How can 2009 Rhone be great when Clos des Papes only gets 95

[JimHow]

So I hear 2009 southern Rhone is supposed to be good.
What's the scoop?
I started to look at the list but the very first wine listed alphabetically, Paul Avril Clos des Papes, scores "only" 95 points from He Who Shall Remain Nameless.

I didn't look at any other scores. I mean, how good can 2009 be when Clos des Papes only makes it to the lower end of outstanding?

[Michael Malinoski]

Ha, I get what you're saying, Jim.

There have been some prodigious vintages in CdP in the last several years, where RMP scores a bunch of the "luxury cuvees" in the triple digits, but rarely will the basic cuvees be given such lofty status. Personally, I'm very curious about the 2009s. I remember a lot of hype about 2003 and 2005, but I didn't like many of the wines I tried from those vintages nearly as much as more middle of the road or classical vintages. The one exception has been the 2007s--which I have liked a great deal on several occasions. Last night, though, I drank the 100-pt 2007 Domaine de Saint-Prefert Collecion Charles Giraud, and it wasn't at all to my tastes--reinforcing (I think) my point that the basic cuvees from these vintages is often the way to go. And in the instances when the producer ONLY makes a single cuvee (increasingly rare, it seems), the results can be especially rewarding.

[Claudius2]

How sad.
All those 09 Rhones will now lose half their auction price and arbitragers in Asia will commit hari kari.

[Jay Winton]

my sampling of 09 CDRS and a few CNDPs makes me glad that I loaded up on 07s. 09 is a good but not great vintage IMVHO. I agree with Michael that the basic cuvees were the way to go with 07 in general. And I hear 2010 may be excellent- a CDR I tried was young but promising.

[Jay Winton]

I do see that RP increased scores on a number of 09s-none of which I've tried-so who knows?

[pomilion]

I do see that RP increased scores on a number of 09s

Most of which have predictably gone up in price or disappeared -- the anti-consumer advocate strikes again!!

[JimHow]

Yeah, no kidding, huh.

[PaulF]

2009 is a notch below 2007, which makes it an outstanding but not a legendary vintage. For me it's the 3rd or 4th best vintage of the 00's, behind 2007 and 2001 and possibly 2000. I haven't had a large enough sample of 2010s to speak to it but I'm hoping the wines align with the hype. These past several years have been an embarrassment of riches for fans of CdP.

BTW, I'm not sure if the original statement was made in jest or not. 95 doesn't suck.

[JimHow]

...for Tanzer and Meadows, maybe. For HWSRN, though, a 95 is barely even worth mentioning....

[DavidG]

I'm with PaulF and Mr. Vino. At least from the few I've tried, I prefer the '07s and '01s to the '09s. It's still an excellent vintage, but I've got enough '07s cellared to mostly pass on the '09s. At least that's what I'm saying now...

As to the Parker scores and their effect - that's another debate entirely. A Parker score of 95 points is still pretty damn good. Just 'cuz more wines can acheive those levels doesn't mean the wines aren't as good. Only that they are less scarce. Unless you think he's just become an easy grader... along with all the other critics who hand out 90+ scores a lot more often now than they did 20-30 years ago.

Unfortunately, high scores do make the prices go up. Many aspects of the wine "market" are far from "free," but it is still largely subject to the law of supply and demand. The market can anticipate a pretty reliable increase in demand following a really high score, and it reacts as markets do. The effect is anti-consumer for the consumers who already know what they like and want and are already buying these wines pre-hype - eg many of the folks who frequent these and other wine boards.

An argument can be made that the effect is still in favor of those consumers who don't know what they like and want, and are looking for guidance for good wine at a good price. As Hound and others have pointed out, 88-89 points often represents a sweet spot in the quality/price curve. I suspect many people who aren't willing to spend $50+ on a bottle of wine are helped tremendously by being pointed to the very good non-superstar, non-hyped wines. They aren't, however, among us wine-obsessed denizens of the wine boards.