Poll: HWSRN: Has he been good or has he been bad for Bdx?

[Jeff Leve]

Has Robert Parker provided a net positive or a net negative for average consumers of Bordeaux?

Jim, I have a hard thinking this was a serious question...

The reason why I asked the question is because of my recent experiences with wines like Haut Bergey, Larrivet Haut Brion, de Fieuzal, etc. All "well-made" wines, but lacking personality, lacking excitement, there's a sameness about them.

Personally, I do not think they taste the same, and having tasted hundreds of 2009, I do not think they taste the same. But from your short list of wines, have you tasted those wines from older vintages? I've had a few and at least to me, they were not at the level of wine produced today by the same estates.

[Chateau Vin]

How, please, has RP contributed to quality?

He reviews very few Bordeaux when you think about it, and when he knocks them, are they supposed to suddenly get better?
Remember his famous "Life is too short for Croizet Bages".
Is CB any better as a result?

'You can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink'....

He gave his take on CB. It's up to CB to improve or not. If CB thinks otherwise and their customers also think it is a good wine, good for CB. They can do whatever they want..

Sure, some point/price sensitive châteaux have made bigger wines since he arrived on the scene.
But this was done to please the please just one man?
And are the wines any better?

I don't think they have done to please one man. They have done to please their customers (and customers bank on Parker ratings) and increase their pocket books. But even if it is done to please one man, so be it as long as bordeaux quality improves. Obviously, I sincerely believe that style and quality are two different things, and that the quality is better overall (One might not like the style some chateaux are after, but I think the quality is better...)

Alex R.

Just my thoughts...

[JimHow]

Larrivet Haut Brion, de Fieuzal, and Haut Bergey are all well made wines. I rated them each over 90 points. They just don't thrill me like Bordeaux of yore, like a Gruaud from the 80s, or a Lynch or a Ducru or Montrose from the past. i can't afford Lynch and Montrose and Cos anymore. And these new Bordeauxs just don't give me the thrill of those older wines. Whether that's Parker's fault or not is the purpose of this poll. All I know is I'm not drinking those thrilling clarets anymore that I've had in the past. 2009 Haut Bergey is not thrilling to me, it's not the type of wine that would make me do what I did 6 or 8 or 10 years ago, things like drive 3 hours to the other side of New Hampshire to pick up a couple bottles of 89 Lynch. Those days seem to be gone forever. I honestly can't say we are in a better position today than we were ten years ago. Ten years ago I was drinking First Growths and super seconds with regularity. Now I drink them once a year when I congregate with BWEers at our conventions. Maybe Parker is in some way partly the cause of that, maybe he's not. But, again, for someone like me, I'm not drinking thrilling Bordeaux like I have in the not too distant past.

[Jeff Leve]

Larrivet Haut Brion, de Fieuzal, and Haut Bergey are all well made wines. I rated them each over 90 points. They just don't thrill me like Bordeaux of yore, like a Gruaud from the 80s, or a Lynch or a Ducru or Montrose from the past.

Jim, the other wines you mention are all from much better terroir. They should not be similar. Plus, the wines you are comparing are Pessac Leognan to the Medoc. The more fair way to look at this, at least IMO is for example Ducru today, vs Ducru from the past, and of course the other wines as well.

While some vintages like 1982 Ducru are stunning, again, at least for me, it was a rare occurance for greatness.

Ten years ago I was drinking First Growths and super seconds with regularity. Now I drink them once a year when I congregate with BWEers at our conventions. Maybe Parker is in some way partly the cause of that, maybe he's not.

How do you hold Parker responsible for that? Today, the top chateaux all make less wine, and more people in different countries want to buy the wine. Bob's been writing about wine for almost 40 years. He did not invent supply and demand.

I do not really remeber you or any of us drinking the Firsts on a regular basis. True, we all used to drink First Growths more often. But the 1sts were never cheap. In the early 90's when young Firsts were selling for $100, most people were buying Lynch Bages or Pichon Lalande for $30. That is what really took place. FWIW, most Second Growths today are better than the vast majority of First Growths from the 80's & 90's. Pontet Canet is better today most previous vintages of the Firsts!

All older posters have been bitching about high prices since 1995 or 1996 was released. Go check the archives for comments on 2000. The best 2009 wines are to me, better than the best 2000's. Higher prices is a part of life. But across the board, the quality of wine is better all over Bordeaux, on every appellation and at every price level. Didn't you recently rave about 2009 Giscours, or something like that? The quality of that wine is much better than it was years ago when it was cheap.

[AlexR]

Jeff,

You wrote: "Today, the top chateaux all make less wine"

I think you'll find that is inaccurate in most instances.

I have the last 4 or 5 editions of Féret (Bordeaux et ses Vins). If you like, we can go and check production figures...

Alex R.

[Jeff Leve]

Alex... Of the top estates, the trend has been to place less wine in the Grand vin. Yields are lower and the percentage of wine allotted to the Grand Vin is less. Selection is stricter in the vineyard and in the cellars. More wine goes into second, third and sometimes even 4th wines. More wine is declassified. I am only concerned with the top wines, not the thousands of small, supermarket wines that come out of of Bordeaux.

[JimHow]

I got 1994 Haut Brion for $62 in 1998 in Boston. I got 1995 Petrus for $275 in NH around the same time. I drank '94 Mouton at a restaurant in Quebec City with flaming duck for $100. At that dinner I passed up the 95 Margaux for $175. I got 95 Cos, 95 ducru, and 95 Pichon Lalande for $50 each. I paid under $30 (on sale) for 2002 pichon Baron. And on and on. I'm not saying Robert Parker's a bad guy. All i know is that as the influence of Robert Parker has risen, so too has Bordeaux as a luxury item for billionaires. As i queried above, maybe it's just because there are more billionaires now. Maybe it's because Parker's 100 point sytem creates these obsessions like we've seen from the Chinese for Lafite, Duhart, and Carruades. there are many, many lesser wines that are much better than Carruades. In fact, I would take 2009 Haut Bergey over Carruades from any vintages. Has Parker had any role in the astronomical price escalation of Carruades? I've drunk hundreds of bottles of first growths. I used to drink Leoville las Cases from the eighties with non special occasion dinners. I've drunk 89 Lynch over 100 times, but probably 3 times in the past 4-5 years. Is it Parker's "fault"? I don't think "fault" is the right word. Are we better off today than we were ten years ago? For me personally, I say the answer is no. Whereas I was drinking 85 and 88 and 83 LLC and other similar estates from similar vintages numerous times a year as recently as 6-8 years ago, now I am drinking haut Bergey and d'Aighulle and Vrai Canon Bouche... all perfectly fine wines, just not something I'm going to go insane over, like I have in the past. So, there is no doubt in my mind I'm not drinking as well as I have in the past. the question at hand is whether Parker is a contributing "cause" of that problem (not whether he's "at fault"). As I write this, 65% of the respondents agree with your position.

[Bacchus]

I haven't voted yet, because I can't decide. Is Parker responsible for Chinese billionaires wanting Lafite? I don't even know how to determine such a thing. Maybe someone in a sociology department might be able to devise an appropriate method; or someone in marketing. There is, however, one thing our discussion of pricing hasn't taken into account, and that's wages. Ducru, PLL, LLC, and all the rest might have costed less in the 80s than they do today, but by the same token I made a whole lot less money in a year than I do now, about 4X less to be exact. So if a wine cost $50 in the 80s, as long as it's not over $200 today, it's a wash.

[Chateau Vin]

But also from economics point of view, let's not forget that....

1. The average wages in the US in real terms haven't changed for the past 15 years, while in the far east the are up significantly...

2. In the last 10 years, the dollar tanked vis a vis Euro. When Euro first came, 1Euro = 0.8 USD. Now it is like 1 Euro = 1.2 USD. Even if you consider dollar/euro parity, the exchange rate itself makes for atleast 20% difference in price!!!

3. There were rich people who could have afforded Bordeaux in olden days also. It's just that they were not into wine. Now slowly those people are coming into play, and voila, the demand/supply curve is all messed up! I am sure if we look around the people who we know now, many more people who can afford Bordeaux are not interested in wine (I know lot of physicians who are loaded, but thank god they don't get excited about the grape juice, and so I pay lower price). If and when those people come around, it's pretty sure the prices will only go further up in the future...

I agree that the prices are high, but I do not find 'fault' with him for this.

There are several reasons for this. Apart from the above, I think other writers also came onto the scene (Suckling, Quran, Tanzer, Jancis, et al), and people follow them too, making Bordeaux even more popular. Last, but not the least Bordelaise themselves are in high gear in terms of tastings, Vine Expos and marketing thus promoting their wines across the world. So I do agree as a consequent of Parker's writings the prices might have increased, but IMO the price rises cannot be wholly attributed to just him. That's why I thought he is overall positive than negative considering ton of good things that came out of Bordeaux and which are mentioned in the thread by others...

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

What's missing here is a conspiracy theory. Ex-Navy SEALS are being killed or "committing suicide" at a statistically alarming rate. Teh NFL is totally rigged. (This I've learned from the Yahoo message boards and comments and yes, the "teh" is purposeful). None of this is accidental. For me, Parker's appearance on the scene more or less just in time for the 1982 vintage can hardly be coincidence. So, who and what are behind this? He does bear some resemblance to Sam Neill.

[JimHow]

It is why we picked Dallas for BWE '13.

[JimHow]

I just heard the Ravens radio gameplay announcer say that the blackout was a conspiracy.

[Bacchus]

Ah yes, 1982! Can it be a mere coincidence that that was the year in which Ronald Reagan was shot?

[JimHow]

It could be except for the fact that Reagan was shot in 81.

[JimHow]

However, we DID have our last DC BWE convention at the Washington Hilton.

[Bacchus]

That's what they want you to believe!

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

However, we DID have our last DC BWE convention at the Washington Hilton.

Did you tour the kitchen passageway where Sirhan Sirhan fired the fatal shots?

Jim, why don't you think a 4-year-old Haut Bergey you had last week might taste something like a 15-year-old LB when you had it 10 years ago? I think we need to bring in the eminent vinologist Dr. DavidG for a refresher on "complexity."

[JimHow]

The most frightening conspiracy of all:
I just discovered that James Suckling and I were born in the same week.

[JCNorthway]

And you both wear stylish glasses!

[Bacchus]

Jim How -- east coast American lawyer
Robert Parker -- east coast American lawyer

Robert Parker -- called the Emperor of Wine
JIm How -- called the Beneficent Dictator of a wine site

Robert Parker -- writes about the wines of Bordeaux
Jim How -- writes about the wines of Bordeaux

Robert Parker -- has actually visited Bordeaux to drink its wines
Jim How -- has actually visited Bordeaux to drink its wines

Robert Parker -- declared the 09 vintage "exceptional"
Jim How -- declared the 09 vintage "exceptional"

Robert Parker -- declared the 09 Giscours the finest he has tasted
Jim How -- declared the 09 Giscours "stunning" and "brilliant"

Robert Parker -- tasting blind in 2005 couldn't distinguish left from right bank Bdx
Jim How -- couldn't distinguish an 89 Lynch Bages from some right bank pretender

Robert Parker -- likes "modernized" and "internationalized" styled wines
Jim How -- of the 02 SHL How wrote, "if this is modernized Bordeaux, then let me load up the cases!"

Robert Parker -- calls himself the Wine Advocate
Jim How -- runs a web site where he advocates for, you guessed it, wine!

Just a coincidence?

[JimHow]

James Suckling loves velvety tannins.
I just so happen to love velvety tannins.

[AlexR]

Jeff,

You do well to point out the proliferation of second wines and, in many instances, their greater proportion.
However, I must insist that you are laboring under a misconception with regard to yields.
These have gone up significantly since the Second World War.

I have to say that I was distressed by your statement: "I am only concerned with the top wines, not the thousands of small, supermarket wines that come out of of Bordeaux."

Can there be any better illustration of wine snobbery?

Alex R.

[finner]

Like The Grateful Dead was not the same after Garcia bowed out, The Wine Advocate will not be the same after Parker bows outs.

[Jeff Leve]

I must insist that you are laboring under a misconception with regard to yields.
These have gone up significantly since the Second World War.

Are you serious, the second world war? What does that have to do with anything? Parker was not even born yet. Or do you hold him responsible for that as well? Yes, yields were low at that point, that is because the vineyards had not been worked for years and were in terrible shape. Most people did not have money and were busy fighting in the war. But why let facts get in the way of a good argument. Over the last 20 - 30 years, farming techniques at most properties are to help lower yields, density of planting, green harvesting, etc. It is not overall yields that count, it is the effective yields at the top estates that matter, and the actual percentage of the harvest that is placed into the Grand Vin. All the top estates have lowered their production over the past few decades. That is a fact.

I have to say that I was distressed by your statement: "I am only concerned with the top wines, not the thousands of small, supermarket wines that come out of of Bordeaux."

I am sorry you are distressed. Tonight, when I open a wine I like, I am going to think fondly of you and worry about you being distressed. The fact is, while there are about 450 million cases of Bordeaux produced in an average year, the people chatting about wines on the Internet do not give a rats ass about 425 million of those cases. That is a fact. Just look at the threads on any website, people are not talking about the 400 million cases of supermarket plonk that sells for 2 Euros a bottle. I am sorry that remains a problem for you. Such is life.

[AlexR]

Jeff,

You ask, “Are you serious, the second world war? What does that have to do with anything?”. I realize that you live in Los Angeles where everything is recent, but when talking Bordeaux, you’re talking centuries. When you first appeared on this board, you had never been to Bordeaux. I now believe you come here regularly. Ask any winegrower on your next visit. They’ll tell you about yields!

Saying that yields were lower because “the vineyards were in bad shape” is not an adequate explanation. The vines were grown and the wine made very differently, and much more naturally I might add. Have you never had an old Bordeaux? Were they execrable? Many people prefer them. Moreover, Bordeaux is not the only region where yields markedly increased. Not all of the changes were for the better by any means…

The green harvesting, bud pruning, bunch thinning, what have you reduces yields, but these are still higher than compared to just 2 decades previous.

As regards my distress, Jeff, you have written a number of ignorant things on this board and on others, but when I think of the good people who make excellent wines that you sniff at because you don’t know any better, it makes me feel very sad for you. A label drinker. I attack what you say, not you personally.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Jeff Leve]

The green harvesting, bud pruning, bunch thinning, what have you reduces yields, but these are still higher than compared to just 2 decades previous.

You keep evading the point, not at ANY of the TOP estates. Furthermore, we are also talking about effective yields and the amount of wine that is bottled as the Grand Vin! You are 100% wrong if you think that is not the case. Again, we are not talking about the 450 million cases of wine made from all of Bordeaux, but the top estates that people write about, fret over, read up on, purchase, covet and share. Is that clear? Or do you want to completely evade the issue?

As regards my distress, Jeff, you have written a number of ignorant things on this board and on others, but when I think of the good people who make excellent wines that you sniff at because you don’t know any better, it makes me feel very sad for you. A label drinker. I attack what you say, not you personally.

Alex... you are so wrong, it is laughable. With the exception of a few pros, I taste and write tasting notes on more small wines than most people. This is a fact. You can get off your high horse and read about them on my site. To make it easy for you, this is a link to close to 4,000 tasting notes on Bordeaux.
http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/win ... n=Bordeaux

If you think I am a label drinker... well, I wil try not to suffer endlessly. Somehow, I think I will survive. It is going to be difficult however.... But I will try...

[JimHow]

I think Alex does make a good point, Jeff, in that Bordeaux was not exactly anything to kick out of bed before Parker skyrocketed to influence. I don't think he had much influence on the wine making of "the golden decade of the 80s," and yet we've drunk many great, distinctive wines from that decade. Bordeaux struggled in the 60s and 70s during a couple decades of mediocre vintages. Margaux was ramshackled by the 70s but Christine came along just before Parker if I have my history right. Which brings us to blanquito's point earlier, that there's something to be said for those "imperfect" Bordeaux of yesteryear. Again, as I said earlier, I'm not drinking anywhere near as well now as I was 5-6 years ago before Bordeaux went Rolex on us. Rather than wondering whether Parker is "at fault" for this, the poll question might have been phrased more Reaganesque: "Are we better off today because of the influence of Robert Parker than we were ten years ago?" Certainly, in my case, the answer to the first part of the question is a resounding NO! I am NOT better off than i was ten years ago, I am not drinking anywhere near the numbers of compelling wines I was drinking then. The trickier part is the second part of the question: "...because of the influence of Parker." That's the tougher question. Regardless, Parker or no Parker, Bordeaux has become less of a thrill for me than in years past.

[Claudius2]

Guys
From a commerical pespective the Bordelaise would have to thank him.
Okay that accepts that there are a few who have not benefitted - maybe Croizes Bages for example.
He has broadly sung the praises of Bordeaux (as well as other regions) and geenrated a lot of interst in wine as well that would not otherwise have happened.

I also disagree that there is a sameness in Bordeaux wines - properly made wines show the vineyard and the quality it can produce better than faulty wines.
When I first drank Bordeaux (70's) too many were thin, green and lacking fruit, complexity and interest.
And that applied to Burgs as well by the way.

There has been a seismic shift in wine quality internaitonally in my lifetime.
That is not to say it was all crap - not at all, but therese days the quality is so good all around the world.

RP is NOT the only cause of that but can be credited with a small though important partt of it.
Yet do I agree with hi notes?
Sometimes I do, other times I don't.

[DavidG]

Good question Jim ("Are we better off as consumers?") but there's no way to connect the answer ("No! We can't afford the firsts and super seconds any more." vs. "Yes! There are soooo many more high quality Bordeaux under $50 now.") to Parker or any number of any other factors. Confusing association with cause and effect is a classic logical error, and I think it applies here.

[Houndsong]

Well, it appears Parker as a force for good is winning by a landslide. But ...

That's just the popular vote.

When I break out the precincts, it appears "force for good" may well win the popular vote, but "force for evil" may actually carry the electoral college.

I continue to count.

[Tom In DC]

Seriously, Alex - you're going to compare yields today to WWII? Wouldn't the vineyards have been just a little less well tended in the early 1940's? And maybe not all of even the grapes that did show up got harvested? I'd be shocked if yields weren't historically low during the war years. After the war, we can only imagine how many Marshall Plan dollars were spent on fertilizer for French vineyards.

Yes, average yields are higher as French officials allow ever higher official yields and whatever they call that "allowance over the official yield limit" that comes into play so often. But the firsts, seconds, etc. put much less wine into bottles with the "grand vin" label than 20 years ago. Parker's book from 1991 lists Lafite's production at 26,000 to 33,000 cases annually. Lafite's own web site indicates the numbers are down to 15,000 to 20,000.

Chateau Vin, you might actually look at a chart (select ALL for the duration after it loads) before quoting Euro/Dollar rates. Trading started at US$1.17 or so in 1999, never fell to $0.80 (about 0.825 is the lowest I can find), and the last five years have trended strongly in favor of the USD, even though the current rate has moved up to about $1.35 (that 1.2 rate is sooo six months ago) after all of the financial/political stoopidity in the US during the last half year.

[AlexR]

Château 1982 edition of the Féret 1982 edition of the Féret

Lafite Rothschild 25,000 C/12 55,600 C/12
Latour 25,000 C/12 36,700 C/12
Mouton 25,000 C/12 23,000 C/12
Margaux 25,000 C/12 40,000 C/12
Montrose 20,000 C/12 37,100 C/12
Léoville Las Cases 27,500 C/12 47,200 C/12
Ducru Beaucaillou 20,000 C/12 19,000 C/12
Cheval Blanc 17,500 C/12 15,600 C/12
Haut Brion 15,000 C/12 16,000 C/12
Smith Haut Lafitte 20,000 C/12 14,200 C/12

Eat your hat, Mr. Leve!
You mustn’t believe everything you hear, and should keep a critical mind when you are being spoiled by the Bordelais in Parker’s wake!
Since you only drink the snob wines, I have made a chart of production figures in the 1982 Féret and the 2004 Féret (the latest edition) for some of the most famous estates.
Sweeping statements are risky when talking about Bordeaux, so the above figures were taken with no fixed agenda (i.e. at random, and not trying to prove my point). But, what they clearly show is that production has increased significantly, even dramatically in most instances!
You’ll try to wriggle out of this by saying that the difference is explained in most cases by the proportion of second wines. Well, Mouton didn’t have a second wine in the early 1980s, but it sure does now. So, yes, production there would appear to have actually decreased. But Lafite, Margaux, and Latour had 2nd wines in the early 80s, so they have shot up impressively. Haut Brion has stayed pretty much the same. Smith Haut Lafitte’s figures have actually gone down, as have those for Cheval Blanc.
Please forgive me it I don’t have the time to do a more in-depth statistical analysis, but anyone can see that there’s a (expletive deleted) of a lot more of Château Margaux being sold these days!
Size of the vineyard? Please don’t tell me that Lafite grew by 120%!
Montrose, on the other hand, has added new plots (a practice that shocks the Burgundians, but never mind).
Alex R.

[JonoB]

Jim,

There is always Louis Jadot to save the day...
Isn't it about time we had a protest vote WOTY??

2010 Piedmont perhaps?? :p

[JimHow]

Hmm not a bad idea Jono, maybe we need a protest selection not on the basis of price but on the basis of being the anti-Parkerized region. I guess we'd be going back to Burgundy in that case.

[JimHow]

I'm just a country lawyer from Maine so I don't really understand these things as well. I uncork a bottle on Friday nights, sometimes Thursdays as well, at the end of a usually tough week of defending the down and out in our society. I've never been to a UGC (sp?) tasting. I don't catch all the nuances that others seem to find judging from their tasting notes. i just know when a wine has thrilled me, and when it hasn't. Old Bordeaux must have SOMETHING going for it. I mean, RMP awarded all those 98s, 99s, and 100s at the Rodenstock tasting. And there must be some reason why old Bordeaux is being counterfeited. If Parker has had an influence on what is perceived to be an improvement in winemaking in Bordeaux, then surely he has had an impact on pricing. Thus, if Bordeaux is now priced so extravagantly that I can't drink it any more, and if that high pricing has been caused at least in part by the existence of Robert Parker, then the answer to my poll question above, at least for me personally, is "negative." I am NOT better off than I was 10 years ago when it comes to drinking Bordeaux, and Parker has had some level of an impact upon that. Is 2009 Haut Bergey -- a 90 point wine that is well made but that, I am sorry, just does not hit me over the head -- a "Parkerized" wine?

[Blanquito]

My predictions:
-When Parker retires, Bordeaux prices will level off and even drop as claret's overall consumer cachet drops (no more, "Look at me, I just bought a Parker 95 pointer!!!"). And we had a test of this theory: the 2002 vintage of Bordeaux when Parker didn't travel to the Gironde and rate the wines in barrel --the chateau panicked or whatever, and release prices dropped to levels not seen since the mid-1990's or earlier. The BD got the Pichon Baron in the $30s, and First Growths were less than $100. I bought the Pontet-Canet on the shelf for $23 at PJ's, d'Issan for $22, Leoville Barton for $32, Sociando Mallet for $24, Branaire-Ducru for $24, Pichon Lalande for $55. This wasn't long ago and yet these prices seem silly low in today's market, but there was "no one" to hype-hype prices up and up. Branaire-Ducru for $23!?!? The best price per W-S/pro today is $42 for the 2008, $66 for the 2009, and $68 for the 2010. We can dismiss the 2002 vintage as a one-off example, but it is the only data we have on a Parker-less Bordeaux market.

-No other pretender will become Parker's second coming in shaping the market for Bordeaux (Parker-less Burgundy has no such single driver, for example). With a metastasized wine critic world, Bordeaux prices will begin to become more based on average perceptions of quality, even perhaps based as much on their historic reputations as anything. Given that, First Growths will probably never be affordable again, but hopefully other wines will.

-Insider knowledge will matter again, as under-the-radar gems can't get a Parker's endorsement and quadruple in price. Who knows, maybe even a chateau's style will become something of its own choosing again, rather than a market set by HWSRNL.

-A stunning truth shall be revealed, Jimmie How and Jimmie Suckling: twins separated at birth!

[JimHow]

I am allegedly 5 days older than him but that is so long ago that records are sketchy.

[Bacchus]

By today's standards 04 wasn't horribly priced either, and it did suffer P's ratings. The price of a bottle of 09 PC blows me away when I recall what I paid for the 04s (taking the horrible Canadian tax structure into account, it would translate to about $40 USD). O4 is the only year that I bought things like Angelus (about $50 USD), Pape Clement (about the same as Angelus), and Cos d'Estournel ($65 and cheaper than 02 up here). Jim, if the 09 Graves you've been tasting in the $30-$40 range don't turn your crank, perhaps some other region. Are you able to say what it is about Haut Bergey, etc, that doesn't appeal. They are a bit round, no doubt due to the warmth of the season, and so many have that charred oak quality. Maybe look for producers that use less oak and that come from a region that has a cooler microclimate -- St Estephe or the northern Medoc! Hey, if nothing else you get to try things out more.

[Chateau Vin]

I'm just a country lawyer from Maine so I don't really understand these things as well. I uncork a bottle on Friday nights, sometimes Thursdays as well, at the end of a usually tough week of defending the down and out in our society. I've never been to a UGC (sp?) tasting. I don't catch all the nuances that others seem to find judging from their tasting notes. i just know when a wine has thrilled me, and when it hasn't. Old Bordeaux must have SOMETHING going for it. I mean, RMP awarded all those 98s, 99s, and 100s at the Rodenstock tasting. And there must be some reason why old Bordeaux is being counterfeited. If Parker has had an influence on what is perceived to be an improvement in winemaking in Bordeaux, then surely he has had an impact on pricing. Thus, if Bordeaux is now priced so extravagantly that I can't drink it any more, and if that high pricing has been caused at least in part by the existence of Robert Parker, then the answer to my poll question above, at least for me personally, is "negative." I am NOT better off than I was 10 years ago when it comes to drinking Bordeaux, and Parker has had some level of an impact upon that. Is 2009 Haut Bergey -- a 90 point wine that is well made but that, I am sorry, just does not hit me over the head -- a "Parkerized" wine?

When I saw the thread question 'whether RP is positive or negative', I answered positive. But if Jim is asking whether we are better off or not, then IMO the answer is not the same. If you drink the growths you are not better off since increase in price is not on parity with increase of quality. But if you drink non-growths, I think you are better off since for these properties, generally speaking, the increase in quality is on par with the increase in price...

[Chateau Vin]

Seriously, Alex - you're going to compare yields today to WWII? Wouldn't the vineyards have been just a little less well tended in the early 1940's? And maybe not all of even the grapes that did show up got harvested? I'd be shocked if yields weren't historically low during the war years. After the war, we can only imagine how many Marshall Plan dollars were spent on fertilizer for French vineyards.

Yes, average yields are higher as French officials allow ever higher official yields and whatever they call that "allowance over the official yield limit" that comes into play so often. But the firsts, seconds, etc. put much less wine into bottles with the "grand vin" label than 20 years ago. Parker's book from 1991 lists Lafite's production at 26,000 to 33,000 cases annually. Lafite's own web site indicates the numbers are down to 15,000 to 20,000.

Chateau Vin, you might actually look at a chart (select ALL for the duration after it loads) before quoting Euro/Dollar rates. Trading started at US$1.17 or so in 1999, never fell to $0.80 (about 0.825 is the lowest I can find), and the last five years have trended strongly in favor of the USD, even though the current rate has moved up to about $1.35 (that 1.2 rate is sooo six months ago) after all of the financial/political stoopidity in the US during the last half year.

When you are talking ten years ago, we are talking about three currencies. French Franc, Euro and Dollar. About a decade ago, 1USD was about 6 French Francs. French exchanged 1 to 1 with Euro when they introduced Euro. If at all, it is even worse according to these calculations. But anyway, I don't think it matters whether it is 0.8 or 0.85 or 1.35 or 1.2. The point being the dollar steadily weakened against Euro over the past decade...and USD was much stronger against the Franc 10 years ago. I took 1.2 to roughly to reflect the time when 2010 prices were released...(Overall, that's why I said roughly 20% price hike can be attributed to the changed prices, which I believe is still conservative IMO.)