No, I got them from a guy in Singapore. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Yes Andrew, that’s where I got them. The 12/12 issue was posted a few days ago.
Antonio, re-reading it looks like you’re trying to justify the greater number of 100-point wines recently. I can buy that more experience with great wines will build the confidence to award 100 points.
However, I had trouble understanding the meaning because to me, a greater problem with score inflation is the large number of very average wines scoring in the low-90s. When I got into wine about 25 years ago, a Wine Advocate 85 was a very good wine. Now it seems anything below 90 is not recommended, and 90-93 is loaded with mediocrity. Your comments seem to agree at least with the idea that there is a vast sea of very average (read: boring) wine out there. Care to comment about score inflation in the 85-90 point range? This is an area of great interest to me, since these are the wines I’m most likely to be buying and drinking on a regular basis. I don’t have any interest at all in 100-pointers.
It’s funny how some can attack the man for his opinion, which we all have one. He came on this site and explained that the way he analyzes and scores wines have evolved as of late as a result of new experiences. Haven’t we all gone through that and do we get attacked for it. The question is do you agree with his palate or not and then allow him to do his work. I admire him for coming on here and it made sense. I personally agree with Tanzer more often then the others because i find my palate is more in line with his.
A lot of those who bitched about parker’s high scores went out and payed top dollar for those wines so they could impress people or for future investments. Then they further complained about the climbing prices of those wines when they themselves are ultimately responsible for those prices. It’s not RP’s or Antonio’s fault prices have sky rocketed–they don’t force us as consumers to bend over. so lets give them a break and just drink wines we like instead of basing our purchase decisions off of one critics opinion. remember, the purpose of these write ups by critics should be to assist us in or searches for good juice and is not meant to be the holy grail that drives some to go out and buy cases of a wine that they haven’t even tried yet. What are we sheep. We’re supposed to be able to think for ourselves.
I’m with you that Antonio is being commendably open about this.
However, I think what you say confuses (a) complaints about score inflation with (b) complaints about high scores driving up prices, which are two separate things.
I think the tendency to give so many scores over 90 and 95 has debased the scale.
I don’t really have an issue with consumers having information that affects demand, so (b) doesn’t bother me. Moreover, for my palate, I find so many high WA and WS scores to be bizarre, that I find the inflation a positive factor because it steers a lot of money from the wines I like to things I don’t.
Antonio has always been amazingly and commendably transparent.
I agree completely, especially about scores above 90. I and many people think that so many such scores from several major critics do not make sense. This doesn’t seem to be what Antonio was discussing in the post that spurred the starting of this thread, and I don’t follow his reviews so am unaware of whether or not he is anywhere near as much a part of the trend as most other major critics are, but I would be interested to know what he thinks of this common complaint.
As far as the explanation for awarding more 99 and 100 point scores recently, it makes sense to me.
My perception is that long ago (before Antonio came on the scene) both Parker and the Spectator rated plenty of wines in the 80s indicating wines well worthy buying at the right price, esp. in 85-89. But retailers noticed that many customers had a hard cut-off at 90. There was lots of discussion about little difference in sales between 88 and 89 points or between 90 and 91, but crossing from 89 to 90 made a huge difference. As time went on, both customers and winemakers viewed an 89 as the kiss of death. Some merchants even tried to play against this by having an “89 point sale”. Lots of good wines at good prices. Sadly, I think it was mostly customer response that caused scores in the 80s to be undervalued.
Antonio, your participation here is appreciated. I can see your argument for elevating a very few Italian and other wines, based on their quality level relative to the best wines of the world. But my own reaction the few times I have had the chance to tasted a truly great wine is to remind myself how many wines, even very good ones, do not reach those lofty levels. And that the score compression we’ve seen is really the opposite of what should be happening. I would urge you to consider a gradual expansion of the score range, pushing back down into at least the 80s. And personally, I reserve scores about 95 for wines that have clearly proved their quality, which can only happen over time with development in the bottle. You could easily institute a rule that no recently released wine can score over 95, and higher scores are reserved for retrospective tastings later in a wine’s life.
I happen to think that rating wines very highly has at least a small component of narcissism on the part of the reviewer, bringing attention based on being the messenger, discovering some great new wine others don’t know about, etc. That kind of thing happens all the time here on the wine boards, but is easy to filter or ignore when amateurs like us do it. When it infuses professional critique, it’s much more difficult to filter. I would urge you to resist giving out such high scores, and try to gradually push scores back into a range where a very infrequent 98 or 99 actually means something.
Cheers
Sounds great. I will happily bring the 2010 Maybach (see may avatar). I will be happy to set it up if you are serious. I have a little experience doing such tastings.
----email me at mike at pobega dot com if so. Awaiting your email.
![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
So, Antonio has rated merely 16 wines either 99 or 100pts from many regions and vintages and people are upset…seems odd. Given the quality of winemaking in those regions how hard is it to believe that there would be at least 16 wines made of that quality…particularly given the quality of some of the vintages reviewed. Either you have a full scale that goes to 100 or you pretend it doesn’t and the greatest wines only get 98pts even though they are the best of the best.
I also have always thought there to be a different scale when it comes to Italian wines and Burgs compared to CA cabs, Bordeaux and Rhones…from most every critic. Has the WA in its history awarded more than 10 100pt scores to Burgs? What about Italy? Great winemakers and some great vintages over the years but very few (on a relative basis) high scores.
Gee, Parker gave 17 wines 100pts just from the 2010 Northern Rhone…even if that was far too many and it was cut in half of quarter still a lot from other regions.
I find no problem with the scores that AG has had and the “inflation”, especially with his forthright discussion of this in the past and having the guts to come here and reply. It actually seems pretty honest and practical. I should not be, but still am baffled by some of the WA bashing here. It seems at least from his previous explanations that he acted pretty damn smartly and humbly with the earlier Piedmont reports. It shows some humility and self awareness that I think is pretty impressive, to allow for the possibility that one does not know all: holding off the giant numbers because he was aware of not having been exposed widely to the non Italian icons of wine. His approach shows wisdom that avoids a myopic world view. It sounds like he tasted the best Piedmont wines and left room to spare figuring there may be some world famous wines he has not tried may be better than these Italian stars. Then with comparison, he realizes that they stand toe to to with the icons of Bordeaux and Burgundy et. al. Sometimes you need to see the world the realize how great something from your own backyard is. He has seen the vinous world now and has a yardstick that goes to 100 now.
+1
Dan, have you read the report? If you were referring to my posts, they were not just about 16 wines, but the scoring broadly. Not sure if Ken counted only wines with final bottle scores etc. for 99/100, but looking at wines rated 96 and above for final score, and wines with a barrel score of at least (96-98), how many do you think were in this Napa report? Over 100 by my quick count. Also, I’m not upset about that, I just want to know how to interpret these scores, because they seem to me to be markedly higher than AG’s scores for Napa last year and I’m guessing they are markedly higher than he has scored the best vintages from Italian regions. When placed in the context of 1) Bob handing out big bunches of high scores as you point out, 2) critics like Suckling seemingly starting an arms race of high scores, 3) the hue and cry about AG’s scores being too low last year by various high-score-loving Napa fans and 4) the recent sale of a possibly controlling interest in the WA, I want to know, has AG adjusted his scoring, or is this set of Napa wines that much better than those in last year’s report, and that much better than any vintage he has tasted in Italy, etc. If it’s an evolutionary process, how much of that evolution happened in just the last year since his 1st Napa report?
Antonio’s 100-pointers are not a suitable yardstick, because he is not, and never has been, Parker in that regard. Here is the yardstick for Napa wines in WA issue 204:
Of 895 wines covering a little less than 18 pages, the first sub-90 score shows up on page 17. “Firm” sub-90 scores are 27 89s, 27 88s, 12 87s and 4 86s, for a total of 70 of 895, or 7.8%. (There are also 5 89-92s, 13 89-91s, 1 88-91s, 5 88-90s and 2 89+s, for a total of 26 that could go either way.)
At the top, we find the following (I arbitrarily used the POSSIBILITY of 96 or more as my cutoff, to track Parker’s 96-100 “extraordinary” category):
100-2
99±1
98±7
98-100-2
98-13
97-99-1
97±8
97-25
96-98-7
96±15
96-31
95-97-13
95±19
94-96±1
94-96-12
93-96-2
93-95±1
Total 160, or 17.9% are potentially “extraordinary” wines. (Of those, 13 were from the 2011 vintage, 95 from 2010, 48 from 2009, 1 from 2008, 2 from 2007 and 1 from 2006.) For those for whom 95 is the psychological cutoff for greatness (despite the published scale for WA “extraordinary” wines being 96-100), there were 40 95s, 15 93-95s and 8 92-95s as well, meaning that over 25% of the 895 wines tasted were potentially 95 points or more. And before there is any whining about the inclusion of bracketed scores as potential 95s or 96s, please count how many of Antonio’s 2009 scores achieved either the top number in the bracket or exceeded the top number in the bracket.
I will have more to say on this later, and without meaning to rain on the parade of what apparently is a majority on all wine boards of those who drink CA wines dominantly or exclusively, and may honestly believe that they are superior to Old World wines, it is patently absurd for any critic to assert that there could be that many “extraordinary” wines coming out of Napa over a two-year period. None of Antonio’s rationales hold any water in that regard…
As a coin collector I have been really puzzled by the rating system for wine. Coins are graded by professionals on a scale of 0-70. There are practically very very few 68-70. Very very very rare. They also have or use the scale all the way down to zero. You never see sub 84 wine ratings so what is the point with the system. Also. Far too many perfect scores. It’s rediculous to me. Something in the wine industry smells fishy to me. If this guy gives out less perfect scores I would be more inclined to believe him
I have no issue with Antonio’s rating. There is no right or wrong way to use 100 point scale which is never meant to be a precise tool. It isn’t like anyone can consistently rate the wines in ±1 point range, even if poured from the same bottles. Factoring the bottle variation, it is absurd to discuss as though a wine has a rating. Those who love 61-100 scale, it really becomes impossible to replicate, if tasted blind. In order for Antonio to remain relevant, it is wise to utilize the 100 point scale like Bob does as a 99 point wine is a lot more exciting for most people than a 93 point wine.
P.S. I have been pondering for a while regarding how I rate the wines and I tend to rate Bordeaux, Cal cabs and Northern rhones higher than Burgundy and Barolos despite preferring the latters.
Kevin, once you use a scale, there MUST be consistency and relativity. There is simply no chance that almost 20% of Napa wines over a two-year period are going to stack up as “extraordinary” when measured against the backdrop of finer vineyards, finer grapes and finer producers, all of much longer standing (sometimes centuries) elsewhere in the world. Antonio seems honest, transparent, passionate, all of the above. What he lacks is relevant experience and perspective. He does not meet many wines that he doesn’t like these days, and he is not alone in that. Parker, Suckling, Dunnuck, the list keeps growing…
20% of Napa wines don’t stack up. You are analyzing a selected sample. Consider the entire spectrum of wines coming from Napa valley, then re-do your analysis.
My only exposure to Parker & co are the threads on here these days. I did just read Posner’s e-mail from today where he pointed out that Parker gave 17 100 point scores in the N Rhone and that Antonio gave 96 or better on 95 different wines from the 2010 vintage in Napa.
TWA would never have become a respected publication if it had begun this way. It feels as though they are tasting these with the assumption that the bottles begin at 100 points and then gently work backward.
I guess reading this stuff has just reinforced my happiness that they ran me & everyone else off.
The numbers seem high for Napa but you have to take into account the very small production of a number of these wines. Would anyone be shocked if there were 10 Left Bank Bordeaux wines that broke 95+ in a very good vintage? At 15,000 case productions that’s a lot of wine. Most of the Napa wines getting high scores are made in much smaller quantities, often 1/10th or less than what the Bordeaux chateaux do. So the idea that there might be 100 of them is not entirely unfounded. If, say, LLC got bought by Andy Beckstoffer, stopped bottling its own wine, and divided its grapes among 15 different wineries, would anyone be surprised if at least 10 of those wines turned out to be great? But suddenly you have 10 95+ scores were previously you only had one.
The real inflation is Parker giving out 17 100 pt scores in his latest Northern Rhone report. That’s just patently ridiculous on its face.