There is probably a strong correlation between the wines that Jeff loves and wines that are unlikely to age. But again, what do you mean by a great example of a wine that has matured well. Given the back and forth here, I would love to see some clear definitions. For instance, are the wines going to become more interesting and multilayered with age, or just, as I have noted with some of the bigger Right Bank wines, will soften with age, retaining the same characteristics as their younger selves?
I did read through Jeff’s comments on both Pavies and the Troplong. I also looked at the note for the Troplong 2010, a wine that I tasted recently and is also not doing well, but was scored 98. To be fair, these wines were new paradigms, a result of climate change and extreme winemaking, so predicting aging patterns was always going to be a crapshoot.
Now we know there are problems, it’s time to retaste so that we have a better understanding of what works, what doesn’t, and which wines we should think
about backfilling in the secondary market.
Again, it’s not just Jeff who got it wrong; others did too. The only difference is that they didn’t go on line, and make a bit of a hash of their defense.
So you are the authority of what is a “good” palate?
Mind stepping down from your high horse for a bit.
Even though I give reviewers crap all the time because most of them review labels not wines, but having the audacity to say someone’s palate isn’t good is next level elitistic BS.
How about: “his palate does not align with mine”? Its a little better than expecting everyone to like the swill you do.
I have met people with bad palates…example my mother in law…I can definitively say she has a bad palate. Therefore, of course you can say…a person has a bad palate. Just like a person has bad vision. No brainer!
Again, this thread has taken such strange turns indeed.
Jeff certainly has been a strong advocate for Bordeaux and may have more notes on his site than nearly anyone else. His palate and experience are respected, but just like with any reviewer, the idea of an ‘objective wine review’ is an oxymoron. We all have our subjective likes and dislikes and we all taste differently.
I value his input here and hope he continues to be an active member of this site - in spite of some of the ‘scorn’ he is taking in this thread - some of it ‘seemingly justified’ and some not so much so.
Last night I had a bottle of 1988 Troplong Mondot. This was from before TM became a spoofed wine. No gobs and gobs of anything. Just a well-balanced mature wine that tasted quite nice. At a peak of maturity. Certainly, not over the hill or falling apart. A wine that probably will not get better, but likely will stay at this peak for some time. Probably not a 110 point wine, etc., but clearly a Bordeaux that would charm Alfert and Julian. Really enjoyed it.
The 2005 Pavie will always be a sought after wine due to its controversial nature. I’m happy to read that Jeff feels its in a good place. The 2005 Troplong Mondot peaked interest due to RP’s score and the story of the late Christine Valette. This isn’t the first time I’ve read that this wine is on a serious decline. Appreciate the comments for both. Cheers!
Being the OP, I note there is nothing new on the horizon, and canceled renewals. Bordeaux deserves more coverage than it has received, and despite the fact that I admire William’s insights, if there aren’t any fresh ones, I see no point in continuing.
I don’t blame you in the least - if you don’t find enough content that interests you, there is no point in subscribing to a publication. I have the same issue with Jane Anson’s site, which is supposed to be about Bordeaux, but which increasingly features wines from other regions. I’ve nothing against Sassicaia, Penfolds and the like, but they don’t interest me enough to pay to read about them. What she writes about Bordeaux is very interesting, but there isn’t enough to warrant an annual subscription, for me at least. So what I do is come back every two years or so, which allows me to catch up on the articles I’ve missed and ensures enough value to make it worthwhile.
Of course the other bone of contention is the same too - the lack of CT integration, in this case promised but never delivered.