2009 Ch Clinet Pomerol

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 6:04 am

This wine apparently got 100 RPJnr points.
So normally I would not drink such a young wine but so here goes.
Decanted and left to rest for an hour or two first.

I played a bit of an options game with a few friends.
They gave it 94-96 points so they certainly liked it.
They were not surprised at Parker's score.

Anyway, it is a nice dark red/purpole colour, with a nose that smells more like chocolate covered berries than any wine I can recall sniffing!
It does however remind me a lot of young 1982 right bank wines, and that is a good thing.
Accepting that technology has improved since then, this wine is delicious and can be drunk with pleasure now.
The palate is a mass of mik and dark chocolate, red an black fruits, vanilla and cedar.
Yes it is delicious, mouthfilling and soooo easy to drink.
Can't tell you how fast the bottle was drained.

Interesting night as we also drank:

Kupe Escarpment chardonnay 2009 - New Zealand.
Now my style and a bit flat. For my palate, Australia makes much better chardy.

Toscaiolo Chianti Classico 2009
This was quite delicious in a modern, oak fermented, dark cherry and earth style. Touch of tar and vanilla oak.
A relatively cheap wine that is a bargain.
Av rating at the table was 91 points.

Turkey Flat Shiraz Barossa 2006
After the above wines, it initially came across as a bit prune like and roasted, but with air, some savoury, gamey and earthy characters emerged through the dense, well balanced dark fruits. A touch of vanilla and tasty oak.
I like this wine but around the table, it received quite different comments.
I drank more of it than the others, and I noticed the development in the glass more.
More complex than the Chianti Classico and a deeper, richer wine.

The Clinet is worth buying is not overly expensive and I am glad I got it on indent.
The 09 right bank wines are hitting Singapore and if the others are as good as the Clinet, then back up the truck.
Even the cheap wines from this vintage that I have tried so far (eg, Medoc, Cotes, et al) are excellent at their price points.

johnz · Post by **johnz** » Mon Mar 12, 2012 8:17 pm

I'd love to taste the 2009 Clinet, but at the current $275-$400 per bottle and climbing I doubt that I ever will. I have some 1990 though and it's mighty good.

--Gary Rust

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:26 am

Gary
Well the indent price was nothing like that.
Shows the impact of 100 pts.
Oh well.

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 5:13 am

Claudius2 wrote: Shows the impact of 100 pts.
Oh well.

The anti-wine consumer advocate strikes again! Is Parker so addled and jaded he doesn't realize that his constant over-hyping of various regions and vintages only hurts consumers? It's astonishing how simultaneously egotistical and clueless he is. Nineteen "perfect" bordeaux in 2009? Really...? I say this owning four of them (Clinet, LP, PC and BDL). I've had two (LP and Clinet) and I think they're terrific, exciting wines (they were the two best wines at the recent UGC) -- if I were scoring on a 100 point scale I'd say maybe 96-98 pts, but "perfect" (along with 17 other wines)? I doubt it...

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:03 pm

Pomilion
Well, the price here has now doubled.
F!@# that.

It has gone from $SNG 235 to $440 (about $US350)

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Tue Mar 13, 2012 1:45 pm

Those prices are ridiculous. And every time I read about what's happening to the 09 prices ( 09 SHL anyone!), I feel justified in my strategy of back-filling. Since we in Canada do not have access to any sort of free market whatsoever where alcoholic beverages are concerned -- we can only legally buy what the government-run stores have in stock -- it means I'm buying a lot of 04, 05, 06 and 08. Doubt if I'll end up with much 09 or 10. I hear the prices for 2011 will be lower!

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:15 am

Bacchus
Entirely agree.
The market here is driven by RP points.
100 pts mean the prices double.
Got a mailer from a local retailer singing the praises of a pile of 100, 99 and 98 point wines from 2009, with outrageous prices.
Several of the wines I ordered on indent for around half the price (and the Euro was much higher then as well).
St Pierre went from about $SNG 80 ($US60) to $SNG 175.
And it "only" got 98 points. Must be crap.....

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 2:31 pm

HWSRN has not always been friendly to Clinet, point-wise. I think he has a history of consistently rating it in the low nineties. I believe he has also talked about the difficulty of rating this wine while it is young for some reason.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 3:12 pm

Jim
I've had a few vintages of Clinet young and I think the wine shows well when it first arrives.
That would be 2.5 years after harvest - not a real lot of experience with it but the handful of Clinets I have tried sing and then seem to close up.
For that reason I did not mind sacrificing one young.

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:17 pm

Claudius2 wrote:Bacchus
The market here is driven by RP points.
100 pts mean the prices double.
Got a mailer from a local retailer singing the praises of a pile of 100, 99 and 98 point wines from 2009, with outrageous prices.
Several of the wines I ordered on indent for around half the price (and the Euro was much higher then as well).
St Pierre went from about $SNG 80 ($US60) to $SNG 175.
And it "only" got 98 points. Must be crap.....

Just got a couple offers for 09 Beausejour Duffau-Lagarrosse, another RMP 100-pointer. I bought this en primeur in several purchases ranging from $105 to $125/bottle. Today's bargain email offers -- one for $390, the other $400!

The Anti-Wine Consumer Advocate strikes again!!

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:15 pm

I love 2009 Clinet. Like almost every 2009 Pomerol, it's been stunning since it was first tasted in barrel in 2010. This is my note from the most recent tasting with the UGC.

2009 Clinet – It’s fitting that 2009 turned out to be the best wine from Ronan Laborde, since he began managing the estate ten years ago. This beautiful Pomerol is packed with flowers, licorice, black cherry drenched in sweet chocolate, boysenberry, mocha and spice box aromas. Decadent in texture, with a wonderful purity of fruit and silky tannins, this is the best wine produced from Clinet since their dynamic duo of 1989 and 1990. 97 Pts

On a related, but different point, why are people calling Parker an Anti-Wine Consumer Advocate for giving wines the scores and comments he thinks they deserve? I'm a subscriber. I pay him for his views, up or down, he needs to call it as he sees it. That is not to say he is right or wrong, it is so point out what subscribers pay him for. That's his job.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 9:57 pm

I don't read Parker these days -- I own one of his earlier books. But I have no animus towards him either. For some people I think he's now seen as the anti-consumer advocate because as soon as his evaluations become public, the prices of his favourites sky rocket, putting them out of range to many! Thus the more wines he assignes to the 95-100 range, the more people have to look to Chile for something to drink. For some people making prices rise is not seen as a very consumer-friendly act, even if Parker doesn't intend to make prices rise. Some might say that the problem isn't Parker's but the sheeple who blindly go about buying up the wines he recommends, whether they like them or not. Others might hold him to blame regardless because of the amount of self-promotion that was involved in getting to where he is in the wine world. No chateau I know raises their prices because of my evaluations of their wines -- not you either I would guess! Knowing his impact on pricing, I suppose to be considered consumer friendly again he'd have to lie about his evaluations!! Or maybe just reverse the grade inflation trend that so many perceive and recalibrate the scale. Don't give 100 so readily. Make 95 the new 100. All those wines that now so frequently get 90-93 points (most of Bdx so it seems) can be shifted down to the 85-89 range. The upside is that the 98-100 range would be less cluttered, which would be a good thing. Stretch out the scale instead of squinching it all up in the 90-100 range. (Jesus, his 100 point scale has become a ten point scale, hasn't it?) If he were to do this, we would still be able to see how the wines fair in his eyes, relative to one another, without having to suffer all the price gouging. In fact, if he were to stretch out his 10 point scale to a true 20 point scale, he would be able to fine tune his evaluations. Just a thought.

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Wed Mar 14, 2012 11:38 pm

Jeff Leve wrote:On a related, but different point, why are people calling Parker an Anti-Wine Consumer Advocate for giving wines the scores and comments he thinks they deserve? I'm a subscriber. I pay him for his views, up or down, he needs to call it as he sees it. That is not to say he is right or wrong, it is so point out what subscribers pay him for. That's his job.

Jeff -- first, I agree your thoughts on 09 Clinet. Terrific wine, along with Leoville Poyferre the star of the recent UGC tasting. I also agree with your (and Parker's along with many other critics') assessment of 2009 as a vintage - it's clearly one of the best in decades. I bought quite a few wines en primeur, including a number that are now supposedly "perfect" according RMP. I am happy I bought heavily in 2009, and I'm sure the wines will be great when I drink them in 15-20 years.

What pisses many people off, obviously, is Parker's rampant grade inflation and relentless hyping of every second or third vintage as the vintage of the decade or century. In the past decade he has declared 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009 and perhaps 2010 vintages of the decade (or multiple decades). He turned about to be wrong about 2003, except in the northern Medoc, and he seriously mis-called 2008 (which he initially hailed as sort of a mini-vintage of the decade, almost as good as 2005) which he then downgraded and backtracked on. This constant hype, as well as ever-expanding number of 95-100 point wines, has an effect on bordeaux prices, don't you think...? Obviously other critics and publications are guilty of this too, but at least in Bordeaux and the Rhone (and California until he gave that up), Parker is the world's most powerful critic. His scores and hype affect prices -- this is simply a fact. I don't care that I can't afford to buy first growths, Cheval Blanc, Petrus, Ausone or Lafleur. I do care, as do thousands of other bordeaux lovers, that two dozen other wines -- Cos, Montrose, LLC, Pichon Baron, Pichon Lalande, Pontet Canet, Palmer, Lynch Bages, Ducru Beaucaillou, Angelus, Leoville Poyferre, Smith Haut Lafitte, Clinet, Clos L'Eglise, Clos Fourtet, Troplong Mondot, etc. etc. etc. -- are escalating into the pricing stratosphere. Yes, there are still some relative "bargains" out there -- I loved 09 Gruaud and Domaine de Chevalier at the UGC tasting and have bought both since. But many classified growths that were semi-affordable 5 or 10 years ago are now beyond the budgets of most bordeaux lovers. Though there are a number of factors contributing to this, none is more significant than Parker's grade inflation and constant hyping of supposed vintages of the decade/century.

Parker began his career as the wine consumer advocate. I don't think he set out to cause an out-of-control upward price spiral, but clearly that has been an effect of his relentless hype and grade inflation. Nineteen "perfect" bordeaux in 2009? Really? By contrast, he only gave two 2005s (a phenomenal vintage Parker had previously said might be the best in his career...) perfect scores. If you count 99 point wines, here's the comparison: 2009, 30 wines; 2005, 5 wines. Really? Clearly there's been a points "arms race" for the past 15+ years among the major critics, particularly in the U.S., and Parker feels he can't fall behind the Wine Spectator and now Suckling on his own. He needs to be the top dog, and if Parker wasn't giving the top scores all the shelf-talkers would be quoting the Spectator or Suckling instead... Also, having begun/made his career "calling" the 1982 vintage, he probably wants to bookend his career by "calling" (the loudest) the 2009 and 2010 bordeaux vintages.

How does any of this help wine consumers?

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 12:22 am

Good conversation! I am consumer just like all of you. I am priced out of many wines I used to buy. I do not blame Parker. His job is to let people know his views. More people subscribe today. More people compete for the same wines. The wineries are makikng less wine today than ever before. But the job of a wine critic is to inform people of their views. They should be loud and clear as to what they think. Savvy wine buyers purchase futures in the best years. It has always paid off. Parker could not have been clearer with his notes and comments. He even tweeted about the wines a week before his scores came out as a final warning. If consumers wait until the last minute and prices rise simply because he's doing his job, that's not his fault.

As for grade inflation, sorry, wines are better today than ever. This is a fact. Not just the top classified wines, but at all levels. The last decade has seen an explosion of great wine being produced from regions and estates that were seldom, if ever on our radar. Consumers IMO, take all that for granted.

Take Pontet Canet as an example. This is sure to piss a lot of people off because prices have exploded! It's impossible to deny the wine is better than ever! 5 or 10 years ago, there is not one person, other than Tesseron that would have said they would ever hit 100 Pts. Taste the wines since 2003, every vintage gets better and better. Clearly they compete with the First & Second Growths today. We pay more, but we get a much better wine. The same thing can be said for most Bordeaux producers today.

At least to me, none of that is grade inflation. It's quality inflation. Trust me on this, 100 Pt scores from Tesseron, Smith & others are going to start a mini war for quality. There is no way there Firsts or Seconds are going to allow a 5th Growth to be at their level. They will all up their game!

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:51 am

I agree, Jeff. Look at it this way - after more than a decade of wild price increases, I think a buyer could find at least 50 wines in 2009 that are better than say, 1997 Cheval Blanc, and still have a lower retail price than than the '97 CB on release. The first growths may still command a premium, but many, many more estates now behave like the firsts in the vineyards and in the cellar, and the results show in higher quality at many, many producers.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 2:53 am

I have no problems with the 2009 pricing. It's the 2010 pricing that scares the shit out of me....

Houndsong · Post by **Houndsong** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 4:01 am

The First and Second growths are fucked. They can up their game, but it won't matter unless they can convince "+" to start awarding 101, 102, 103 points. Then again, maybe they can. Imagine the publicity coup accompanying issuance of the first 101-point score. Imagine the price that wine would command.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 5:18 am

Jeff,
You make a good point.
By the way, the 09 Clinet is stunning. You should have seen how quickly the bottle was drained. Everyone was literally fighting over it.
Even so young, it is delicious. I was actaully going to order another case until I checked the price. It only hit the shores here the day or two before I opened it.

My issue is not with Parker but more with the abuse of his ratings for pricing.
No problem with retailers quoting scores. They are in the business of selling wine.

Yet I see this insidious hedging of prices. The prices of Clinet here doubled overnight.
It went from about $US150 ($SNG235) to $SNG 440 immediately.
If more is ordered by the local retailer, it will be even more.

So these days I am more interested in finding wines that are (relatively) undervalued, and in 2009, I bought a lot of right bank wines including numerous wines that are lesser rated but performed well in 09.
I am also in my mid 50's and the idea of 50 year wines is a turn-off, and the right bankers I have already tried (mainly lesser priced wines) are excellent at each price point.

Another example herre is St Pierre St Julien.
It cost about $US55-60 on indent, and I thought that was enough.
The price has more than doubled as it got 98 RP pts.

If you read my notes I refuse to use pt scores.
I have no idea what 98 pts (whatever) tastes like and I want to know the style and characters of the wine not a point rating.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:39 pm

Tom In DC wrote:I agree, Jeff. Look at it this way - after more than a decade of wild price increases, I think a buyer could find at least 50 wines in 2009 that are better than say, 1997 Cheval Blanc, and still have a lower retail price than than the '97 CB on release. The first growths may still command a premium, but many, many more estates now behave like the firsts in the vineyards and in the cellar, and the results show in higher quality at many, many producers.

I think it's even better for consumers than that. As a future, there could have been as many as 50 2009 BDX wines under $100 that were better than 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97 & 99 Cheval Blanc! That is the flipside of the quality increase. We are all much off today. Pichon Baron, Leoville Poyferre, Pontet Canet, Haut Bailly and numerous chateaux are making better wine than the Firsts were producing in most vintages from the 80's & 90's!

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 3:44 pm

Claudius2 wrote:Jeff,
You make a good point.
By the way, the 09 Clinet is stunning. You should have seen how quickly the bottle was drained.
My issue is not with Parker but more with the abuse of his ratings for pricing.
No problem with retailers quoting scores. They are in the business of selling wine.

Yet I see this insidious hedging of prices. The prices of Clinet here doubled overnight.
It went from about $US150 ($SNG235) to $SNG 440 immediately.

If people want to buy the best wines at the lowest prices, they are going to need to buy futures in the best years. 2009 Clinet was about $100. 2009 Beausejour Duffau was about the same price and those are only two examples. Of course prices are going to rise when wines get massive scores. At that point, the supply outstrips the demand.

On the positive side, currently all the money is going to 99 That is a good buying opportunity for people.

If you read my notes I refuse to use pt scores. I have no idea what 98 pts (whatever) tastes like and I want to know the style and characters of the wine not a point rating.
98 Pt wines do not have a taste. A score is tool that lets readers know how much more the writer liked one wine over another in the same peer group. The tasting note gives the impotant info on the wines character. It does no good to buy a high scoring wine in a style you do not like.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 7:32 pm

Gee, Jeff, why do I feel like you've set us up? I don't deny that Parker can say what he wants about wine -- it's a free country. I also don't deny the chateaux the right to charge whatever they think they can get for their product (and I'm not even a Republican!). I also don't doubt that the quality of wine has increased over the last decade or two. But your original question didn't address any of these issues. You wondered "why are people calling Parker an Anti-Wine Consumer Advocate?" And the answer is simply that his interests and the way he defines his job no longer seem to correspond with the interests of the consumer. Indeed, they seem to many to be against the consumer, at least against their financial interests. He has contributed to a situation where a lot of people can no longer afford to drink the wines they once took for granted. So while I agree with all the claims you make about his right to perform his job the way he wants, I also understand why so many people can no longer see him as a consumer advocate. His word, no matter its intent or justification, seems to work against the interest of so many wine drinkers. Maybe he could be called a wine-investor advocate or a chateaux advocate. Or maybe the idea that he is an advocate of any sort whatsoever should be dropped. Just a guy calling it as he sees it, without concern for the impact or result. And I'm not even angry with him for that. Maybe it's the foolish way so many people hang on his word that's responsible for the price inflation we're experiencing (if not a grade inflation). Nonetheless, it makes it difficult to see him as a consumer advocate.

stefan · Post by **stefan** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:15 pm

The Bob should, and I think does, score wine as he judges them. It is unfortunate for us that his scores affect the market, but that is life. If he had a lousy palate for Bordeaux, his influence would help us, but in fact he is an excellent taster for Bdx.

I wish that Parker would go back to reviewing Burgundy and would have the same market moving effect there because, for my taste, his palate for Burgundy is not very good.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 9:44 pm

Bacchus wrote: You wondered "why are people calling Parker an Anti-Wine Consumer Advocate?" And the answer is simply that his interests and the way he defines his job no longer seem to correspond with the interests of the consumer.

At least to me, helps the consumer. He tastes wine. He wrotes about it. He gives tips on the better wines to buy. For the price of one nice bottle of wine, that seems like a good deal to me. He even has a decent track record.

Very few people have the opportunity to taste many wines before buying them. Unless a buyer wants to purchase the same wines, vintage after vintage, his advice seems like it helps people.

I am with you 100%. His tips make it easier for others to find the better values and better wines. But that's what his subscribers pay him for. They seek the advice found in his notes and scores. I am also in complete agreement with you that his praise causes prices to rise.

What is the solution? Should he simply retire?

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Thu Mar 15, 2012 11:42 pm

Sure; here in the backwaters of Canada I don't have many opportunities to taste very many wines without actually buying them, so it's great to be able to read about them before making a buying decision. But if I wait on Parker's opinion the cost to me might be significant. So I'd rather he . . . stop reviewing.

There's a lot of people out there with really good palates that don't affect prices in the way he seems to. We can all read Jancis Robinson, or Chris Kissack, or John Gilman, or that blogger guy who runs a web site called the Wine Cellar Insider. His reviews clearly mark him as an outlier, but it's good to get as wide a range of opinion as possible!

And of course if worse comes to worse, I've got this lawyer acquaintance . . .

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 1:46 am

Jeff -- I agree that some chateaux have upped their game in the past 10-15 years. Pontet Canet, as you point out, is a great example. I went to the Pontet Canet dinner with Alfred Tesseron at the Peninsula in November of 2010 (perhaps you were there as well) at which 94, 96 and 00-08 were poured, and one could clearly see a progression as the wines became more complex and interesting (though the 96 in particular was quite a nice wine). Also, I wouldn't disagree with you (and Tom in DC) that winemaking has improved in general over the past 25 years (fewer defective wines, more good wines). It's certainly true that some second through fifth growths are now producing wines that equal some first growths in some vintages prior to the 90s. All true and good points.

But...

1. It's nonetheless clear that there's been serious grade inflation over the past twenty years. It's not all Parker's fault, to be sure. Other critics and publications, particularly in the U.S., are just as guilty. The problem is that it's become an "arms race" of sorts, with few critics having the balls to go out on a limb and try to restore some sanity to the scoring system for fear they will be left behind and no longer quoted in the media, advertisements and shelf-talkers (Gilman could be cited as an exception I suppose, but many of his lower scores seem to be just a sensationalist attempt to draw attention to himself as kind of the anti-Parker). Do you really think it makes any sense that Parker gave 19 bordeaux wines 100 points and 11 wines 99 points in 2009 vs. giving 2 wines 100 points and 3 wines 99 points in 2005 (a vintage he had previously called the best bordeaux vintage of his professional career)? You can say "he calls them as he sees them" all you want, but it sure looks like grade inflation to me and a lot of other folks...

2. It's indisputable that Parker is the world's most powerful wine critic when it comes to Bordeaux, the Rhone and, until he gave it up, California. His reviews, ratings and hype obviously move prices. Serious grade inflation coupled with RMP hyping a new bordeaux vintage every 2 or 3 years as the vintage of the decade/century/millenium has increased prices quite significantly. I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that.

3. It would be one thing if the wines people are bitching about the most (e.g., Cos, Montrose, LLC, Pichon Baron, Pichon Lalande, Pontet Canet, Palmer, Lynch Bages, Ducru Beaucaillou, Angelus, Leoville Poyferre, Smith Haut Lafitte, Clinet, Clos L'Eglise, Clos Fourtet, Troplong Mondot) were increasing their prices 5-10% a year, doubling them every 12-15 years. But in fact many of these wines have doubled or tripled in price over the past 6-8 years (some in just the past 2-3 years), and there's no end in sight. (I'm not faulting the chateaux for being capitalists and wanting to reap themselves the windfall of all the hype, hysteria and grade inflation rather than having it accrue to negotiants, distributors and the secondary market.) This is sad and upsetting to many bordeaux lovers. Parker surely didn't intend for any of this to happen, and I'm sure he's not glad it happened, but nonetheless it has and he's a major cause which is why many wine consumers no longer feel he's a consumer advocate.

My view isn't the result of sour grapes because I missed out on the "perfect" and near-perfect 2009s and now am pissed off because I can't afford them. To the contrary, I listened (with great fear and trepidation for what it would mean for prices) to all of Parker's "hints" about how great 2009 was and bought quite a bit en primeur, including case-plus quantities of a number of now supposedly "perfect" wines. I'm very happy to have bought those wines when I did, because I wouldn't pay the ridiculous prices they now command. I'm just sad, as are many wine consumers, that so many great wines -- wines bordeaux lovers have been enjoying for decades -- are now priced out of the reach of most consumers. And Parker, sadly, has unwittingly played a major role in that.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 6:11 pm

For me, these prices at PJs for the 2009 vintage of all time just don't seem outrageously expensive....

Some examples:

Branaire: $68.97
Cantemerle $32.97
Cap de Faugeres: 16.97
Chasse Spleen: $29.97
Clos Lunelles: $28.97
d'Aiguilhe: $25.97
d'Issan: $61.97
de Fieuzal: $37.97
Domaine de Chevalier: $71.97
Giscours: $57.97
Grand Mayne: $44.97
Gruaud Larose: $62.97
Haut Bergey: $31.97
Joanin Becot: $24.97
Larrivet Haut Brion: $30.97
Meyney: $29.97
Talbot: $57.97
Vrai Canon Bouche: 24.97

I'm willing to pay $57 for Talbot and Giscours, and $62 for d'Issan and Gruaud, and $70 for Branaire and Chevalier, etc., etc., etc., if this vintage is truly as great as He says it is....

It is the prices of $95+ for the 2010 d'Issan, and $100+ for 2010 Branaire, Gruaud, etc., that scare me off, and that's where I say goodbye to you, Bordeaux....

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:18 pm

Those are okay looking prices to me too, Jim. They will be higher up here in Canada, of course, but if the markup is just the usual, I can see myself buying some 09s. And if prices for the 2011 vintage fall significantly, perhaps I'll pick up some of them once they hit the shelves. It may be that all we need do is boycott/avoid the one year (2010), and not abandon Bdx altogether.

pomilion · Post by **pomilion** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:23 pm

Jim -- there are definitely some very nice less expensive 09s, some of which I got a chance to taste at the UGC. I've posted before about Domaine de Chevalier and Gruaud, but Haut Bergey was very nice as well as Poujeaux (not on your PJ's list), and although I neglected to try de Fieuzal at the UGC I've heard really good things about it. I'll definitely be picking up quite a few of these more modestly priced 09s and am interested in trying as many as possible.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Fri Mar 16, 2012 11:50 pm

Just as it happened with the last vintage-of-your-lifetime, when the 2005s pricing came down and were reasonable pick-ups at release or lower-than-release pricing a few years later, I won't be surprised if the 2009s will be available at release or better pricing, sans any storage or foregone opportunity costs, at some later date.
On the other hand, perhaps, the slew of 99+ pointers was intentionally done to help make sure that the 2005 situation does not occur.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:13 am

When it comes to the top 50 or so wines, there are a lot more people with a lot more money chasing a pretty stable or perhaps even decreasing (with more severe selection at the top Chateaux) number of bottles. THAT is why prices have gone up. Not because Parker has given more 100s and 99s. I happen to agree that wine quality is better and there are more wines deserving of higher scores, but that's not why the prices went up. It's supply and demand, especially at the tippy-top end. If Parker didn't exist, some other critic or critics (it wouldn't have to be one all-powerful critic like RP, it could be a group of them), using points or puffs or glasses or stars or monkey's butts to rate the wines would take his place. You might not be able to point to one uber-critic appearing to drive the market like RP, but you would still have lots more people with lots of money and not so much wine knowledge chasing a limited number of bottles. Supply and demand, baby, supply and demand.

Of course there is the argument that the critics create the demand with their hyped up prose. To some degree that might be true. But there is plenty of demand there even without the critics. The desire to have "the best" is like a caged tiger for a lot of these collectors, and it is just waiting for someone to unlock the door. The critics are the zookeepers, and I'm not sure we can even accuse them of being too loose with the keys to the cage. They are, as Jeff says, telling it like they see it. You can legitimately criticize them when they blow a call (RP and '08 Bdx), and it's legitimate to disagree with their style preferences, but I don't think you can lay all of the blame for the feeding frenzy in the wine world at their feet.

Claudius2 · Post by **Claudius2** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:27 am

Jim
The prices you indicate are to me quite reasonable.
I am not saying 09 is "great" but the wines I have tasted have led me to backfill on 2009.
I do think it is a great vintage for the lesser wines at least - even at a cru bourgeois level and lesser rated right bank wines, they remind me of 1982 only with more consistency and fewer faults (lot of improvements since 1982 at the lower end).

I would be surprised if 09 is not a great vintage overall.

Jeff,
I was being ironic re: what 98 points tastes like.
My point is that words make a lot more sense to me.
And at point of sale, all you ever see is POINTS not any words.
Whilst you state the obvious about it not tasting like anything in particular, I am saying that it is somewhat meaningless.
I'd probably enjoy a low rated Sav Blanc more than a top rated one as I don;t like the variety.
Yet customers all over the world buy wines based on points without having a clue what the wine actually tastes like.
So if anyhting, the point rating is useful only in the context of words, yet that is not what happens.
SIngapore is the worst case I have seen - every retailer uses them and fails to say anyhting about the wine.

Michael-P · Post by **Michael-P** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 6:16 am

So its not too late to buy some cheaper 09s at fair prices?

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 10:04 am

David, I don't mean to be controversial, but I have a difficult time agreeing with you when you say Parker's scores aren't responsible for price increases. As soon as he published his scores for the 09s, the prices on all the 98-100 point wines sky-rocketed. Some trebled, and it all happened immediately upon the publication of his points.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:20 pm

I did intend to add Poujeaux (HWSRN92) on the list, pomilion, selling for $27.97 at PJs.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 3:45 pm

JimHow wrote:For me, It is the prices of $95+ for the 2010 d'Issan, and $100+ for 2010 Branaire, Gruaud, etc., that scare me off, and that's where I say goodbye to you, Bordeaux....

Jim... Even though the price points might have changed, didn't you make this same statement about previous vintages?

There are stacks of good values in 2009, and there are nice buys in 2010 as well. For a long list of 2009 Bordeaux values that is too long to cut and paste: http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/win ... nes-money/

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:18 pm

I know, but there is a limit! At $130+, my beloved Lynch is out of my price range.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Sat Mar 17, 2012 8:23 pm

Bacchus a little controversy keeps things interesting and I was purposely stirring the pot...

I don't disagree with the facts you've posted. Clearly prices shot up when RPs scores were released. I was trying to be controversial by overstating the other side of the argument: That without an abundance of monied buyers ready and willing to throw cash at points, the scores wouldn't have anything like this effect.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:00 am

Ramon_NYC wrote:Just as it happened with the last vintage-of-your-lifetime, when the 2005s pricing came down and were reasonable pick-ups at release or lower-than-release pricing a few years later, I won't be surprised if the 2009s will be available at release or better pricing, sans any storage or foregone opportunity costs, at some later date.
On the other hand, perhaps, the slew of 99+ pointers was intentionally done to help make sure that the 2005 situation does not occur.

There is a big difference between 2005 and 2009. 2005 was purchased in massive quantities by American merchants, wholesalers and importers. There was a lot of stock around to offer at discount. That did not take place with 2009 Bordeaux. Perhaps 20% to 25% of the same volume of wine was sold to America. Those are most likely high estimates. 2005 Bordeaux did not decline in a vacuum. The world suffered an economic collapse. Stocks, bonds, real estate all plummeted. Most asset classes took a bigger hit than high scoring Bordeaux. Lastly, having bought a lot of 2005 Futures, I can state for a fact that even with the decline, across the board, most 2005 Bordeaux was still selling for more money than it was offered for as a future.

That being said, I would not buy 2009 as an investment. I'd buy the wines in a style I liked that sold for prices I was willing to drink the wines at.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:17 am

Fair enough David. Sorry for being so thick.
I agree with Jeff on the whole investment issue. I don't buy wines as investments. Anything I buy is with the intention of drinking.

Ramon_NYC · Post by **Ramon_NYC** » Sun Mar 18, 2012 3:52 pm

Jeff Leve wrote:There is a big difference between 2005 and 2009. 2005 was purchased in massive quantities by American merchants, wholesalers and importers. There was a lot of stock around to offer at discount. That did not take place with 2009 Bordeaux. Perhaps 20% to 25% of the same volume of wine was sold to America. Those are most likely high estimates. 2005 Bordeaux did not decline in a vacuum. The world suffered an economic collapse. Stocks, bonds, real estate all plummeted. Most asset classes took a bigger hit than high scoring Bordeaux. Lastly, having bought a lot of 2005 Futures, I can state for a fact that even with the decline, across the board, most 2005 Bordeaux was still selling for more money than it was offered for as a future.

That being said, I would not buy 2009 as an investment. I'd buy the wines in a style I liked that sold for prices I was willing to drink the wines at.

I happen to have bought 90% of my 2005s via the futures campaign. Unfortunately for me, there are a few of my wines that I see today as selling very close to the same prices that I purchased them for. Not complaining here, just as some of my assets (exception is the value of my real estate which stood firm against the impact of the global economic collapse 3 years ago), I fully understand how these can trickle down to luxury items such as fine wines. However, given where the pricing are of 2005s today, based on smattering of a wines that I see on wine searcher and auctions, quite a lot of 2005s are still selling at release (or at futures) pricing, even with stock prices at much higher levels than before.

Given that, according to you, some group outside of merchants, wholesales and importers, are holding off on releasing up to 80% of bottled Bordeaux 2009, I will only assume that at some given point in time, there is still opportunity for 2009 prices to be lower than they are today. Why? If these “hoarders” decide to let go of their stock, supply can overshoot demand. Hard to disagree with this as simple economics will apparently still be in play here.