I would actually say that they have now given more to two of their best writers. I’m somewhat surprised that you feel that Laube was one of their best writers tbh
Kramer tried his best, but Laube’s columns over the past years have been complete fluff. Either trite truisms, or blowing kisses to a particular producer.
I have no doubt it’s a tough job to come up with a topic of interest month after month, year after year, but he doesn’t even try any more.
Kramer had the entire world of wine at his disposal. Laube’s extreme focus did not leave room for a whole lot of imagination.
Not sure he is covering that region - but he did give some similar scores to wines from the Paso region recently ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
He is covering it. There’s a crazy thread on Facebook about it.
The scores were kind compared to the notes. One 83-point wine was described as “corpulent, overripe and flat, without any redeeming features, concluding with a soapy finish.”
I stand corrected - and that is one funny thread!
I’m surprised there’s been no mention of those scores here . . . at all . . .
Cheers!
I think Laube did affect the industry a lot. As demonstrated by his love affairs with KB and Loring, his palate started shifting dramatically toward favoring residual sugar. Some of the wines he threw big points at, including CA Cabs, we’re dripping in RS. Didn’t take long for the both sides of the crowd to start chasing that dog! When $200 cabs taste like ports and Laube giving them 95 Pts, you know he has changed an industry!
Gordon - do the analytical tests to prove the RS comments.
Except for the soap, that sounds like 95 points for Parker. Maybe 97 with sushi…
What thread on Facebook are y’all mentioning?
…Just curious. 
Shelf talkers, both on the shelf and on the Internet, publicize reviews and scores well beyond the audience of people who actually subscribe to WS, WA, W&S, etc.
Bruce - that’s right. But shelf-talkers only work in an individual store, where people who buy based on a shelf talker usually don’t know or care who the reviewer was. The shelf talker could be from the lady down the street. That’s why some stores, like Winex, Wine Library, etc., make use of so many “reviewers”. They find someone, no matter how obscure, and tout the score. Somebody, somewhere, gave a wine 91 points.
Shelf-talkers sell wine in the aggregate, across a lot of retailers, and that’s where the lady down the street suffers - she doesn’t have any supporters in the next town, so her influence disappears. WS shelf-talkers appear all over.
The main market isn’t the final customer, it’s the retailer, who buys wine by the case, and even the pallet, not the bottle. A good WS score may help you get some placements and once you have them, the retailer has an incentive to move the product. The WOTY demonstrates the power of the WS, and if you’re a retailer, you are more likely to buy wine based on the WS score than on W&S or Jancis. The customer using a shelf-talker however, buys based on the big bold, 93 and doesn’t usually care who it’s from.
I disagree a lot. I think after 99 Napa, Parker really reset the market, and it hasn’t been close ever since. I think the biggest places where Laube missed his mark were 2001 and 2007. Neither vintage came with the kind of fanfare from Laube that they truly deserved, and by the time 2010s were out, he tasted a fraction of what was out there. It’s only gotten worse with years like 12 and 13.
Also, WS regularly published online focused groups of 8-15 wines, and he was giving $250 wines 89 points (that were conversely being rated by Parker and/or Galloni in the mid-90s) and they were basically being destroyed as a “feature”. I had some closed door conversations with friends in Napa who make some of the most sought after wines, and they all flat out said something to effect that Laube would never get a bottle of wine to taste from me, and some with far harsher commentary.
Ian;
Do your friend’s cabs have noticeable RS? If not, they probably were not appreciated by Laube post 2000. I believe RS got points from Laube, often times proportional in volume!
As to Dave’s comments, I never needed a chemical analysis to know Meiomi PN had RS from the time it was first released, nor that it was blended with other varieties. I believe Laube threw a 92 at it one year. A fairly monolithic wine with RS garnered strong points from him. Same with many CA cabs that followed the same course.
Lab analysis done at ETS labs in Napa:
2010 Schrader To Kalon Vineyard RBS $325 retail
96 points James Laube, Wine Spectator
Alcohol 16.3% (Label says 14.4%)
Gluc/Fruc 2.23
VA .72
pH 3.8
TA 6.36
One more:
WineSpectator, Top 100 from 2015:
#20 = Meiomi Pinot Noir
#35 Rombauer Chardonnay
I agree that good WS scores are generally more “impactful” on the market–what retailers carry and what consumers buy–than similar scores from other non-WA publications.
Bruce
Brad,
2.23 g/l? 2.23%? Makes a HUGE difference.
Meiomi is a piece of crap. Always has been.
Agree about the HUGE difference between those two numbers . . .
2.23g/l is .223% - not ‘bone dry’ but probably not going to be ‘perceived as sweet’.
2.23% is 22.3 g/l - definitely going to be perceived as ‘off dry’
Please clarify . . .
Cheers.
One more:
2002 MARTINELLI BLUE SLIDE
94 Points Wine Spectator, James Laube
“A smooth, rich, multifaceted wine with layers of fruit complexity and a long, persistent finish, ending with supple tannins. The core flavors feature zesty ripe plum, raspberry and blackberry (with a hint of jam) and a touch of strawberry rhubarb pie.”
17.24% Alcohol (label says 15% so they are breaking the law)
pH 3.92
5.46 TA
Gluc Fruc 1.63
VA .78
Brad,
Thanks for providing these. Are you ITB? Just curious.
Again, it’s important to clarify whether the Gluc/Fruc is in g/L or in % - there is a huge difference between the two. Please clarify . . .
Any ‘recent’ wines that you’ve run? The two pointed out are certainly older.
Thanks.