Pavie: once again controversial

[AlexR]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/25/dinin ... &src=rechp

Alex R.

[Comte Flaneur]

A damning verdict by Gilman - sounds vulgar and ghastly - will Gilman become the next Parker? Let's hope so. However, it is interesting that Pavie often performs very well in blind tastings even among (British) Pavie sceptics.

[JimHow]

I don't know much about Gilman.
Rating the wine 47-52+ seems kind of juvenile.
I mean, it seems like something I would do for crying out loud, not a serious wine writer.
I mean, come on, Pavie is not THAT bad.
Seems to me he is purposely trying to carve out a wedge by being the anti-Parker.
I mean, even that other anti-Parker, Jancis, likes the 2010 Pavie.
Myself, I don't see what all the fuss is over Pavie.
I had the 1998 and 2000 Pavies when they were young and loved them.
I had the '98 Pavie when Hound and Kathy came to my house last fall, and loved it then.
I love restrained, classic Bordeaux vintages like 88, 96, and 02.
But I like some of those modern efforts as well, like the modern Smith Haut Lafitte, for example.
As long as the alcohol is not too out of control.
Seems to me that Pavie's alcohol levels have been reasonably under control in the "new era," if I'm not mistaken.
Does anyone know what the alcohol percentage is for the 2009 and 2010 Pavies?

[pomilion]

Gilman clearly wants attention, and he's getting it! When you're not exactly a household name, it helps to get written up in the Times and elsewhere as being in some sort of "controversy" with Parker. I've read John's 2010 Bordeaux reviews in WOFW, and in general he's an interesting, entertaining writer who's clearly very passionate about wine. He does himself a disservice, and ultimately seriously undermines his own credibility, by giving exaggeratedly low scores to wines he doesn't like and using sensationalist (in some cases childish) descriptors that make it sound as though he thinks wines like Perse's are the moral equivalent of the Holocaust. His low-end scores are so patently absurd (in WOFW Gilman gives Pavie 0-3 pts, Angelus 8-9 pts, and Bellevue Mondotte 9 points) that WOFW took the unusual step of deciding not include them with the scores of Michael Schuster, Michel Bettane and Thierry Desseauve in calculating an average score for particular wines. Gilman clearly doesn't understand the difference between being a wine-lover with a very particular set of likes and dislikes (which everyone has), and a critic whose job it is to evaluate wines in a critical context in which one acknowledges that other wine drinkers (i.e., the public) have diverse tastes. Which isn't to say one can't have strong opinions and make editorial remarks about style. In Jancis' note on 2010 Pavie (17 pts), she comments that it's "strictly for modernists" and that she'd "love to know how it would have tasted if picked a week or two earlier," but at least she can acknowledge that for folks who like modern-style bordeaux it's a pretty good wine. Neil Martin gave '10 Pavie 93-96 points, noting a "touch of over-ripeness" in his description (which on the whole doesn't sound like he enjoyed it very much), but, again, he understands that a certain kind of bordeaux consumer is going to like the wine (assuming you want to pay $300+ for it…).

I've had Perse-era 98, 99, 00, 01, 03, 04 and 05 Pavie, some of them a fair number of times, and only the 03 has struck me as flawed or not well-made (it's clearly over-extracted, as are a fair number of right bank 03s). The style certainly isn’t for everyone. I've also participated in more than one blind tasting of CA cabs and cab blends in which someone included Pavie as a ringer, and each time every single taster instantly recognized it as bordeaux.

In any event, Gilman has certainly received lots of attention for his stunt scoring and sensationalist notes, but I don't think he's done himself any favors in the long run. If anything he's made himself a bit of a joke, which is too bad because he writes well and is knowledgeable and passionate about wine.

[JimHow]

Thanks for the interesting perspective pomilion.
I see the 2010 Pavie is 14.2%, according to Parker's note, "only" 14.2% Parker says, less than both the '08 and '09.

[Houndsong]

I wonder what Jeff Leve thinks of this.

[pomilion]

Well, I'm not Leve and I don't post on ebob, if that's what you're asking/implying though I'd guess he would have a somewhat similar view. Gilman makes himself a pretty easy target...

[mike reff]

there is a huge 7 page thread on WineBerserkers, and Leve comments on page 3. Its too large to read everything.

[JimHow]

I wouldn't mind if Jeff Leve posted here, his posts never bothered me, he was good at stirring things up. I have never seen winebeserkers, I'll have to check it out.

[Claudius2]

Guys
I used to buy Pavie in the 80s and 90s as it was always a delicious wine. Wines like the 82, 83, 85, 88 and 90 were some of my favs from that decade.
The 90s wasn't so great for Pavie. The 95 was okay but lacked the richness and precision of the 80s wines, the 94 was greenish.

It was in 95 that the new owner took over, though it did take a few years for the changes to manifest themselves.
The few wines I have treid from the 2000's have had great fruit (not tried th 03 but I didn't like the right bank at all in that year) but were very woody.
Had the 01 and 04 at a tasting in Sydney last year and they were so woody, I thought I was sucking on an oak stave.
They are going to need a lot of time.

What I really did miss was the lovely plummy, raspberry fruit and spice characters I recall in the 80s years.
I have to say the 83 Pavie is the best wine I ever tried from that vintage with the exception of Margaux.

So I feel that the "old" Pavie suits my palate better though I am ot quesitoning the quality of the modern editions.
It is purely a mater of preference.
Having said that, I am now starting to buy more St Emilions - maybe my taste is changing as I get older!

So maybe Pavie really did not need fixing, just marignally improved after a slump in the 90s.

[Tom In DC]

Eh, based on some folks love for old-school versions, I think Mr. Gilman just doesn't care for Pavie; from Artisans on the Web:

1982 Chateau Pavie

A very good Pavie, this wine's style keeps it down a bit on my scorecard. While it has 55 percent Merlot in the blend, the '82 Pavie's nose is dominated with a "weedy" cabernet aroma that I most often associate with California. Scents of cherry, tobacco, minerals, and coffee intermingle with the herbaceousness in the bouquet, but the overall impression is one of bell peppers. On the palate the wine is deep and full, but a bit chunky and inelegant, with firm tannins, plenty of depth, and a long, fairly-tannic finish. Lacking the balance and complexity of the most successful chateaux in Pavie's class, this is a solid wine that still needs a couple more years to soften. Drink 1998-2010. 87.

[Claudius2]

Tom
I drank the 82 Pavie in the mid 90s to early 2000s and I cannot ever recall it being weedy.
There was a spicy element to it but not a green spice.
Oh well.