Apologies to Comte Flaneur

[rthomaspaull]

To Comte Flaneur: My deepest apologies for posting about what are essentially Robert Parker's choices for first through fifth growths (starting in 1982) under what I consider your brilliant "Rethinking the left bank classification", which I feel sure will be far more welcomed by BWE members than the combined lists I posted under your topic. Obviously I should have started a new topic and apart from mental laziness (I was very tired) cannot think why I
did not do so. I am very sorry.
My computer "skills" are really bad and I hope that some kind and more adept person will post my (really Parker's) combined lists under a new topic.

It took a lot of work from me to make the combined lists. The reason I posted them is that I have had few of the wines you cover and more (though not a large number) of those scored by him (and Neal Martin for 2014).

Very best wishes, rthomaspaull

[Comte Flaneur]

Rthomaspaull - how would you like us to address you? Is there a shortened version of your name? How does your significant other address you?

It is kind of you to start this thread but there is no need because there is nothing to apologise about!

Your rating system is interesting, and Parker was very influential of course in his day. Before you joined here we had long debates as to whether he was a positive or a negative influence. We tended to find that the positives outweighed the negatives but he arguably had some influence on the evolution of winemaking to bolder styles, not necessarily to everyone’s tastes.

I personally am uneasy relying on a rating system based on the scores of a controversial critic, however influential he was. That is not of course to claim that my rankings are superior to your system based on his scores. But it does throw up some anomalies like Pape Clement rising to say equivalent of super second, where the winemaking style changed very discretely in the late 90s to appease the Parker palate.

[rthomaspaull]

To Comte Flaneur: Many thanks for your post. RT, as used by JH, is fine.
I really admire your reclassification (will there be 5th growths?) and regret that price has prevented my trying many of the top wines.
My major difference with Parker is about Gruaud Larose. I have some but still limited experience with some other wines he rated.
The only left bank wines I buy are after I have tasted and liked the wine and found the price is reasonable.
I feel very fortunate in liking several (though not all) styles of left bank red Bordeaux. To me Pape Clement (on the rare occasions I
have tried it) is a borderline case. I have not bought more than a bottle at a time.
Much preferred in style were wines such as the 2010 Cantemerle and 2012 Rauzan-Segla. Parker and I each gave both 94.5 .

Best, rthomaspaull

[Claudius2]

RT
I have called you Richard a few times so hope that is okay.
My non de plume of Claudius by the way was the name of a blue Persian cat who I named after the Emperor due to his quite unbelievable intelligence and (for a fluffy cat) eccentricity.

Can I just elaborate on the usage of point whether it be from RP, WS or an other magazine or critic. I think many of us grew up relying on their points but over time started to realise that:

A. Their palates seemed to demand extreme wines that come across to some of us as overblown and clumsy
B. There has been quite amazing point escalation in the last decade or so whereby average supermarket wines now get 98 or so points, discrediting the concept of not just the 100 point system but of ratings per se’.

I’m an Aussie and was literally brought up on Aussie Shiraz which traditionally had 12,5 to 13% alcohol and was typically medium bodied and dry. I watched numerous estates especially in Barossa and McLaren Vale deliberately and unashamedly chasing high points from RP. The wines ended up with 18% alcohol and tasted more like road tar than wine. Yet RP gave many of them 100 or high 90’s points and they started selling for high prices.

In 2021 I can easily buy most if not all of these Parkerised wines for a third of what they initially cost. A local importer here for example buys them from the failed investment schemes that hoarded them expecting a big payoff. Yeah that worked out well. $250 wines are now available for $70 or less by the case...

In relation to point escalation one regular tipple of mine is Wynns Coonawarra Black Label CS. This is a $25 wine in Australia and freely available just about everywhere including Singaporean supermarkets. I’ve drunk about 40 vintages of this wine from 1966 to 2017. The 2016 wine got 98 or 99 points from every Aussie critic and magazine (the 2017 must be awful as it only got 96). I wrote a story about it a few months ago. It is a nice wine but for god’s sake 99 points is simply crazy and meaningless. It isn’t even the estates best Cab (the John Riddoch is 4 times the price).

So if that wine gets 99 points them how many do I give 1982 or 83 Margaux? Or 1985 La Tache for example. Or even the very best Australian wines like Hill of Grace or Grange?

My point is that over the years the 100 point system has become meaningless except as a yardstick of the taster’s preferences and is largely useful only when they contrast wines. For example Izak’s 2018 ratings tell me how he compares the wines but I rely more on his extensive notes of the vintage and individual wines.

The above is not to disparage anyone’s palate or motives. It is just that after 40 odd years of being bombarded with ratings I think some of us are rather exhausted by it all. For example I’ve been to several tastings hosted by James Halliday and he has an excellent palate and absolutely brilliant wine knowledge. A walking encyclopedia in a nice way. But now everything he rates gets high points thus they are largely useless. At least he gets to rate the best Australian wines which rarely happens with UK or American critics.

Cheers
Mark