one 100 point wine might be worth 99.96 another 99.98, but because you can only use whole numbers, they all must be given a score of 100.
On Suckling, I donāt share his taste in wine, but I think it is madness to be angry because he gives high scores. Does giving ultra low scores make for the best critic? I donāt think so. As long as a critic is consistent, you can mentally adjust their scores to cross reference with anotherās scores. Itās no big deal.
Iāve tasted corked wine at UGC tastings where the bottle was nearly empty and, obviously, nobody had said anything. Sometimes the pourers agreed with me and opened a new bottle and sometimes they disagreed, but Iām certain they were corked.