I’d be pissed, too, if I’d bought without tasting the wine. But Parker’s response is what’s really fascinating:
“Steve…I never get spooked by one so-so showing of a wine…a second one and I get itchy about it…this is very old style, rustic wine-making…the wine just seemed closed and too tannic…I wouldn’t begin to lose confidence on this one until 2015 or so…also…this one one glass per taster…would have been interesting to have had a look at the entire bottle of wine over the following 10-12 hours to see what transpired…”
Huh?? Couldn’t that be said about most of the WA’s scores? How many are based on tasting a whole bottle over 10-12 hours? And if they are not, are they subject to the same “oh, never mind”?
Seems like a mighty slippery slope we’re on there, no?
But in 2015 when the fruit is all gone, you can get a reply that you need to wait until 2020 because the fruit’s just closed and hiding, but should show great in 2020.
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. I wouldn’t expect any reviewer to be 100% (or even 90%) on their calls, but the certainty with which some people make these proclamations, this would indeed be a very slippery slope.
In fairness to Parker, he’ll follow a bottle of Bordeaux for 10 or 12 DAYS before giving it a score of 98.
But I doubt he followed many of these Aussie fruit bombs for more than 10 or 12 MINUTES [withing the context of a 100+ bottle megatasting] before anointing them with 98 points.
BTW, I had the 1998 Parker [no relation] Coonawarra First Growth recently [RMP 95-97 points], and it had already degenerated into nothing but oak and acid and red food coloring.
I had the 2000 Parker 1st Growth not long ago as it was on sale and I was bored. Nice wine with an interesting seaweed element. Looked it up later and it was a lowly 90. Did find a Neal Martin note where he commented on the same element which was kind of cool.
Where this just gets silly is that the obvious conclusion is that if you like this style of wine, drink 'em young when they have that plushness. Somehow Parker has tied himself to a certain rigidity and faux-objectivity of the 100pt scale which requires ageability. It ends up absurd. If you like traditional maturity, most of these wines will never do it. On the other hand, if you like the youthful zest, you are going to be disappointed when it ages - even it ages well. Total losing position.
Just remember this…it is ALWAYS better to be stuck with a shitty bottle of Bordeaux than anything else. Have you checked prices (or the latest auction) for 1990 Pichon Lalande?
At least with Bordeaux, once you realize that the wine is not all that good (see 1982 Petrus and many others), there is always a market for it and you can get your money back +++
He really didn’t do his homework regarding the question of the ageworthiness of the New World fruit bombs - I seem to recall being assured that they would age along the lines of the “port-like” 1947 Cheval Blanc.
And the lesser names - Sarah’s Blend, and Terra Barossa - were simply undrinkable within about 18 or 24 months after release.
[Although I have discovered that sometimes they taste better on Day Two, when all the dead, rotten oak has blown off.]
I have to admire the honesty of someone who knocks his own rating of a wine down from 98 to 88.
Though you have to then ask, what’s the point of the rating?
Place not your faith in points or the ex cathedra infallibility of gurus.
I agree, how did we ever get to the point where anyone’s scores were considered ex cathedra. I mean, what’s the point of numerically quantifying something so subjective anyway? And, while we’re getting all Latin here, that sure doesn’t look like much of a mea culpa to me.
In fairness, I suppose perhaps it’s OK to be a little less ex cathedra about the scores from a retrospective, given that there is bottle variation, you can’t stick with a bottle all night, and so on. But a high proportion of the WA scores issue forth without the kind of lingering attention that one would ideal give a wine. The problem is that we never get the, “Oh, I goofed on that one six months ago – on retasting it’s great (or crap).”
There was a similar discussion on WS board a few years ago about how Laube gave the '97 Far Niente a barrel score of somethin like 97-100pts but then once it was in bottle and he re-reviewed the wine it got something like an 88pt score. There were a lot of pissed off people that went deep and they voiced it. The biggest rub was that in his note he had the words “tasted twice with consistant notes” well if you had the same notes why the different score? [suicide.gif]
I have had the Block 6 1998 numerous times over the last 2 years. It’s not dead, or far from it. The wine is actually very nice, and shows awesome secondary character.
Wine Spectator has about a 50% “got it right the first time” going on.
Look at the 1996 California Cabernet Retrospect. The WOTY Cinq Cepages got dropped to an 88. That wine was selling for 5 times it’s release price.
Drank my last one about 8 years ago and even as a baby this wine was far from a fruit bomb. I don’t think it’s been as good in later vintages but I definitely regretted drinking it when I did (sorta). As I recall eucalyptus was a prominent characteristic.
Max, I’m lazy and didn’t feel like looking it up myself – what does a '90 Pichon Lalande go for these days? Because that is undeniably a crap wine, and I still own some (although I’d probably feel guilty selling it regardless of the market value given how bad it is).
I actually owned the '98 Kay. Seemed like it had promise on release. Was definitely not a fruit bomb. Sold it a few years ago as it just didn’t float my boat. He tasted a few others that he still liked that did nothing for me like the 98 fox creek. Sold that also. Some in his tasting group said that while they thought wines were good they had not developed. Pretty much what I thought with these wines. They lose their youthful exuberance but nothing seems to replace that. Still ok wines. Just not my style.
I liked RP’s note on how he might have had a different opinion if he had spent hours with the wine. I didn’t think that was ever an issue with him zipping out a score.
FYI, I thought his worst comments of the day were the sexist ones about the “cute sommelier” that told him to decant a wine. As someone pointed out to me, his suppliers always decant wines before he sees them, so it is like pop and pour for him. And then he took a cheap shot at Wine Spectator for their 100 point score of 1990 Latour. The guy is constantly telling the world he is the best. How humble!
![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}