Why is there so little coverage of Bordeaux in the Advocate?

WINE TALK
241

This thread reminds me of the “Stanford vs. Cal” game featuring “The Play” took place on November 20, 1982

Here was the “call”

"Aight, here we go! Stanford up 20-19, FIVE SECONDS left on the clock… Cal needs somethin’ wild. Like, ‘Lord, take the wheel’ kinda wild. Stanford kicks it off, and here we go!

Oh, Cal’s got it at the 45… Moen’s got the ball. Kevin Moen. My man’s runnin’, but OH NO! He’s trapped! They got him—they GOT him! Wait, wait, wait… NO THEY DON’T! He PITCHED IT!

Now Richard Rodgers got it! My man Rodgers is like, ‘Who want it?! Who need it?!’ He’s lookin’ around—AND BOOM, HE LATERALS IT!

Now Dwight Garner’s got it, and he’s like, ‘I don’t even know what to do!’ Ohhh, but hold up, Garner’s about to get CRUSHED! He got SMACKED! Somebody please call this man’s mama, but wait—he flung that ball back! This thing still goin’!

Rodgers got it back! My man’s dodging left, moving right—AND HE LATERALS AGAIN! Y’all, this is like hot potato at this point!

AND NOW MOEN’S GOT IT BACK!

But WAIT A MINUTE… IS THAT THE BAND ON THE FIELD?!

THEY GOT THE TUBAS OUT HERE! THE DRUMS! THE WHOLE THING! But Moen? HE DOESN’T CARE! He’s at the 20! THE 10! He just ran through the ENTIRE BAND!!

TOUCHDOWN CAL!!! TOUCHDOWN!!!

WHAT IS HAPPENIN’ OUT HERE?!

Stanford thought it was over—John Elway’s probably thinkin’, ‘We got this!’ But nooooo, the band’s on the field, and CAL JUST WON THE GAME!

The refs don’t even know what’s goin’ on, flags everywhere, band members are like, ‘Why am I here?’

And guess what… THEY SAY IT COUNTS!!!

Ohhhh, Stanford out here celebratin’ too early, and Cal just pulled off one of the wildest, craziest plays I’ve ever seen!

This ain’t football, this is madness! Man, I’m done. I can’t handle this no more. Somebody get me a drink, 'cause this right here? This right here is wild!"

3 Likes
242

Seriously ? Now you’re just being argumentative. A quick taste without a comprehensive note written at the time is not my style.

243

Seriously. It’ s enough your style to state here that the wine has gone downhill here. That makes it irresponsible not to register that belief on your website. You can add any caveats you think appropriate about now casual the tasting was and how uncertain you are of your conclusions–or does your style not admit of such honesty. How uncertain are you of your judgments in fact? Your style here does not admit of any, about this wine or anything else.

1 Like
244

Numbers transposed, you meant 69!?

1 Like
245

Send me the bottle. You seem more interested in this than I am. We are both winners making that the perfect solution. :blush:

246

Hmmm, I score your post 97 Pts🤣

247

I for one am just glad that we finally got to the bottom of how much Bdx coverage the WA provides, and why there isn’t more.

Mystery Solving GIFs - Find & Share on GIPHY

2 Likes
248

You’ve already had the wine and determined that it is falling apart. Why do you need to taste it again?

Are you trying not to damage your relationship with Troplong Mondot? I’m genuinely curious why you aren’t willing to publish this assessment on your website when you are saying it in public on this forum?

249

As you’re generally curious, you can read my previous responses to the same question :grin:

250

  1. You reviewed the 2007 Pavie. I’m not concerned with the details of the review, but your certainty of it. If you were so wrong about the 2000 Pavie and the 2005 Pavie, why would you be certain about the 2007?

  2. You didn’t say you want to keep scores high and I never claimed you did. Your practice of keeping high scores on your website but then claiming that when the wines are bad you “don’t have time to review every wine” has the effect of keeping scores high.

  3. You keep pointing people to your website for all the scores and tasting notes, but the scores for the Troplong Mondot are all high there.

Honestly, Jeff, the above post is the worst mischaracterization of a post I’ve written since the days of Johan Beglund’s “efforts”. Either you intentionally prevaricated or you just didn’t read it, but in either case, it’s not worth my efforts to engage in genuine discussion if this is the response. I’m not Howard, I’m not looking to yell and people and call them stupid.

2 Likes
251

You didn’t respond to the question in any of your previous responses.

You obviously feel comfortable saying that '05 Troplong Mondot is falling apart on this forum – why do you need to drink another bottle to be able to say that on your website?

You don’t need to write another tasting note, unless you aren’t really sure whether '05 Troplong Mondot is falling apart or this is a matter of one-off bottle variation. But, if that was the case, you shouldn’t be making generalized assessment about the ageability of '05 Troplong Mondot.

It’s bad either way: you either don’t have enough experience with '05 Troplong Mondot to be able to assess its ageability (and that’s why you need to drink another bottle) OR you do have enough experience with it to be comfortable saying it’s falling apart regardless of bottle variation, and for some reason, you are unwilling to say so on your website.

3 Likes
252

Pavie 2000 Not developing as first thought… I believe this was already a foregone conclusion for most of us on the board since release.

253

I like you and your posts. I have no issues with you. That being said, that’s not what I intended. We are discussing 1 wine, Troplong Mondot, not multiple notes on more than that wine. I never said I don’t have time for bad wines. I said, or meant to say that I taste a lot of wines that don’t get notes, good or bad. When I was younger, everything was written down. Today, that’s not going to happen, regardless of the wine.

A good note to me offers a lot of info, texture, (which has always been my primary focus) aromatic profile, flavor profile, length, maturity, and overall feeling. That takes thought, and time. I’ve never been a flowery note giver, or writer, I prefer getting right down to what counts. A quick glance does not allow me to do that.

When I take a note, I write down all my impressions on the spot. I give it time and thought. It’s not the same thing as a quick comment saying I liked it, or not. To me, it’s the why, and the reason behind my conclusion that matters.

Now, that works for you, and others, or not. Nobody has to pay to subscribe, so I get to do everything I like at my own pace.

1 Like
254

You are discussing 1 wine. Others here see how this bias affects every note you publish.
This is the problem when you review labels, not the wine.

2 Likes
255

Jeff, you are either intentionally or unintentionally misinterpreting my posts. You are, in this case, focusing on one specific wine. I am making an overall point, you are returning to an extremely narrow point which I haven’t made.

There’s no reason to continue this because you refuse to engage with the substance.

256

I’m confused. There are a couple of wines (Pavie vintages) which Jeff still likes but have underperformed relative to his expectations. Those scores are on his site. There is one wine (Troplong Mondot 2005) which Jeff says has fallen apart and his site doesn’t reflect it. Where is the pattern of keeping ratings high for poor wines?

FWIW I would prefer that Jeff put some comment on the site about the Troplong Mondot, since he’s discussing it fairly confidently here in a way that’s very different than what appears on the site. But I’m not clear where a lot of the criticism is coming from.

1 Like
257

That’s what is so frustrating about this discussion. If Jeff just admitted he made a mistake about Troplong Mondot and revised his score on his website, no one would think any less of him. No one bats 1.000 and everyone understands calling the aging potential of a wine at release is a crapshoot.

It’s the constant prevaricating, strawman arguments, avoidant behavior, refusal to answer questions, trying to get people to go on wild goose chases on his website that he knows will lead nowhere, that is so irritating (at least to me, and I’m assuming to many other posters on this thread).

If he wants to be taken seriously as an authority on Bordeaux wines, he has to be a straight shooter. I don’t think William Kelley is perfect, but he always takes the time to answer questions and he never says, “asked and answered – go look for my response on the Wine Advocate website, I’m too busy to deal with you now.” Which is basically how Jeff has behaved on this thread.

6 Likes
258

it isn’t right to compare William and the WA to Jeff’s site. William is a professional and one pays for the WA. The WA staff was hired for their expertise and has a duty to their readers. Otherwise, they may lose subscribers. William’s ability to answer questions is because this is his primary job and due to his tremendous expertise - the WA hired him and not Jeff.

Jeff is an amateur, like the rest of us. He drinks a lot if wine, but does not charge for access to his website. This is not his primary occupation. Thus, he can do whatever he wants with his website. But, it is up to us how much to pay attention to his website. I never have paid much attention to his wine reviews. Frankly I just don’t think he has a very good palate. Never have. But, now that I know he does not care very much about the accuracy of his website (even according to his palate), I likely will not trust his estate profiles very much either.

3 Likes
259

Same evasive non-sequitor that you have used already numerous times. It deserves no response and will get none.

Given my own and some other reactions here, however, I suggest posting the following caveat on the homepage of your website for the unsuspecting:

"1) The tasting notes on this website do accurately reflect my reactions to the wine at the moment I tasted them. I may since have changed my views and I do not keep my notes up to date, so they may no longer reflect my current evaluations.

2)This is because I have found that the criteria I have used to judge the aging potential of wines I taste are no longer reliably accurate. Since I have not come to terms with my error and am using the same criteria to estimate aging potentials, all my aging estimates are about as accurate as an astrology forecast."

1 Like
260

Jeff rated the 2005 Pavie 99 in 2008, then 97 in 2010. He has rated it within that band until the most recent score (2021] when it was a 96. If “failed to develop as expected” means “just as good as it was the first time tasted in bottle”, then words cease to have meaning.
Jeff is entirely correct that he doesn’t owe me (or anyone else!) updated scores as we’re not paying customers. But then it’s disingenuous to point to his site for scores if they don’t reflect his actual opinion and to say that he doesn’t feel like including the (lower) recent scores. The practical effect is the scores stay high.
Oh, and the Troplong Mondot that has “fallen apart”? The most recent score on Jeff’s site is a 96, from 3 years ago. Same as the Pavie.

That’s beyond the other (far more salient) concern that Jeff’s certainty in scoring wines highly if they have a history of aging poorly is a concern rather than a virtue. And, to be clear, my issue here isn’t the TYPE of wine Jeff likes.

2 Likes