I am not sure if you guys saw this earlier today, but Parker gave 18 wines from 2009 100 Pts! Of course Latour, Petrus and some of the other usual suspects hit triple digits, but Pontet Canet, Leoville Poyferre, Smith Haut Lafitte and others are up there as well!
For full details... http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/201 ... s-100-pts/
More importantly, there are numerous Bordeaux wines selling at fair prices we can all still pick up. If you like the style of these wines, opulent, sexy, rich and often decadent, this is a vintage that offers strong wine at every end of the spectrum.
Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Who is this Parker fellow? I follow Jeff Leve's scores.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Me too!JonB wrote:Who is this Parker fellow? I follow Jeff Leve's scores.
-
Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Jeff/all - I have a couple of questions and some obsevations:
- Is that first list of wines the ones that scored 100 points? I counted 19 wines in that first list...
- If that many wines achieve 100 points, does that not imply that the scoring system is too lenient/should become tougher, so we can distinguish between say Cos and Montrose? Empirically it is true that we have had grade inflation over the years; for example 20 years ago 89 points was a very respectable score, now you may as well go and shoot yourself if your wine only achieves 89 points
- I should imagine there would be a witch hunt at Lafite, Mouton and Margaux for screwing up in such a slam dunk vintage
- if Leoville Poyferre scored 100 points surely that makes it a shoe in for BWE wine of the year 2012? Because if it scores 100 points and the 2008 only scores 93 not awarding it the gong would be logically inconsistent
- This is Parker's second major crack at the 2009 vintage; what chance a year from now that he pronounces the 2010 vintage the greatest ever and awards 20-odd Chateau 100 points?
Its all a bit nutty if you ask me and pretty academic for most of us. But I think your point about the $40 wines from lesser chateau is the much more relevant one while multi-millionaires argue the toss about the 100 point wines.
- Is that first list of wines the ones that scored 100 points? I counted 19 wines in that first list...
- If that many wines achieve 100 points, does that not imply that the scoring system is too lenient/should become tougher, so we can distinguish between say Cos and Montrose? Empirically it is true that we have had grade inflation over the years; for example 20 years ago 89 points was a very respectable score, now you may as well go and shoot yourself if your wine only achieves 89 points
- I should imagine there would be a witch hunt at Lafite, Mouton and Margaux for screwing up in such a slam dunk vintage
- if Leoville Poyferre scored 100 points surely that makes it a shoe in for BWE wine of the year 2012? Because if it scores 100 points and the 2008 only scores 93 not awarding it the gong would be logically inconsistent
- This is Parker's second major crack at the 2009 vintage; what chance a year from now that he pronounces the 2010 vintage the greatest ever and awards 20-odd Chateau 100 points?
Its all a bit nutty if you ask me and pretty academic for most of us. But I think your point about the $40 wines from lesser chateau is the much more relevant one while multi-millionaires argue the toss about the 100 point wines.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
If the goal posts remain in the same position, it's the vintage and the wine winemaking that made it happen. Personally, I do not see why the goal posts needed to be adjusted.Comte Flaneur wrote:Jeff/all - I have a couple of questions and some obsevations:
- Is that first list of wines the ones that scored 100 points? I counted 19 wines in that first list...
- If that many wines achieve 100 points, does that not imply that the scoring system is too lenient/should become tougher, so we can distinguish between say Cos and Montrose?
- This is Parker's second major crack at the 2009 vintage; what chance a year from now that he pronounces the 2010 vintage the greatest ever and awards 20-odd Chateau 100 points?
Having tasted 2010, I do not think so. But there are wines in 2010 that deserve 100 Pt scores. Other regions, like Pomerol are not nearly as strong in 2010 as they were in 2009.
I think your point about the $40 wines from lesser chateau is the much more relevant one while multi-millionaires argue the toss about the 100 point wines.
The best thing about a great vintage is, a rising tide raises all boats. There are numerous wines at a myriad of price points to seek out. And for buyers that purchased futures, a lot of the 100 Pt wines were available for very fair prices.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
They are just numbers. A perfect score does not necessarily mean a perfect wine. There is this incongruence that seems to stymie so many people: A score is a number - you can't drink it. A wine is a drink - but you CAN score it.
The proliferation of 100-point and other high scores could mean the bar has been lowered. Or it could mean that the athletes are just jumping higher. Unlike those who profess boredom with the topic, I find the discussion intellectually interesting. I'm not happy that prices keep going up along with the proliferation of high scores. OTOH, I don't place much weight on a 93 vs 95 vs 97 score in and of itself when it comes to making a purchase decision. That's because I don't think scores are that repeatable or meaningful. They are a snapshot of a single bottle at a single time. My mileage may, and often does, vary. Scores seem to be most useful for generating discussion.
PappaDoc, JackDaw, JAL, Jill, the BD and I had an interesting discussion last night at JAL's place about how quite a few of the "top" '09s were too sweet and ripe, and that many of the best wines from this year, regardless of price, were in the $25-50 range. That's were I made most of my purchases. But I also picked up a few of those pricey "too sweet" wines (no firsts, I"m not that rich or that nuts). I'm betting that they'll turn into real Bordeaux, just like some of those "too sweet" 1982s, once they get about 10-15 years on them. Despite the curse of 100 points from RP. Of course by then my palate or my brain may be too shot to tell.
The proliferation of 100-point and other high scores could mean the bar has been lowered. Or it could mean that the athletes are just jumping higher. Unlike those who profess boredom with the topic, I find the discussion intellectually interesting. I'm not happy that prices keep going up along with the proliferation of high scores. OTOH, I don't place much weight on a 93 vs 95 vs 97 score in and of itself when it comes to making a purchase decision. That's because I don't think scores are that repeatable or meaningful. They are a snapshot of a single bottle at a single time. My mileage may, and often does, vary. Scores seem to be most useful for generating discussion.
PappaDoc, JackDaw, JAL, Jill, the BD and I had an interesting discussion last night at JAL's place about how quite a few of the "top" '09s were too sweet and ripe, and that many of the best wines from this year, regardless of price, were in the $25-50 range. That's were I made most of my purchases. But I also picked up a few of those pricey "too sweet" wines (no firsts, I"m not that rich or that nuts). I'm betting that they'll turn into real Bordeaux, just like some of those "too sweet" 1982s, once they get about 10-15 years on them. Despite the curse of 100 points from RP. Of course by then my palate or my brain may be too shot to tell.
-
Comte Flaneur
- Posts: 4893
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
I would be interested to know how Parker ranks the 19 100 point wines if he had to choose...or if he could actually do a point point score...so he could give Latour 100.4 and another wine say Montrose 99.6.
No scoring system is perfect and I find them useful mainly for comparing or ranking wines.
No scoring system is perfect and I find them useful mainly for comparing or ranking wines.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
It is true that the ability to identify which is "better" goes away when multiple wines receive the same score. If you really think a 1-point difference means much in the glass (vs in terms of $$). That is true whether there are 18 wines receiving 100 points or 18 wines receiving 92 points. Same score doesn't mean same wine, just that they give (gave?) equal amounts of pleasure at the time they were tasted.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Guys
Winemega (www.winemega.com) is a good source of data - not the least for curiosity.
there is a strong argument on winemega that from 2006, there has been "points escalation" from a range of reviewers, and their averaged points (using an algorith) show that the average in 2006 is in fact higher than in 2005, which is a rather bizarre result.
I often wonder how awfula 100 point Sav Blanc would taste like.
Since I really do not like the grape variety, I'd probably like a 100 pt SB even less than a 90 point one!
In any case, I long ago gave up with points and just buy the wines I like and trust.
Winemega (www.winemega.com) is a good source of data - not the least for curiosity.
there is a strong argument on winemega that from 2006, there has been "points escalation" from a range of reviewers, and their averaged points (using an algorith) show that the average in 2006 is in fact higher than in 2005, which is a rather bizarre result.
I often wonder how awfula 100 point Sav Blanc would taste like.
Since I really do not like the grape variety, I'd probably like a 100 pt SB even less than a 90 point one!
In any case, I long ago gave up with points and just buy the wines I like and trust.
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20230
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Just got my Advocate and am leafing through. I guess Batailley (94 points) is boring no more!
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
There is certainly a large spread just among US reviewers, with RP an outlier on the high-score side. WS gave no 100 pointers. IWC (Tanzer didn't review yet, and will be doing the in-bottle reviews) reviews were much more modest as well. It'll be interest if 20 years down the road this will be another "Parker got it right" or not (my guess is not), but he seems as least as far to the positive side on this vintage as he was on his barrel reviews of the 2008 vintage ---- which he later moderated with his in-bottle scores. So....I'm just saying Parker seems to make bold statements. Notice as well that there are no perfect scores in the reviews of Sonoma or 2010 Red Burgundy in this WA. Is it the reviewer or the wine?
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20230
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Pappadoc Doc is not impressed by the big name 2009s, although he likes the lesser $30-40 range of wines, the Cantemerles, etc.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
I tend to agree with that.....while I bought several of the big names early in en primeur, after the UGC tasting my dollars went to qprs....Haut Bergey, Fleur Cardinale, Barde Haut, Poujeaux, etc. Not to say that there aren't stunning big name wines, but the vintage style is not one I could enjoy every night.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Having tasted hundreds of 2009 Bordeaux in multiple occasions, personally, I might have given 10-12 wines 100 Pts. But if Bob likes the wines that much, that is his view. With close to 35 years of experience, longer than a lot of posters have been alive, I'm not betting against his track record. He's letting you know this is what the wines will be at maturity, not how they show at one tasting at the UGC.
It's important to look at 2009 in context. First, with so many 100 Pt wines, that keeps the cost of most high scoring wines down. There is a lot of wines in that arena. That's good for consumers. When you look at 2009 across the board, there are countless great wines available at all price levels. From 98 Pts on down, most wines have not moved. It will take time for the 100 Pt wines to be absorbed before the next batch of wines moves up in price. Something else to consider, not much 2009 was bought by American merchants. As a good guess, perhaps we bought 25% of the wines we purchased in 2005. That means prices will be more expensive because once these wines are gone merchants will be forced to pay more, and charge more.
It's important to look at 2009 in context. First, with so many 100 Pt wines, that keeps the cost of most high scoring wines down. There is a lot of wines in that arena. That's good for consumers. When you look at 2009 across the board, there are countless great wines available at all price levels. From 98 Pts on down, most wines have not moved. It will take time for the 100 Pt wines to be absorbed before the next batch of wines moves up in price. Something else to consider, not much 2009 was bought by American merchants. As a good guess, perhaps we bought 25% of the wines we purchased in 2005. That means prices will be more expensive because once these wines are gone merchants will be forced to pay more, and charge more.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Maybe Mr. Parker is just trying to bracket his entire career with what he claims is the very best. His career takes off with his declaration of the greatness '82, and ends on the only vintage to ever surpass it, the '09! From the greatest ever to the greatest ever. What a way to frame a career!!
-
greatbxfreak
- Posts: 920
- Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
- Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
Too many wines got 100p imho. I've never considered Smith Haut Lafitte as a serious challenger to the top wines.
Is 2005 vintage really that "bad" by only having 2 100p wines, compared to 2009? Not that sweet as 2009? Better and riper tannin?
Weather conditions in 2005 were simply perfect from start to end - they weren't as perfect in 2009 because there was significant time gap between maturity inside and maturity outside. Both occured at same time in 2010 and 2005.
Which leaves me with question - will 2009 vintage have problems with balance?
Is 2005 vintage really that "bad" by only having 2 100p wines, compared to 2009? Not that sweet as 2009? Better and riper tannin?
Weather conditions in 2005 were simply perfect from start to end - they weren't as perfect in 2009 because there was significant time gap between maturity inside and maturity outside. Both occured at same time in 2010 and 2005.
Which leaves me with question - will 2009 vintage have problems with balance?
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
If you think 2009 has problems with balance today, that is a fair question. But if you consider it balanced now, why should that change. WIne making is more than weather charts. Vintners are much smarter and more selective about what fruit they put into their wine.greatbxfreak wrote:Which leaves me with question - will 2009 vintage have problems with balance?
-
robertgoulet
- Posts: 684
- Joined: Sat May 01, 2010 12:22 pm
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
I'll put my '04 smith haut lafitte up against that '09 anytime!!!!!!!! Especially since it destroyed the shl '05!!!!! And the 05 was not shut down!!! Wait isn't the 2010 vintage better than '09?? Honestly, I have yet to score a 100 point wine....with all due respect, Parker is becoming a Bit of a parody
Last edited by robertgoulet on Sun Mar 04, 2012 11:58 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20230
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
As usual BWE is ahead of the curve... Lynch Bages... Pontet-Canet... Duhart Milon... Leoville Poyferre... Now Smith Haut Lafitte.... Is there anything else Robert Parker wants to know about Bordeaux? We should charge for our services....
-
JimHow
- Posts: 20230
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
- Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
- Contact:
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
I see the 2006 Clos Fourtet is selling for under $60 at the Wine House. I loved that wine the one time I had it. I'm not shocked by the 100 point rating for the 2009.
Re: Parker gives 18 wines perfect scores from the 2009 Bordeaux
A few thoughts:
1. Nineteen wines in one vintage and region rated "perfect" is ridiculous. Let's compare Parker's 2009 scores with his 2005 scores:
2009 -- 19 100 point wines, with another 11 wines receiving 99 points
2005 -- 2 100 point wines, with another 3 wines receiving 99 points
2005 is a phenomenal vintage, one which quite a few critics think is the equal or near equal of 2009. (My own take is that while many of the left bank wines are slightly better in 2009, on the right bank, particularly in St. Emilion, 2005 is as good or even arguably slightly better.)
Now look at a few prior great vintages in Parker's view:
2000 -- 6 100 point wines, with another 3 wines receiving 99 points
1990 -- 4 100 point wines, with another 2 wines receiving 99 points
1982 -- 6 100 point wines, with none receiving 99 points
1961 -- 4 or 5 100 point wines (*depending on how you count L'Evangile which RP gave 99-100 pts), with another 2-3* receiving 99 points
Certainly wine-making techniques and practices are evolving, and perhaps in the sense of producing fewer defective wines are clearly better than they were decades ago. But obviously an "arms race" of sorts has been going on for at least 10-15 years, with many of the major critics including Parker feeling compelled to dole out ever higher scores to maintain relevancy and have their scores/reviews quoted in the media and on shelf-talkers. Nineteen literally "perfect" 2009 bordeaux is literally ridiculous, and it degrades the utility of any scoring system. Even 5 or 6 perfect wines in one vintage in a single region is pushing it and arguably silly; 19 has totally jumped the shark... (I do think 2009 is a fantastic vintage, clearly one of the best half dozen in the past 50 years.)
2. This arms race over the past 10-15 years is certainly bad news for wine consumers who enjoy the wines Parker scores highly. Sadly, Parker has truly become the anti-consumer advocate for wine lovers in this sense -- he has been one of the main drivers (arguably the single most important) of this rampant score and price escalation. It's certainly true, as Leve points out, that if your palate aligns with Parker's his reviews can be tremendously useful in identifying less expensive 90-95 point wines to try, so there is a consolation prize of sorts if one can no longer afford Pontet Canet, Leoville Poyferre or Smith Haut Lafitte, etc. But the ever-upward spiraling of scores coupled with Parker every few years touting a new vintage of the century has the primary effect of driving up prices and isn't ultimately helpful at all to wine consumers.
3. I say this owning 90 bottles of now supposedly "perfect" 2009 bordeaux (PC, LP, BDL and Clinet) which are now probably worth $100-$150 more per bottle than I paid for them en primeur, so I guess I could look at it that way and be happy. But I don't -- I frankly doubt any of my four 100-pointers are "perfect" wines, though I'm sure I'll enjoy drinking them 20 years from now, and clearly the entire industry of scoring wines has untethered itself from reality or any sense of proportion and is not in my opinion benefitting consumers in the least.
1. Nineteen wines in one vintage and region rated "perfect" is ridiculous. Let's compare Parker's 2009 scores with his 2005 scores:
2009 -- 19 100 point wines, with another 11 wines receiving 99 points
2005 -- 2 100 point wines, with another 3 wines receiving 99 points
2005 is a phenomenal vintage, one which quite a few critics think is the equal or near equal of 2009. (My own take is that while many of the left bank wines are slightly better in 2009, on the right bank, particularly in St. Emilion, 2005 is as good or even arguably slightly better.)
Now look at a few prior great vintages in Parker's view:
2000 -- 6 100 point wines, with another 3 wines receiving 99 points
1990 -- 4 100 point wines, with another 2 wines receiving 99 points
1982 -- 6 100 point wines, with none receiving 99 points
1961 -- 4 or 5 100 point wines (*depending on how you count L'Evangile which RP gave 99-100 pts), with another 2-3* receiving 99 points
Certainly wine-making techniques and practices are evolving, and perhaps in the sense of producing fewer defective wines are clearly better than they were decades ago. But obviously an "arms race" of sorts has been going on for at least 10-15 years, with many of the major critics including Parker feeling compelled to dole out ever higher scores to maintain relevancy and have their scores/reviews quoted in the media and on shelf-talkers. Nineteen literally "perfect" 2009 bordeaux is literally ridiculous, and it degrades the utility of any scoring system. Even 5 or 6 perfect wines in one vintage in a single region is pushing it and arguably silly; 19 has totally jumped the shark... (I do think 2009 is a fantastic vintage, clearly one of the best half dozen in the past 50 years.)
2. This arms race over the past 10-15 years is certainly bad news for wine consumers who enjoy the wines Parker scores highly. Sadly, Parker has truly become the anti-consumer advocate for wine lovers in this sense -- he has been one of the main drivers (arguably the single most important) of this rampant score and price escalation. It's certainly true, as Leve points out, that if your palate aligns with Parker's his reviews can be tremendously useful in identifying less expensive 90-95 point wines to try, so there is a consolation prize of sorts if one can no longer afford Pontet Canet, Leoville Poyferre or Smith Haut Lafitte, etc. But the ever-upward spiraling of scores coupled with Parker every few years touting a new vintage of the century has the primary effect of driving up prices and isn't ultimately helpful at all to wine consumers.
3. I say this owning 90 bottles of now supposedly "perfect" 2009 bordeaux (PC, LP, BDL and Clinet) which are now probably worth $100-$150 more per bottle than I paid for them en primeur, so I guess I could look at it that way and be happy. But I don't -- I frankly doubt any of my four 100-pointers are "perfect" wines, though I'm sure I'll enjoy drinking them 20 years from now, and clearly the entire industry of scoring wines has untethered itself from reality or any sense of proportion and is not in my opinion benefitting consumers in the least.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 54 guests