What vintages do you think the critics totally botched?

I find that, although many people don’t give 2 spits about ratings, they will generally agree with the overall critical rating of a given vintage in a given region. For example, you may not care about Spectator ratings at all, but fans of Burgundy will generally agree that 2005 was a very good year (Spectator: 95 Beune, 98 CdN). Let’s focus on big disagreements - if WA rated one vintage 97 and another 96, and you happen to think the “96” vintage was actually better, that’s a not a big disagreement as long as you think both are still very good. I know our dear departed Mr. Wood thought the Spectator rating of OR 2007 at 84 as completely bunk (and he was right) - any other examples? Anyone want to proclaim 2000 LB Bordeaux is at best middling, or that the 99s are on par with the 2005s?

2007 Napa, 1997 Napa, 2000 Bordeaux, 2000 Piedmont

Originally, 1983 Bordeaux.

1993 Burgundy in the WA is an obvious one.

1998 Napa Cab. It rocks IMO. 2008 red Burgs. I firmly believe that at the high end it will be an all time great.

2003 Bordeaux. Unbalanced and undrinkable to my tastes, largely speaking.

2007 Napa.

Did they say it was good and it wasn’t or visa versa?

I haven’t given Laube an iota of credibility since his assessment of 2001 Napa.

Well Spectator on Napa Cabs is tough to judge, because essentially every vintage is 96 plus, with a few random vintages in the low 80s. Going back to 1990, there have been 4 vintages rated in the 92-86 range. Everything is either 95 plus or 85 and below.

Critics calling '96 the best Champagne vintage since '28. I’m unconvinced. :neutral_face:

2004 Northern Rhone. IIRC Parker didn’t like it.

This was the first one I thought of. Both reds and stickies. Lots of clumsy wines. Even Yquem.

WS giving 1997 Piedmont vintage a 100pt rating…

To my taste WS consistently over rates warm years and under rates cool years. At least I know their bias.

P Hickner

I think 2011 is one of my favorite california vintages, at least other than for cabs (I haven’t had any 2011 cabs). Terrific for zinfandel in particular.

I think the most critically maligned California cab vintages from the last 25 years were 1998 and 2000, and I like cabs and merlots from those vintages at this point. They offer amazing value, they drink well at this age, and they offer good cool-vintage character now.

I like 2004 Bordeaux so far, also offering more cool and traditional styling than more expensive vintages. Plus they didn’t need as long to become drinkable.

1997 Napa has proven to be very inconsistent, with many important wines not aging well. Some are fantastic, but at least as many have been big disappointments.

Oh, and 1997 Brunello! Vintage of the Century my foot!

yes but I am not sure how that deviates from the critical assessment. I don’t know a single critic who raved about the 2003 vintage. Everywhere but St Julien/Paulliac, I think Parker said it was irregular and in the 80s. He really hit the St Emilions hard as I recall.

I don’t know what “largely speaking” means, but I picked carefully and bought a lot of beautiful wines. They are drinking very well at the moment. Had a Pontet Canet the other night and it was delicious.

I don’t buy vintages; I buy specific wines. I probably don’t have the horizontal vision to play this game.

+1 on Napa. The Dyer from that year was excellent in a 15 year vertical. http://issuu.com/purelydomesticwinereport/docs/dyervineyard?e=4525237/2313968

The published critics of the day tagged the 1970 Bordeaux vintage as " useful wines for early drinking ", then had to do some backtracking over the next couple of years when the wines were found to be in perfect balance and harmony. These wines aged extremely well. While not at their peak today, many remain very attractive.

While many posters are probably too young to remember these wines, they may reward you if they were stored properly. I continue to draw some lesser lights from my cellar even now and have been suitably impressed. e.g. Chateaux d’Angludet ($3.55 cost) and La Tour-du-Pin Figeac-Mouiex ($4.50).

I thought the 1979 Bordeaux vintage to have been poorly rated initially by the critics also.

Hank [cheers.gif]