Gosh, what the heck happened to Calera in 2007? Parker had always reviewed them fairly well, but nothing like this, and Meadows had previously tended to give them outstanding ratings.
Kistlers strike me as vastly overrated by both men. I had the 2007 Cuvee Elizabeth recently and found it undrinkable.
I hear ya. This worries me greatly. I am a big fan of Calera, and I am hoping that they haven’t changed their winemaking to satisfy the Parker (and Laube?) camp(s). I tend to like my Calera’s with plenty of cellar age (10+ years), but I guess that I had better try a 2007 before continuing to add them to my cellar.
I found the Marcassin and Aubert reviews particularly entertaining. The 05 Three Sisters described as “commercially unacceptable.” Fantastic. I have to say, I’ve enjoyed the couple Marcassin Pinots I’ve had. Though not sure how Pinot-y they are. I like them a lot more than Aubert, which has always just tasted like a completely hot mess to me.
Regardless, the more palates in the reviewing chorus the better. But I’m a Burghound man myself. He is great to read, and I enjoy every day a new issue comes out.
Only the Calera scores are to me.
This is not the first time he has ripped on those others. Interestingly enough, I almost completely agree with him on the others! He’s been a huge boon to my Cali Pinot drinking.
Calera is definitely an outlier among this group, and the only one listed that I have any real history with. I don’t subscribe to either newsletter, and drink plenty of PN outside this group, so I guess neither one describe my preferences.
As has been pointed out the Burghound scores for the Calera are fairly good.
No matter to me though, due to the WA scores I am now priced out of the Jensen and Selleck.
I don’t subscribe to either critic though I keep running into the Meadows reviews on CT for WV and CA stuff I own, so I am curious. Still seems to be a bit to pay just for domestic pinot coverage. If I bought more burgundy it would be well worthwhile, but then I do want to be able to retire one day…
I think he just gave his first 95 in this issue. Before that he had issued only five 94’s and eight 93’s since starting covering California, according to his database.
Needless to say, Meadows is a little more conservative than Parker or Laube.
He also seems to not enjoy high alcohol pinots. He did a great interview on Grape Radio (episodes 132 and 133) in which he discussed this. There is a line where some winery owners or winemakers said to him that they can’t get phenolic ripeness at a reasonably low potential alcohol. His reply was that maybe they planted their vineyard in the wrong place.
To answer the original post, with regard to pinot, I align far better with Meadows’ palate than Parker’s.