Demand for 2010 Bordeaux

[pomilion]

Gilman's "calling it as he sees it" is simply Gilman trying to make a name for and call attention to himself. He's a contrarian and provocateur who wants to be noticed. Having tasted the 2010s at last month's UGC, I would agree with him that 2010 is not as consistent as 2009, but I can't think of another critic in the entire world who thinks 2008 is an unequivocally exceptional bordeaux vintage and better than 2010, or that 2010 may not ultimately prove a better vintage than 2006... His comment that the '08s are "significantly better than the 2010s in terms of purity, balance, structural integrity" is truly bizarre given the substantial number of '08s that are under-fruited and overly acidic and haven't shown well since day one. I get what Gilman is doing -- trying to stake a claim for himself as the anti-Parker -- but he makes so many exaggerated and/or disingenuous statements that he's hard to take seriously. Too bad because he's otherwise a smart, interesting, engaging writer.

[JimHow]

Yeah, this is the guy who gave like 50 points to the 2000 Pavie. <rolls eyes>

[Bacchus]

To a great extent I agree with Pomilion. Gilman is doing himself and the wine world a disservice because of his exaggerated claims.And that's too bad because in the long run both the wine world and his career/reputation would benefit from a more measured approach. I get that he likes a more acidic style wine, and that's fine. And I get that he doesn't like over-oaked fruit bombs, and that's fine too. Indeed, with that palate he might fit right at home on BWE, if only he wasn''t so in need of being the center of attention. However, there is at least one BWEer who agrees with him that 2010 isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I quote: "2010 lacks the consistency to be vintage of the century."

[Blanquito]

All of Neal Martin's 2010 bordeaux notes came out last week. The scores and notes are all posted on Farr Vintners site. Some interesting stuff, he definitely loved many wines but rated a number so-so in the context of Parker's scores, etc. I like his relative scoring moderation and tend to agree with his palate broadly. He may not find the unknown gem the way Parker can, but he doesn't whiff as much as Parker either. A steady singles and doubles hitter, as it were.

He didn't go ga-ga for the La Dominique 2010 which is the one 2010 I bought more than a few bottles of (mainly on the Comte's effusive recommendation). Oh well, Suckling loved it.

[JimHow]

2009 La Dominique at $67.

Buy or no buy?

[Blanquito]

JJBuckley has the 2010 Dominique in 375ml for $26:
http://www.jjbuckley.com/2010-Dominique ... 8~375~f~ws

2010 Dominique Notes:
PARKER:
"Probably the finest La Dominique made since the wonderful duo of 1989 and 1990, the explosively fruity, dense purple-hued 2010 offers notes of licorice, roasted herbs, truffles, black raspberries and blueberry liqueur. Full-bodied and unctuously textured with sweet tannin as well as good freshness and precision, it should drink well for 15-20 years. P. S. The final blend was 77% Merlot and 23% Cabernet Franc that achieved 14.5% natural alcohol.
Score: 92-94 Robert Parker, Wine Advocate (194), May 2011"

NEAL MARTIN:
"Tasted at the Union de Grand Cru in London. The La Dominique has a forward ripe blackberry, briary, crushed stone-scented bouquet that is well defined if missing just a little personality. The palate is grippy and assertive on the entry. It is a dense La Dominique that is trying hard to make a good impression, although the finish is pleasant but just needs to say something. This is competent but not riveting, like so many recent vintages of this estate. Tasted November 2012.
Score: 90 Neal Martin, February 2013"

SUCKLING:
"Polished and rich nose with dark deep fruit and dense minerality. Wonderful pure ripe fruit on the palate with a long layered texture and super velvety tannins. So good to drink already now, but tannins will soften over the next four years.
Score: 94 James Suckling, JamesSuckling.com, February 2013"

[JimHow]

Thanks are those the notes for the 2009 or 2010?

[JimHow]

Looks like 2010. How about the '09. Buy or no buy at $67?

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Did la Dominique get a big bump in the in-bottle score?

[JimHow]

2009 scored 93, best since 89-90 from HWSRN.

[Blanquito]

Oops, I thought you asked about the 2010 Dominique, which those notes were for.

[Tom In DC]

I don't see "great vintage" as marketing hype, AlohaArt, I see it as an opportunity to get great Bordeaux -- or whatever region -- without paying $$$$$ for the top tier wines.

I'm probably a snob because I'll try wines from great vintages from anywhere but I'm unlikely to buy anyone's weak vintages.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

I agree with you Tom in that regard. I may also be mistaken in thinking that the big boy critics are arguing over whether the "top" 50-100 wines are pretty much uniformly "great" (or even individually great) - the ones buyers/collectors/investors will shell out $75 to what, $400 or $500 a bottle (I may be shooting to low here) for sight unseen. I was under the impression that paid their bills. Maybe they really are talking to me (or us) at the $12- $30 price point, and if so I appreciate that.