A few times I had wines that received relatively low rating from Robert Parker ( let say 90-92 or 93/100 at best) but after cracking the cork I was shocked how good the wine is.
Here are my experiences:
Staglin Cabernet Sauvignon Estate 1997, opened in previous year, my score: 97/100, RP score 90-92/100
Newton Unfiltered Merlot 1997, two bottles opened in 2018 & 2019 with my identical score 96/100, RP score 90-92/100, by the way I have privilage to open also Newton Unfiltered Merlot 1991, scored by RP 94/100 and my private score was equal 1997 vingate so 96/100.
Mondavi Cabernet Sauvignon Reserve 2001, OK this got outstanding score from RP - 94/100, but I scored my bottle distinctly higher - 97/100
Reignac Grand Vin 2010, opened in 2015 I scored 94/100, RP scored it for 90/100
Forman Cabernet Sauvignon 1997, opened in 2016 I scored 94/100, RP score was 90/100
Bryant Family Cabernet Sauvignon, opened bottle 2 months ago my final score was 98/100, RP scored this wine only 93/100
Chateau Angelus 2001, I opened my only bottle in 2008 and was shocked by quality, I scored this wine 96/100. During that time only published Parker rating was 93/100. I decided to trust my own palate and buy another bottle of Angelus 2001 which costed me “only” 110 Euro. In 2015 new score from RP was published and he raised his rating to 97/100 for Angelus 2001 ( so almost the same as I scored this wine in 2008) and price for this wine rocketed up to 300 Euro or above.
Good side of mediocre high Parker ratings is that I could have bought stellar bottles for ridiculous low price. For great Newton Unfiltered Merlot I paid 30 Euro for 1991 and 55 Euro for 1997 or 109 Euro for unbelivable great Staglin cab 1997.
Do you have similiar experiences?
Once upon a time, in a galaxy far away, a 90 from Parker was a score that sold wine and a 93 or 94 was considered a very high score. Maybe these wines were scored in that time and that place. On the other hand, once upon a time in a galaxy far away, there was a wine critic whose initials were RP. But that story is over.
Maybe you just have better taste then RP!! It has nothing to do with points, but finding the critic that has a similar palate to your own. For me, Jeb Dunnuck has the closest taste to my own palate and I take heed to his scores and reviews.
I think someone who tastes a lot of wines for a short period of time each will inevitably develop a tired palate, and give preference to bigger wines, as RP did. Those wines, however, often end up being overkill at the dinner table. It’s all about context.
Yeah, “low” scores to me aren’t in the 90+ range, for sure. Low would be in the 70s. I’ve never been that concerned with scores, but I do remember WS scoring some of the '80s Giacosa wines in the high 70s.
I would much prefer to spend my time drinking wine than parsing 4 point differences between a critic’s score and the score of some random dude on the internet.
Not sure how often you agree or disagree with Parker, but he handed the Rhône ratings to Dunnuck claiming he’s a ‘younger version’ of himself.
I actually do believe Parker when he claims everyone has been excessively pigeonholing his taste throughout his career. At least I’d like to believe there’s no way your taste can be black and white after tasting so many things of such quality and variety. His palate might have a basic tendency, but I think we all have that, and are still capable of understanding the qualities of something that isn’t exactly our cup of tea. That being said I like Jancis a lot better, for several reasons. Although I love unctuous, ‘hedonistic’ wines (once in a while), it baffles me how you can report ‘low acidity’ as a compliment, as Parker often did.
Lots of people get a lot of pleasure out of criticizing a particular critic.
As noted above, the key is to find a critic that aligns with your personal taste. Don’t bother to criticize the ones who don’t. Life is too short.
Phil Jones
90-93 is not a “low” rating …
I sometimes have the feeling that several scores posted here are rather (too) high … too generous, too euphoric …
there should be enough air above for real greatness …
My gut feeling is that it seems to be kind of a “shame” to post about a 88-point wine (which is by definition very good to excellent) …
And last but not least rating is always kind of subjective (even if imho professional critics should try to stay as objective as possible … which isn´t always the case …)
Long ago when I actually referred to those scores I remember noticing a lot of the Cabs I was taking to RMP would score in the range of about 90-92. He liked them. They just didn’t get the fireworks.