Robert Parker rates 1989 Lynch Bages 99+

[Winona Chief]

No kidding, 99+ for 1989 Lynch Bages by the man himself. Wine Advocate #196 dated August 31, 2011.

Chris Bublitz

[Nicklasss]

As Jimhow has the same palate as The Man, so that mean a 100 for the 1988 Vieux Chateau Certan...

Nic

[Chasse-Spleen]

It's quite interesting. That's a big upgrade from the 95 he gave it in his last Bordeaux book. I think Robert Parker is kind of crazy. Or at least not the most consistent personality. Unfortunately, Jim's vindication/endorsement equals an ever more escalating price for his favorite wine. What next? $500 a bottle for LB? I guess the 5th growth classification will always keep the price down below wines like LLC and Cheval Blanc etc.

-Chasse

[JimHow]

MAINE TIMES

HUMBLE LYNCH QUIETLY CELEBRATES PARKER RATING

Lewiston, Maine (AP) -- Renowned attorney, novelist, and philanthropist Jimmy L.B. How chatted with reporters today at his estate in this small, breathtakingly beautiful central Maine village. How responded briefly to reports that the highly respected Robert M. Parker, Jr., Esquire, had recently joined the internationally-recognized James Suckling in recognizing the greatness of the 1989 Chateau Lynch Bages. How has consistently dubbed that wine as "the greatest Bordeaux produced in the last 50 years," and Parker's recent 99+ rating of the classic Pauillac would seem to support that claim.

Using such terms as "powerful," "rich," and "stunning," Parker deemed the 1989 Lynch Bages as the greatest Lynch ever, eclipsing the 1990 and 2000 versions of the wine.

"Some have called it the poor man's Mouton, others have praised it as the next Lafite," said a reserved, humble How. "It would be easy for us to boast. That is not our style. It would be easy for us to respond to our so-called 'knowledgeable' critics. We choose not to, in the spirit of humbleness that this great champion has represented through the years. We believe the 99+ rating of the great and esteemed Mr. Parker speaks for itself. It is a great day for Bordeaux, and a great honor for a hero of the workingman, the 1989 Chateau Lynch Bages."

[Harry C.]

I am far from a Parker apoligist, but he has a long record of changing scores-both up and down as the wine ages. He has always held his scores are but snap shots of the wine at that time.

[DavidG]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds."

I find nothing unusual in a 5 point swing between two bottles tasted many years apart. At 20+ years of age, I would find nothing unusual in a 5 point swing between two bottles tasted side by side. If anything is out of whack, it's the fixation on scores and the expectation that they will remain unchanged as a wine ages. As Jim will attest, you don't need scores to know '89 Lynch is one of the best wines of the last half-century. Then again, there is comfort in having your preferences validated by "the Man," even a man who shall remain nameless.

[Bacchus]

Jim lives in an "estate"? My oh my!

[JimHow]

I think you are getting me confused with Jimmy L.B. How, Bacchus....

[Bacchus]

I guess I did confuse the two of you, Jim, and I apologize for that. Is it a requirement for lawyers in Maine to be named Jim How, drink fine Bordeaux, and write novels? Sorry, couldn't resist, but it is an amazing coincidence. And I'm sorry if you don't live in an estate. Do you know each other? Ever share a bottle?

[JonoB]

Why 99+... just give it 100. If you are certain it is a + ...

[DavidG]

Because the 16-point scale (85-100) isn't fine-grained enough?

[Michael-P]

Like the BD, another of my favorite wines (thanks to BD for the introduction at the first BWE Annual) that will be too expensive for me to buy anymore.

But there's always the 88 VCC....

Michael-P

[Tom In DC]

[Chasse-Spleen]

I don't really take it that seriously. I see no reason why '89 LB shouldn't be rated 99 or 100. RP rates so many wines 100 which are probably not as great, or in any event, it's a matter of taste. But I still find his ratings to be a little nutty as of late. But it's probably just that the hot vintage style is very much to his liking. He likes it more and more and more... This comment has nothing to do with the '89 LB. I was always surprised by his conservative ratings of LB.

Hey, check this out - I went to Benoit Bistro last night, one of Alain Ducasse's restaurants by . I even got to meet him briefly. But here is the interesting thing. What a wine list! Of the 6 vintages of Chateau Margaux on the list, '70, '83, '85, '86, '88, and '89, which one was the most expensive? I know you will all get it...

Of course, we had to drink one of the wines that was from my company. It was great though. (see note)

-Chasse

[Tom In DC]

Guessing that either '83 or '86 was most expensive on the list, but I sure know that the '89 is mighty fine...

[JimHow]

I am far from a Parker apoligist, but he has a long record of changing scores-both up and down as the wine ages. He has always held his scores are but snap shots of the wine at that time.

Interesting observation, Harry, and I agree with you.
But what does that mean about his ratings of very young wines?

If he rates a 1989 Lynch out of barrel "only" 93 points but rates it 99+ points 20 years later, why should we pay attention to any of his in-barrel ratings for any other wines?

Or if he "has always held his scores are but snap shots of the wine at that time", then what value are his ratings? If he thinks that 1989 Lynch merits 95 points in 2009, but 99+ points in 2011, I mean, big deal, what does that tell us about anything? I say those ratings mean nothing....

Does that mean it may be an 89-pointer in a 2013 snapshot? I think someone contemplating $275 for a bottle of '89 Lynch might want to know that....

[Chasse-Spleen]

Tom,
It was the '86 that was the most expensive. I think the '88 was the cheapest, followed by the '89, I'm not sure. I thought '89 was one of these "off" years for Margaux. I guess I should consult Parker before I make these statements

I was just interested because we had tasted the '86 at the '86 horizontal. That was a profound wine. I would have thought the '83 might be a little more pricey. Anyway, what's it to me? I was just impressed that they had all those wines. You should have seen the list of Guigal La-La's.

-Chasse

[Tom In DC]

I'm not sure Parker is that hep on '89 Margaux, Chasse, but it was delicious at dinner during the 2005 Convention.

[Chasse-Spleen]

Tom,
I totally believe you. I looked it up and saw that he rated it 90. Somewhat low considering he has hiked the Lynch Bages to 99+ and especially for Margaux. Of course, I'm not that much of a points guy although I do take Burghound quite seriously. And I know that a first growth rated 90 has the possibility of being totally spellbinding. It's all relative or perhaps, irrelevant. The Dude abides.

-Chasse

[Tom In DC]

[JimHow]

I see that PC has this on pre-arrival for $360. If there are any other wines you guys want to know about, just let me know.

[Houndsong]

The confusion over the + is exactly why I'm moving to a decimal system here in the land of 89-point wines. Of course it's only "decimal" in the colloquial sense, since all 89-point wines will now be rated from 89.80 to 89.100. This is to ensure that people will know exactly how "good" an 89-point wine is at any point in time.

[Bacchus]

Yes, Hound, I've long thought the 100 point scale wasn't fine tuned enough! So I want to support the chap on CT who is marking out of 1000 -- wait for it -- and using decimals!! So in his system it is possible to rate a wine as 987.5/1000! Thank god for this because we can now distinguish between wines that deserve a 999.5 and those that only deserve a 999! Personally, I can't wait till the vintage that Pontet Canet gets a 999 while Lafite only gets a 998.5. What a day that will be!

[DavidG]

I think scoring should be done with irrational numbers. Or maybe imaginary numbers. We could appoint Stefan High Priest Mathemagician, or...

...we could get really serious about this and require use of one of my all-time favorites, the Stuart Yaniger Three Stooges Wine Rating System. And no, none of the Stooges is named Parker. Calling Dr. Howard, Dr. Fine, Dr. Howard! Woo-woo-woo!

[Harry C.]

Jim, concerning your questions of a few posts up, I personally have always taken barrel score 'guess-timates' as just that. The reviewer is giving his/her best guess on how the wine will do in its life. That is all it is-a guess. That is based on the reviewer's experience on how it will do, given decent bottling practice and ideal storage. In Parker's case, he tends to be on a hell of a lot more than off (in Bordeaux at least). I have never, personally, taken the barrel samples as an absolute. And, Jim, as you know there are no great vintages just great bottles; his 99+ LB was a great bottle. (oh, and a small error in your post-Parker gives ranges in barrel, he only "points" it when in the bottle.