I know we don’t care about points and all, but does anyone else find Laube’s scores atypically low across the board for 2012? Historically, his effusive comments are reflected in his scoring. This year, many of the usual suspects have dropped into the 88-95 range.
Just an observation, and curious what others think. I still subscribe because I enjoy flipping through lifestyle mags. I do wonder if his reviews will affect pricing, although '12 is probably already largely sold through on Parker/Gallioni opinions.
Yes, yes, I know this audience buys on personal taste, but I do wonder how this affects producers. Everyone I know in real life who is ‘into’ wine, have never heard of Parker but do read the WS,
Seems to me that once a vintage has been denounced or downgraded (as 2012 has been) then the scores usually are lower as a kind of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc kind of thing… Or is it a self fulfilling prophecy?
You could be on to something. The WS does seem to be consistently 6-12 months behind releases, at least domestically. I don’t recall a single ‘preview’ of upcoming vintages either. Unlike Parker/Gallioni, they must not get barrel samples.
I read the article today and thought he was giving the vintage effusive praise. He mentions that 2007 was the only vintage where he has given more 95+ scores than 2012.
I can never really figure out his palate preferences. He scores some of the wines I like very highly, but scores others I like equally well considerably lower.
IMO general rule. He likes big wines that show well on release. Catches them while they can carry high alcohol without showing heat. Then look at his drinking windows. Almost everything is from now thru 10-12 years on.
Tanzer in contrast recently did a 2004 NV cab retrospective. He thought most of the better wines still needed more sleep before they peaked.
although '12 is probably already largely sold through on Parker/Gallioni opinions.
Seriously? Antonio scores are moving CA product? Who knew? Or do you mean from the WA days?
Laube is a mystery to me. I can’t find any consistency with him.
If you’re a producer, you want good scores from wherever you get them. They help, but don’t really translate into big sales for the most part. But you know that for people who are insecure, it helps to have 92 points from someone, somewhere, so you cherish those points.
The Laube scores don’t affect prices. Parker used to and probably still can if he really trumpets a CA producer. The WS WOTY will cause a price spike in the price of that wine. The NYT can cause a temporary price spike if they really praise a wine, but that is ephemeral. No other scores really change prices, mostly they just validate choices.
Greg- it is not “probably”, it is “certainly”… If it is not clear, take a look at Bevan. More mainstream- Spottswoode 2010 and Dominus 2010 when he hung 3 digits on them.
Laube tastes wines when they are released. He doesn’t tastes barrel samples for official review in Wine Spectator. That’s why they seem to be 6-12 months behind…
As for his “inconsistency”…Laube tastes blind. Not sure if that explains it, but he still does taste that way.
Adam… IIRC, ‘blind’ means he doesn’t know the producer, but I believe he is told the vintage, the variety, and the appellation.
In my opinion, just that info may have some influence in his scoring.
I was thinking Vinous (with second opinion from Tanzer), and Parker moving direct to consumer producers to those in the wine community who chase points.
I’m still of the position that WS is more of a market mover nationally, as I see the WS on every end cap at the register of Total Wine and Grocery Store on the East coast. Bob is of the position that Parker is more of a market mover, and he is probably right, at least in food-centric areas (San Francisco, NYC, Chicago). I would just note that in my part of the world, say Baltimore, MD to Norfolk, VA, very few people I have met have even heard of Parker, and that includes the years I lived in DC. I still see friends from high-school (DC metro area) posting ‘wine porn’ on Facebook showcasing their beautiful bottles of Opus One and Silver Oak. Again, it could be that I need more erudite friends, and the ubiquity of WS rags bias my opinion.
Certainly I agree that information can have influence in scoring. But when I read someone saying that he rates highly some of the Cabernets they like but rates other Cabernets they like poorly, I think that blind tasting may account for those differences between Producer’s ratings.
Jody - the shelf talkers can really be from anyone. Most people who buy based on those notes in stores have little idea where the notes came from, which is why there are so many reviewers quoted and in many cases, the retailers don’t even bother to change the notes from vintage to vintage. People who subscribe to the WS may go shopping based on some scores, but in that case they don’t really need the shelf talkers. It’s weird to people who know that there are different reviewers, but the customer buying by shelf talker is rarely aware of the reviewer - they’re mostly looking for some validation by some hopefully “independent” reviewer.
The difference between Parker scores and WS scores is that if a wine gets a good Parker score, the distributors and retailers start calling as soon as the score comes out. The only other publication that has that effect is the NYT when they really praise a wine.
WS is consumer friendly and far more widely read than the WA, but if a retailer subscribes to one of them, it will usually be the WA. It’s true that most people you talk to will have no idea who Parker is but distributors and retailers sure do.
That BTW, is why some people are so obsessive about including his name. If they don’t simply attribute a score to him, they will say “Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate”. None of the other writers matter in the market.
Great points Greg. I had over-looked that obvious critical point you make - retailers certainly know who Parker is, and they are the ones stocking shelves. In that sense, Parker I guess remains market maker.
I do recall one time however, Laube awarded Schrader with a couple of 100 pointers. Maybe '07? I think they were a couple of the only perfect scores he ever awarded. Parker awarded the same wines 100 points first of course. Anyway, secondary prices on those particular wines traded 10 fold on winebid (Old Sparky went from 400 to 4K). A horribly small sample size, but that tells me that maybe at least more than a few people feel extra validated if Laube agrees with Parker.
I’ve digressed from my original point though - I just find it curious that Laube’s scores seem a bit lower than usual, particularly for a vintage that has produced predominantly cabs in the accessible style he prefers. Maybe his palate is changing (I never thought I’d see him list Latorri in his top 10 pinot producers). Maybe my intuition/memory fails me. I haven’t done any actual comparison of his scores this year to years prior. From memory, it just seems like he’s a bit down on producers he has historically rated higher.
I think Laube is more conservative than Galloni, even if you can’t really figure out where his palate lay. That said, why worry about him? Unless you like rich and ripe, put him on “ignore” as an outlier of the vintage.