Really? No notes?
What did he think of the 91?
Can’t lose what you never had
^^^^
Mark, I was thinking the exact thing as I was reading the article. Absolutely amazing that there wasn’t one wine earlier than 1991 that scored in the 90’s. How many of these wines did Laube rate in the 90’s when released? Are we to believe that these wines all fell apart? One of the best sites in the world for Cabernet, made by an all-star roster of wine makers. No way.
If Laube has such a preference for how younger wines taste, what is the value of him covering mature wines? His scores (no tasting notes) on these wines are of no value to anyone.
Sorry I should have been clearer. Notes are on the web site, not in the magazine, which I suppose implies they are a waste of paper. The 1991 did very well; the magazine is downstairs but I believe it got a 95.
Actually I think this might make for an interesting thread in itself. What is the point of publishing an article in a major magazine where you score wines, but don’t have notes?
Thanks Drew - turns out, wow, he’s not wrong 100% of the time. He called the massive Super Bowl upset (wildcard Giants defeating the perfect-record Pats) including the margin of victory!
Maybe WS should assign a vegan to cover the entire restaurant scene.
Perhaps music publications could assign someone who thinks all music should be smooth jazz and have them cover heavy metal releases.
I can get a critic having his own palate. I can’t see why that critic would be useful covering a broader wine world than his palate can reach or why he would undertake a campaign to try to coerce every winery into making wines in his preferred style. It is crazy of WS to support this sort of editorial douchery.
Laube has a limited palate and has openly admitted that, so why not pat him on the head and say thanks and move on to someone who can evaluate wines with different styles instead of using someone who whines and opines when all wines don’t fit his prejudice?
What’s the role of WS these days, anyway?
Eons ago they had an article with two critics blind tasting OR PN vs Burgs. Two reviews for each wine, sometimes dramatically different. I’m sure at the time many readers were confused seeing the same wine get 93 points from one critic and 78 from the other, side by side. Their value then was marketing themselves as an authoritative voice in wine review. So, providing such insight on the subjectivity of wine appreciation ran counter to their perceived value. (Screw the greater good.)
But, now? With the proliferation of smart phones and available sources of professional and amateur reviews, how much value is there in their reviews to their business? How much value in pretending to be authoritative? How much turnover do they have in subscribers? Could they do something more innovative and make themselves more relevant today to retain and attract more readers?
Laube’s writing is sometimes good, so there might be value there. His ratings are a joke. Understanding his stated preferences, his ratings still look terribly inconsistent or unpredictable. Parker is predictable, despite his blind spots. Very telling is the WS forum, where there have been long threads ragging on Laube’ palate. Not that that group is representative of their greater readership, but there he seems to have about a 20% favorable rating for his reviews.
No.
Dan Kravitz
I met Jim when he was a reporter for the Vallejo Times Herald, covering the cop beat. We got into wine about the same time and we started out with similar tastes in wine. As time went on, I found Robert Parker’s preferences were closer to mine and followed him until he started given grape jam 100 points. I had noticed Jim was moving to higher alcohol, fruit forward wines and soon, his tastes were now closer to mine.
It’s been my opinion that as some of us get older, our sense of taste and smell becomes subdued, plus the cumulative effects of allergies, dental work and medications that may also come in to play. In the early 80’s I bought every late 60 through 75 Napa Cab half bottles I could find languishing in restaurants. I drank them fast because they were fading quickly, but they had those characteristics I fell in love with back in the day. It was nostalgia. I find when I try those older Cabs now, I don’t appreciate them, I enjoy the nostalgia, then move on to something I enjoy now.
Jim probably knows just how an old California wine should taste. It tastes like nostalgia. He can appreciate it, but it is no longer in his wheel house.
One word “meomi”
I have a few 1977 Mondavi Reserves. Price just went up 100% for this board and down 50% for non-board members.
Laube has a limited palate and has openly admitted that, so why not pat him on the head and say thanks and move on
That’s about it. He likes young, fruity wines.
That’s fine insofar as it goes. We know it and don’t care what he thinks about Sancerre.
The 2001 vintage was pretty ripe. On release Laube gave it 93 points, same as he did the 1992 and 2002 vintages and higher than he rated 2005.
Truth be told, I’m not sure I fault Laube for admitting that he has a palate preference and not trying to be all things to all people. Problem is the job - he’s supposed to review all the wines that come his way, even those for which he has no love.
The only thing I fault Laube for is his influence. And that isn’t even really his fault. ![[pile-on.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/c/c5807a20e70dd93070f88bace4e4081a35b2a6aa.gif "[pile-on.gif]"){kind=small}
WINE-TASTING POST-SCRIPT
We had heard from some people that The Wine Spectator magazine had published their silly numerical scores of hundreds of 2001 vintage Cabernets.
This is, please remember, a publication which accepts (or demands, depending upon who you talk to) advertising money from wineries whose products they say they evaluate objectively.
The winner of our tasting, easily recognized by our panel, is Robert Pecota’s 2001 Cabernet, a wine rated by The Wine Spectator a measly 83 points. They do not even offer a description of Pecota’s wine since its score is so low! Pecota, by the way, does not advertise in this publication.
The most high scoring wine, according to The Wine Spectator, in our tasting, was the Chimney Rock Cabernet, garnering a 90 point rating. This is from a winery which is owned by the Paterno/Terlato folks. In the same issue of the Spectator, Mr. Tony Terlato is profiled for being given The Wine Spectator’s Distinguished Service Award. Coincidentally, perhaps, the Paterno winery company has two full pages of advertisements in this issue.
Robert Craig’s two Cabernets are rated, our group’s least favorite bottling of the night being the Mount Veeder. This scored 88 points from the Spectator, while the Howell Mountain was given 86 points.
In a preliminary look at Cabernets from the 2001 vintage, the Spectator’s Jim Laube pegged Flora Springs Trilogy as a 92-94 point wine, describing it as:
“An elegant, stylish wine that succeeds with finesse and grace. Delivers plenty of ripe, rich flavors built around a core of floral plum and currant. Deftly balanced.”
In its November 15th, 2004 issue, the same wine is given an 85 point rating. Yes, the wine can certainly change in character and quality over the two years, or so, it’s in the cellar. But read the tasting notes:
“Smooth, with creamy oak woven in with the rich, supple herb, spice, plum and cherry notes, finishing with a supple texture, with the fruit and wood merging on the finish. Cabernet Sauvignon, Merlot, Cabernet Franc and Malbec. Tasted three times, with consistent notes. Drink now through 2008. 10,000 cases made.”
That doesn’t sound all that bad to me! And if the notes are “consistent,” why did the score get reduced by nearly 10%???
In fact, most of the top wines rated in a May 10, 2002 Wine Spectator article by Jim Laube score lower in 2004, once bottled. Of course, wineries tend to show “best barrel(s)” to critics early on to garner favorable reviews. But then, as consumers, since we cannot actually own the wines until they’re assembled, bottled and sent to market, of what value is it to publish tasting notes of six or eight month old Cabernets?
Many wine writers rush to judge new vintages.
Why?
The highly rated wines in 2002 with their final ratings in 2004:
WINE
Score May 2002 Score November 2004
S. Anderson “Richard Chambers Vineyard” 95-100 Not Rated
Araujo “Eisele Vineyard” 95-100 92
Beringer “Private Reserve” 95-100 Not Rated
Etude 95-100 93
Harlan Estate 95-100 96
Lewis “Reserve” 95-100 94
Robert Mondavi “Reserve” 95-100 94
Pride 95-100 93
Shafer “Hillside Select” 95-100 95
Spottswoode 95-100 90
Stag’s Leap Wine Cellars “Cask 23” 95-100 88
Dunn
“Howell Mountain” 92-94 88
Flora Springs
“Trilogy” 92-94 85
Hess Collection
“Mount Veeder” 92-94 86
Merryvale
“Profile” 92-94 88
Peter Michael
“Les Pavots” 92-94 98
Quintessa 92-94 88
Ridge
“Monte Bello” 92-94 88
Viader 92-94 84
Yeah like anyone else, he has the right to his own tastes; the problem is that he is a voice people look to for guidance, and if he can only appreciate a limited range of wines the advice he gives is going to be colored by that perspective.
Randy,
+! regarding your second paragraph, aging can change palate sensitivities and a proclivity for more intense fruity wines is understandable and valid
I thought this was interesting. he obviously hates any aging in wine, look how scores decreased from barrel to bottle after a couple of years. 
Being an aging data point myself, I have to say I am moving in the other direction if anything
Neal, good for you, it sounds as though you are not experiencing a declining palate as experienced by some of my more mature clients.
I first heard about this from my father who lost most of his sense of taste. Most food tasted bland and some not at all. As a wine and food lover I was saddened. More potent flavors got through to him such as garlic and onion.
Extrapolating to wine, fruit then shines for some.