Relatively low RP rating but wine drops your jaws

WINE TALK
21

What did a dead mystery writer know about wine and why would anyone care?

22

I think you are attributing far too much meaning and precision to the scores. What’s 90 points one day tasted next to wines A, B and C might get 95 points a week later tasted next to D, E and F. Many critics today taste dozens of a wines at a sitting, where it’s impossible to give a really thorough assessment. (Parker started tasting 50 and 75 wines at time 30 years ago.)

And, as others have said, low-90s scores were never bad. They just looked mediocre once Parker started giving lots of 95+ scores.

As Parker’s tastes shifted toward very ripe wines, I generally found that I preferred wines he didn’t give such high scores to. I often found his 88 and 90 point wines better balanced for my palate than the 96 and 98 point ones.

23

He gave some crazy high ratings to dessert wines that I couldn’t stand. His Australia explorations were a bridge too far.

RT

24

I may understand the post if we talked about some outliers, but here we are talking about a few points. So yeah, we have differernt tastes. [popcorn.gif]

25

Yep. completely agree on the alignment comment. If not and you just hunt scores from everyone you’ll be in for a lot more disappointment.

26

Just the other day Jeb Dunnuck gave 100pts to the Immortal Cab that’s a sister brand to Tim Tusk’s Tusk. I’ve never tasted the wine (and at $300/bottle I doubt I will), but at 28 months on 85% new oak I have a pretty good idea of what bracket it’s in. Here’s what’s even more interesting - 2014 it was only 24 months on 75% new oak and got only 99 pts from Jeb. So that extra 7.5% of new oak really clinched the deal! [head-bang.gif]

Bottom line is - if you want to get big points and want bragging rights, there’s only one way to do it, still - go massive new oak, go big. Your reward is your excess. All the stuff about new restraint, old world, finesse, a new California etc means nothing. All the talk about a retraction from “Parkerization” and the excessive old CA style is just empty talk - it’s still in full swing, still in play, still what gets scores. Nothing’s changed. Producers that go for nuance and finesse, have no chance.

deadhorse

27

Adam,


I have always wanted to do a newsletter in which we open wines in the cellar and see whose prognostications were correct.

In the meantime, I am using what you wrote to help sell barrels.

Thanks so much


Mel

28

Could this be a positive for the not so gullible consumer? If you don’t like the kinds of wines that get the most points, the point system is making bargains out of the wines that you do like (roughly speaking - really small producers have no choice but to jack up prices a lot of the time).

29

I think there are probably many wines like this. The 1994 Angelus is one that pops into my mind. To me this is such a terrific wine. RP did like it. 92 points but I liked it a lot. A lot more than that. For several years, this was my favorite Angelus besides the 89/90 duo. It remains one of the very best.

Anything involving Figeac and Beychevelle I liked more than RP. Classic wines that weren’t overdone in any way. FWIW.

30

Ha! Do it! [cheers.gif]

I also edited my post to be a little less amped up (yes, I’d had a few glasses of wine). Tomas, would you mind re-quoting my post in yours? And yes, maybe you’re right - maybe I should look at it as a positive! But then how would you know anything - does wine actually suck or does it just not have oak?

31

the only instance during fifteen years working retail that i ever placarded a case-stack of wine with an RP rating:

1991 Schloss Saarstein Riesling Trocken
59 points

brilliant wine, sold out stacks coupla times

32

Wooden bridges, at that.

33

I think there are many ways… For starters, we can start by learning to identity those things in reviews which are meant as praise by the reviewer, but which aren’t our cup of tea. Parker was very explicit by using ‘low acidity’ in the middle of a string of compliments (which baffles me). Then you might do the opposite: listen to people whose palate you do trust. I think that goes for reviewers, producers and retailers: some retailers I know have a very specific philosophy, and so I know that anything I buy there will not taste like a 100 point RP wine.

I also like listening to producers whenever possible. A favorite producer-oenologist of mine has been doing a series of Instagram lives where he discusses his wine making philosophy, and why he uses so little oak. It only confirmed my appreciation for his work. He’s even discussed his vinicultural philosophy, although I’m not technically competent enough to judge that.

34

Thank you.

35

Maybe I precise my statement. Of course I do not think that low 90 is bad score or means bad wine. Absolutely.
Starting from 90/100 are outstanding wines in Parker scale but also for me.
But at the same time difference of at least 4 points or 6 points means one class of difference so let say diffrence between outstanding and great wine.
In such frame was my thinking. I also o put word “relatively” in the topic.
Besides if my private score/rating in most cases would be completly different than Robert Parker, I would think that I do not understand wines or maybe I have different taste than Parker does.
BUT
75% (3/4) of all wines I had I scored exactly the same as Parker or 1 point lower/higher. So his scores are usually good guidness for me.
In my first post I mentioned only exeptions in which diffrence is remarkably high between my taste/palate and Parker rating.
I think that especially for Californian wines ( especially from 1997) he underestimeted how great these wines are after several years of aging ( I think the same for Mondavi Reserve 2001 or Newton Unfiltered Merlot 1991).
I thought examples mentioned in my first post would be interesting for forum members from that point of view.

36

That’s awesome. There must be more if not that egregious. Are sub 80s even possible these days?

RP turned on a lot of producers and regions. Loved Burgs until he didn’t. Never seemed to care for Loire reds. Not really a Bojo fan either IIRC, unless it was crazy ripe. Pro ESJ until he wasn’t. Then he got that whole un-ripe goat-herder north facing high altitude bug up his a$$. The rise and fall.

RT

37

93 white Burgundies.

38

  1. ALL wine ratings are subjective. One will always have differences of 4-6 points with all wine writers. The big thing is when you start having differences of 10-20 points. At that point, your palate and the wine writer’s palate do not align and you should stop reading him or her.

  2. An example for me of huge discrepancies are Allen Meadow’s rankings of 2003 Truchot wines. In January 2005, Allen rated the Charmes Chambertin 82-85?, the Clos de la Roche 78-82? and the GC Combottes (89-92). His notes on the Charmes and Clos de la Roche are:

2003 Clos de la Roche: (from two parcels planted in 1937 and 1955). After the fireworks of the Combottes, I frankly wasn’t
prepared for an ultra ripe and pruney nose and flavors that are more akin to dry port than burgundy. This is absolutely nothing
like the prior wines and is frankly just not very good. Avoid. (78-81?)/?
2003 Charmes-Chambertin: (from two parcels planted in 1920 and 1951). It’s clear that the inability to cool the musts
caused a problem here because even though the aromas and flavors are not as ripe and over-the-top as the Clos de la Roche,
there is a touch of volatile acidity and a slightly curious funky note to the finish. Despite these notable flaws, the wine is still
delicious and mouth coating but I cannot recommend it as I have trouble seeing this age successfully. (82-85?)/drink soon

Today, all three of these wines are fabulous and I would rate all three 95+. Moreover, the Combottes, while fabulous, is the weakest of the three but not by much.

39

shortly after this, Schildknecht & Theise sat RP down
and gently explained that one ought to taste the dry wines before the sweet wines,
not afterward…

40

Parker’s original 1993 red Burg ratings, revised upward years later by Rovani, were 67 Cote de Beaune and 73 Cote de Nuits.