i dont have a dog in this hunt (have never had the wine and almost certainly never will), but having just flipped through the most recent wine spectator (with all 2016 bottle scores to date).
Number of wines rated by WS for this vintage
100 - Zero
99 - Zero
98 - Zero
97 . - One (Colgin IX)
So from this publication the scores to date are not top heavy
Some wineries 16’s starting with the letter S as a comparison
Scarecrow - 94
Scarecrow MEtain - 92
Schrader - all 94-96
Eagle - 94
Seven Stones - 92
Shafer one Point Five - 90
Signorelo - 91
Spoto - 89
Sojourn G III - 92
Spottswood - 96
Staglin - 93
My point was this publication, which is the apples to apples in measuring a score from same. Again, not arguing its a great value (as many other wines are not as well)
There are plenty of 90-94 point from whomever Napa Cabs at $180+ price points. To single hers out for scorn is unfair. As has been said, Aaron Pott is a very talented winemaker.
James Laube? With him it’s a dice roll to dice roll comparison. That’s with wines of the same style, where you’d think it would be apples to apples. Then comes his massive self-avowed biases, preferring bold ripe wines and drinking on the young side, and giving poor scores to wines that need age. Then, on many occasions over the decades doing an occasional retrospective tasting of properly matured traditionally ripe wines…and rating them highly…then going right back to rating new releases of that sort of wine poorly…decade after decade of not learning or giving a rats ass.
I’m particularly fond of a 68 point wine and a 73 point wine. Oh, and funnily, on the other side of his inanity, his highest ratings for some of my friends’ wines are their least favorite releases.
You could say my interest in his ratings is like apples to cats. Apples are of little interest to cats.
I beg to differ. There are quite a few compilation videos of cats playing with Apples (MacBooks, iPads) on YouTube. Seems like they’re VERY interested.