2005 Domaine Thomas-Moillard Vosne-Romanée 1er Cru Les Beaux Monts CT 84
Just 1 review:
Nose, closet floor, color burgundy, taste like dirt, touch of oak, only redeeming factor, its flat, easy to drink and forget
clearly that is someone elses’s 99 points! 
I don’t know how you drink that stuff
2003 ESJ Los Robles Viejos (white) 83 points.
Of course the note for the 83 point score says “yum.”
2002 Joseph Drouhin Chambertin Clos de Beze - 84 pts.
Ha. Fun thread. 2011 Row Eleven Pinot Noir Russian River Valley. 79.5 in two scores. No notes, but I can imagine…this was a gift and will be outed next week on Bad Wine Wednesday.
Mine include:
1997 Gangloff Cote Rotie - 50 points
2005 Luneau-Papin Excelsior Clos des Noelles - 60 points
1997 Joguet Chene Vert - 71 points
1995 McDowell Valley Vineyards Syrah - 74 points
2009 Patricia Green PN Mysterious - 75 points
2013 Les Vins Contés (Olivier Lemasson) Cheville de Fer - 79 points
I’ve had many of these and couldn’t disagree more.
2001 Nova Wines Merlot, Norma Jeane (Marilyn Monroe series wines) - 70 points
Kinda surprised someone actually drank one and bothered to rate it
50 points. It wasn’t even rated by me!
How many scores were there for each? It’s very hard to get averages that low if more than one or two people score a wine. The average inevitably drifts toward the mean for all wines, which, as I recall, is in the high 80s or 90-ish.
2004 Faiveley Nuits St. Georges 1er Cru Les Porêts Saint-Georges has a CT score of 83. I admit I took a flyer on it as it was very inexpensive when I bought and was worth the risk to me.
Of all the scores in CT however the lowest I’ve seen for a bottle in my cellar is John Gilman’s score for the 2000 Beaucastel. A 72.
1 note with a low score for the Gangloff, PG, and Lemasson, a positive note with no score and a negative note with a low score on the L-P, two notes with scores on the McDowell (the 74 is an average of my 88 and another user’s 60), and 1 score with no note on the Joguet.
I have a number of other wines with CT scores under 85, but many of them are “natural” wines with a couple of low scores and a number of positive notes without scores. That doesn’t surprise me, as I’ve long found a significant overlap between fans of “natural” wines and people who are opposed to giving numerical scores. I was in that camp for a very long time, and still don’t pretend that my scores are scientific or replicable.
I started giving scores for two reasons. First, as a shorthand reminder of approximately how much I enjoyed the wines. Second, to offset in part the tendency of CT scores to skew low for a lot of wines I like because others who also like those wines tend not to give numerical scores.
I use the same metric for assigning all scores, so I don’t score lower or higher to influence the CT average. But my metric is just a purely subjective “what number comes to mind when drinking this wine” and isn’t based on any kind of objective criteria, so my scores are skewed by my preferences and I’m perfectly happy with that. I think my scale is much more honest than those who purport to be rating on some kind of objective absolute quality. I’m tolerant of brett and VA and intolerant of prominent oak but my tolerance to wood varies based on the savoriness and fruit character of a wine. Everyone else has similar kinds of preferences, and often they are the opposite of mine except when they happen to overlap. I still find CT scores that are accompanied by notes to have some utility as one of many data points to consider when deciding whether to buy a wine.
Now it’s: N.V. Germano Ettore Langhe Nebbiolo Rosanna Rosé Brut (87 points…and served at Piazza Duomo. I’m surprised that this was scored so low by someone. I guess it goes to show that part of an experience can raise your impression. I know I loved it in the restaurant and was underwhelmed when I drank my first bottle that I shipped home.
From the bottom:
2014 Ancient Peaks Zinfandel Paso Robles Santa Margarita Ranch 83 points; one review.
We bought an assortment after visiting the vineyards/winery/ranch. The visit was terrific, and we remain Renegade fans.
2005 Cameron Hughes Cabernet Sauvignon Lot 34 Rutherford 84.8 points 50% like it of 2 votes. 50 reviews.
I have two of them.
The third lowest I bought yesterday:
2011 Faiveley Bourgogne Pinot Noir 86 points 78% like it
I don’t check CT before buying; at $15 the risk seemed minimal. The one I opened last night seemed ok.
2004 Kent Rasmussen Petit Verdot
78 points
Scores below 80:
2007 Chateau Contin St. Emilion Grand Cru at CT76 and
1995 Tronquoy-Lalande at CT79
The 2nd 50 pointer in this thread. Isn’t this like the worst a wine could score, i.e. it is just undrinkable, nasty, nasty stuff?
- Use it to remove varnish off your boat type wine?
- Keep it in your garage, not your wine cellar wine?
- Use it to clean Mark B.'s toilet?
Just sayin’
Now this is a cool idea for a thread.
Mine is 2014 Domaine Thomas Morey Chassagne-Montrachet 1er Cru Dent de Chien. I do not do 100 point scores, I use Broadent’s 5 star rating system, so my score is not factored in- but there was one review listed with a score of 84 points.
I can see that for someone who is not familiar with the very singular personality of Dent de Chien- but for my part I found the wine quite good and in need of some cellar time (though it will always be Dent de Chien- and sufficiently unique that someone with a good palate could well love or hate it.)
I haven’t figured out if the idea is the lowest overall score or the lowest single score. I don’t know how to search for the latter. The lowest overall in my cellar is the 2012 Pax Giffin’s Lair at 83. I assume the lowest single score would be something around 60 by So/Levenberg for a CNdP.
Thinking about my own approach, I wonder if CT has a bias to higher scores. I drink plenty of crappy wine I don’t bother scoring.
2010 Ch Rochemorin, 86.8 points. A nice little early-drinking Pessac with good typicity and a great QPR. A Marc Frontario recommendation. Not quite great but very pleasing. I’d give it an 88 if I were scoring. To me that’s a very good wine.