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

[JimHow]

PJs has it on futures for $43, Pom, I'll probably try a bottle.

[Nicklasss]

Good thread. Where will it end?

Another fact against critics (not only the main subject of that thread), that align a bit with what Comte Flaneur wrote, and have a bad impact, is if the 2000 Chateau Cheval Blanc, tasted in 2003, is THE wine of the vintage, mind-boggling, the best of the best, with a rating of 98-100, I should have drank all the bottle of the 2000 Chateau Cheval Blanc I had in 2003, to take advantages of all those greatness?

But if you tell me that the 98-100 points rating is about what the 2000 Chateau Cheval Blanc will be in 30 years, how come someone like a critic knows, as there are so many things that can influence the wine in those years? So the 2000 Chateau Cheval Blanc, tasted in 2003 should be rated 91+? And the unclassified Bordeaux, that should be opened earlier to offer all it got, is only rated 88 in 2003?

So all the critics are doing, is creating a kind of "expectation", based on the equation : good label + great vintage + what it is supposed to be = rating of 98-100. And the prices follow the ''expectation'', not basic facts like how it cost to produce, profit margin and at the end, it is what it taste to you that matter the most. When you start appreciate wine, the first law is : be fair with yourself, is the wine I have in the glass, please me or not, whatever it is. So blind tasting are key there.

Nic

[JimHow]

I think Robert Parker should give his scores based on 100% blind samples. Then I'll be impressed.

[Bacchus]

Just a juxtaposition of two of John Gilman's "tweets" which I thought spoke to some of the issues being discussed in this thread:

1. "Magically soil-driven '83 Leoville-Poyferre recalls the salad days of property, when they always strutted their terroir but didn't sell well"

2. "Today, Poyferre so boringly generic in its slick, modern micro-oxed personality that only Bordeaux newbies & investment funds get excited."

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Yeah, but the 08 was BWE WOTY. How could both those things be true? I mean, we don't go for slick, micro-oxed wines here. Not at all.

[Jeff Leve]

Just a juxtaposition of two of John Gilman's "tweets" which I thought spoke to some of the issues being discussed in this thread:

1. "Magically soil-driven '83 Leoville-Poyferre recalls the salad days of property, when they always strutted their terroir but didn't sell well"

2. "Today, Poyferre so boringly generic in its slick, modern micro-oxed personality that only Bordeaux newbies & investment funds get excited."

Comments like that from Gilman explain why for Bordeaux he is not read much. The wines made at Leoville Poyferre today are among the finest wines coming out of Bordeaux. There is a richness, purity, fresheness and more importantly, beautiful sense of style and character that most wines will never reach. It's not a wine for investors, it's a wine for pleasure seekers. For anyone thinking the wines from Poyferre after Michel Rolland joined the team will not age, taste the 1982 or 1990 today! They are both, fresh and vibrant. For more on Poyferre: http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... -poyferre/

[Ken]

Jeff's statement is on target. One of the many comments made about the 82's is that "they would not make old bones".

We are certainly hearing many similar comments about the 2009's and generally about the mordern style. I think we need to separate out whether we like the style or not from whether they will age; which is ultimately an empirical question and for many of us of rapidly advancing age a question that may not be answerable empirically.

In response to JimHow's comment about the need for Parker to blindly taste the wine he reviews, I would note that historically he usually did taste double blind the wines he covered. What might sense, though, is to identify in his notes which wines were tasted blind and which ones were not, and let the reader decide.

-Ken

[OrlandoRobert]

Jeff's statement is on target. One of the many comments made about the 82's is that "they would not make old bones".

-Ken

Since I was still in high school, I never got to try these wines young. I have, however, had well over a case of 1982 classified growths over the past year or so, and they have matured beautifully. Nothing new world or modern to my palate.

[JonoB]

1982 is when modern winemaking techniques were not in place and remember... Alcohol levels at13.5 were considered ripe then.

13.5 (eh hem, 2007) is considered weedy now.

I think Leo-Poy 08 is good because it is from what critics consider a marginal vintage. I will think forever that 08 is a BWE kind of vintage like 02 is. It isn't about quality but about pleasure and having a story to tell.

If 10 Pyferre is fresh, ill eat a glass bottle of Chambertin from Maison Ilan!

[JonoB]

To add to this...

I've had a number of dinners with J-M Laporte from La Conseillante and he agrees with me on one thing. He prefers his 06 to his 05. Why, because he had to work hard in 06 and make a wine that a) tells a story, and b) tastes like a quintessential La Conseillante. He says the 05 is a better wine, because he had to do nothing. Not once in his conversation did he say that 05 is a better La Conseillante!! That in itself tells a whole lot more than anything else.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

If you are good enough to taste the La Conseillante-ness in the La Conseillante, then I don't doubt you might be disappointed if it were replaced by even a (objectively?) "better" wine that did not taste quite the same. But it's a brave new world and there's probably an emerging cohort lauding the new, improved La Conseillante and not mourning the old.

[Ken]

One quick correction. I realized 15 minutes after I sent the previous post (while I was out walking our dog) that I misspoke slightly in responding to the issue of blind tasting.

I should have said that my understanding is that Parker historically tasted wines that were blinded not double-blinded. That is, he knew which wines were in the tasting pool but the identities were obscured through decanting or paper bags. That said, when there are a large number of wines with a range of quality and price, one could argue that there is not much difference between blinding and double blinding.

The purpose of double blinding is, of course, to blind reviewers (usually in clinical trials) to whether an indivdual is in the treatment or control group so that their evaluation would not be influenced by whether they were being treated or not. While drug trials are not as important as wine tasting, I am not sure we really know whether double blinding is necessary for wine tasting and under what conditions.

JonoB - I think you missed the point a bit. The point I was trying to make is that we frequently hear about wines with intense fruit not aging well. The truth is, that does not appear to be the universal case, assuming balanced acidity, alcohol, etc. In fact, they may age better; that is an empirical question that will not be settled by verbal argument. I think it was Bertram Russell who argued against the ontological argument for the existence of god by noting essentially that he either exists or he doesn't; verbal argument does not affect her existence.

[JimHow]

I have a case of 2008 Leoville Poyferre.

[JimHow]

Ken: I've never been able to get past the Rodenstock fiasco and the resulting king-has-no-clothes situation.
Help me out here. I'm sure Bob Parker is a good man, seems like a nice guy, knowledgeable about wine, etc., etc.
But if he was fooled by the Rodenstock swill just like everyone else, isn't he like "god" in that Woody Allen- Shelly Duvall scene in Annie Hall: "Look, there's 'god' going into the bathroom over there."
If he can't tell the difference between a 1945 Mouton and whatever mediocre Pauillac Hardy put into those bottles, why should I believe anything Bob Parker says?
Aren't all truths turned upside down if Bob Parker can't identify one fraudulent wine after another after another after another....

[JimHow]

By the way, there was a time when interationally renowned attorney-philanthropist Jimmy "Lynch Bages" How defended HWSRN against such scurrilous accusations:

http://bordeauxwine.org/bwe/new/0/26750/

[JimHow]

Was just reading through the trial of BWE v. Robert Parker from 2001(!).
A little scary, actually, how promontory that "trial" was!
Back in the days of the old, funny material.

[JimHow]

Struck by Alex's poignant query at the very end, back in 2007, six years after the original post and yet still an eternity ago, six years ago from the discussion today:

"It will be interesting to see how History (with a big "H") judges Parker."

AlexR, June 5, 2007.

[stefan]

Another BWE classic! Thanks for bringing it back, Jim.

[JimHow]

And of course the most poignant part of all, the posts from Setab back in 2001.

[JimHow]

Good stuff, Stefan, it really brings back from whence we have traveled.
Man, December 2001, I think that must've been around the time when you were sick. Crazy.
We're still here, about to celebrate the 13th birthday of BWE!

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Jim, availability and rational pricing permitting, you, at least, should have a case of every BWE WOTY.

In fact, somebody should jump on this idea of mine for a BWE Hall of Fame. There one can look at bottles and cases of wine, compromising pictures of BWErs in their underwear, things like that. Actually, a Wine Hall of Fame sounds like a very crass-yet-appealing-to-a-new-moneyed-points-chasing-set chain of wine-themed restaurants.

I must admit, Ken, that was impressive. But if people stop arguing about things argument can't possibly affect or determine, they, and people like me who sometimes pause to observe them, will have a lot of time on their hands.

[Ken]

Jim: You seem to be imposing an almost impossible burden on judging the contribution of Parker to the wine world. He must not only be good at what he does, he must be infallible. Since I am not religious, I gave up on infallibility a long time ago. I think the criteria needs to be the way we judge scientific findings which is the concept of "on balance". It is not the legal criteria of "beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt". Taking into account all of the findings and issues, how do we judge Robert Parker, particularly given all of the uncertainties and lack of counterfactuals.

Thus, we wind up with different weights and judgments of his contributions and drawbacks and people are free to weight the benefits and costs differently. From my perspective, I think he has made enormous contributions to the wine world, even as I can no longer afford classified growths from Bordeaux, except on rarer and rarer occasions. Despite that, I still drink good wines, that are better than they were a few years ago. However, I do not expect him (or you, or me) to be infallible.

Again, I think we are free to use Parker's and Levy's reviews as we choose, based on our understanding of their tastes and ours. I have certainly been wrong on occasion, and they have too. All that said, I find other's experience of wine, particularly those with adequate experience, to be useful information.

-Ken

[Ken]

Thanks Aloha. I do sometimes appreciate fireworks and conflict from afar, but I suffer from wanting to add to the pyrotechnics.

-Ken

[JimHow]

You are a wise man, Ken, and I value your opinion.
However: I think you are letting He Who Shall Remain Nameless off too easily.
This is just not just "another guy" out there on the internet.
This is a guy who moves numbers to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
Myself, I think it is all a bunch of BS.
But I'm just a country lawyer from Maine, I don't know a lot about these things.
Now if Bob Parker wants to start telling me how good these wines are after tasting them completely blind, I'm willing to listen...
But if all he is going to do is tell me that, well, while he was sitting in those cellars at Lafite, the first growth was 98-100, Duhart was 96-98, Carruades was 94-96, etc., then ehh, I'm not really interested. Big deal, Mr. "I thought Hardy's '1945 Mouton' Was a 100 Point Wine" Parker.
I know a lot of guys who can do that, some of them right here on BWE.

[Ken]

Jim: No argument about the distribution of expertise. I have learned, for example, about Stefan's knowledge and expertise about Bordeaux, Burgundies, and Oregon Pinots. So I listen to him and value his opinion about those wines.

I also am learning to appreciate your point-of-view and experience with wine as I learn more about your palate.

I also read the Wine Spectator (although I have more doubts about those guys), Decanter online, and I, less frequently, rely on other sources. Basically, like you, I rely on my experience with wine and tasting a wine, more often than anything else, but there are circumstances when I cannot bring my experience to bear, such as buying futures, or ordering a wine not in stock, or buying online a wine I have not tried. Given that we all invest too much money in an easily consumable good (and our spouses (except for Lucie) are frequently mad at us or look at us askance for our wine purchases) we have to make the best judgments we can. Therefore, we rely on knowledgeable others as a way of decreasing uncertainty and making good judgments/guesses/predictions. Thus, I view Parker as someone who helps me reduce my uncertainly when I have not tried a wine, to help me find wines of good value for the price, and in all honesty to reinforce my good judgment.

-Ken

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Who is Levy?

[Ken]

Sorry. Slip of the pinky or middle finger. Should have been Jeff Leve.

-Ken

[JimHow]

Leve is another human being who posts his notes on the internet.
as does Stefan.
as does Nic.
as does Alex.
as does thousands of others.
I don't want to be glib about this.
But do I "value" their impressions?
Whether it is Parker, or Levey, or Stefan, or Suckling?
Um, no.
Not really.
I appreciate the notes, etc.
Some of them are really well written.
But if Nic finds violets in a dauzac, am I gonna go out and buy the 2010?
Um. No.
there's a lot of drama on the internet.
In the case of Parker, it causes some fools to make judgments that total in the millions based on one human beings swirls of a wine 1 to 3 times during a 10 day period each April.
i mean, I appreciate the input of everyone, ken.
to me, it's all a bunch of silly nonsense in the end for anyone to think that someone's notes are "better" than someone else's.
that millions of dollars are affected because some guy comes to town for a week and a half and speds a few seconds sniffing and spitting a wine and then assiging a score somewhere between 88-100 is one of the silliest exercises of this silly species of which we are a part.
Total nonsense, really, these "100-point scales."
Give me totally blind taste results, Mr. Parker, then we'll talk.

[Ken]

Not sure what the resolution would look like Jim, but one more or less final comment.

I do listen to Stefan and Leve, and knowing their palates, in some cases they carry more weight than Parker.

The problem with evaluating Parker, however, is the problem of a counterfactual. What would have happened if he had not come along? You have one answer, and I have another. There is no truth here, simply judgment.

After having followed Parker for over 30 years, I think I can judge his palate and take it into account in my purchase decisions. As noted earlier, my experience has been that: (1) he appreciates intense fruit; (2) he also looks for balance; (3) he has a higher tolerance for alcohol than I do; and (4) he tends to focus on the higher end wines, more than I can afford routinely. So what do I do. I pay attention to the alcohol levels in the wines he recommends, I focus on good buys for the price in a given vintage, and I think it helps me make better judgments.

So what of the broader effects of Parker. As noted above, the problem is the counterfactural. What would have happened if Parker had not come along, and from my perspective this is simply speculative. We don't know. I think several of the previous discussants have identified pros and cons of Parker, many of which are probably true. He brought to the table a very good tasting palate, and he has been prettty good at predicting vintages (at least until the last 5 years or so). He was one of the first to provide detailed information on vintages, beginning with 1978, and from my perspective, many of his recommendations held up relatively well. If I were to criticize Parker so far, I would note that (at least early on) some of his recommendations for specific wines were relatively conservative). That is, I found some of his less effusive recommendations lower than I would have given the wines. However, as many have noted, he has become more liberal on his evaluations, but honestlyl so have I. Not completely sure why, but I think it has more to do with the improvement in categories of wine than simply grade inflation. The problem with Parker's influence has more to do with things beyond his control, than with his judgments. That is, it has raised the demand for Bordeaux, there is a greater reliance on the judgment of experts, people have begun buying wines like they do pork bellies for future sale, and there is increased world wide demand for Bordeaux (and many other great wine categories) that ever before. Hence the increase in prices.

Did Parker set out to raise the prices of Bordeaux and other quality wines? I don't think so. I think he set out to provide a relatively independent evaluation of wines in order for consumers to make informed decisions. I think he has done that well; although, I think the may have lost a bit of focus in the past 10 years or so.

Given all of this, particularly the absence of a counterfactual (what have happened if Parker had not appeared on the scene), everything is judgment and we (you and me at least) are perfectly free to arrive at different conclusions. The one thing I would ask is that we agree that we go with the burden of evidence, rather than absolute certainty. Despite that, I think we may arrive at different conclusions.

Finally, this discussion reminds me of the class I teach in the history of public health and medicine. I try to explain to my students how medicine, as the archetypical profession, emerged in the late 1800s. This occurred despite the broad criticism of the professions and experts in the 1830s. What began to happen, of course, was the increasing industrialization that accompanied the civil war and that industrialization led to a love affair with science, technology, and technological approaches to solving human problems and the subsequent reemergence of the professions after our love affair with Jackonsian democracy in which we believed every man his own doctor, every man his own plumber. This occurred, despite the fact that even in the late 1800s there was very litttle that medicine could do to imporve the human condition. Medicine was valued for the fact that physicians linked the nascent science of medicine to technology and science (see Paul Starr, Social Transformation of American Medicine; or Charles Rosenberg on "The Care of Strangers"). Thus, I think part of the discussion/argument is about the role of "experts". To what extent should we pay attention to "experts' in any field of study.

This creates truly a dilemma, in that experts can be wrong, they can mislead, but the achievement of expertise represents (in the best of cases) mastery of uniqure areas of study and expertise, such as engineering, medicine, nursing, and yes, even if law. As the saws sometimes note: "a man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client." The problem, of course, is that we have this ongoing dialogue between every man his own doctor and the idea that trained individuals have their particular areas of expertise. Quite honestly, I believe, that the professions are generally over rated, and at the same time, I believe that my students lack the knowledge and expertise required of professional in the field, hence the fact they are engaged in professionaal education programs.

All that said, I think that much of this discussion is about the role(s) of the "professionals" and the roles(s) of the laity in wine exprience and tasting.

-Ken

[Bacchus]

What a great response, Ken. I'm not sure how it will impact my wine buying and drinking habits, but I think I'll pick up Starr's book (or is it a published article?).

[DavidG]

I've been fairly silent in this thread (for me), in large part because every time I think I have something to add I read one of Ken's posts and say "Yeah, that. Couldn't have said it better." However, I think there is a distinction to be made between the "professions" and "professional wine tasters/critics," and it goes beyond just the seriousness of the subject each addresses. The inherent subjectiveness of taste preferences is just too different from the objective evidence-based analyses we expect from scientists and physicians.

Sure we all depend on advice from others, whether professional critics or someone here on BWE, to some extent in making buying decisions. But that's based on similar taste preferences, not some universal truth about whether a wine is "good" or "bad." I love SQN Syrah and Grenache, lots of people agree with me and lots of others find it an abomination. I love Haut Brion. Same deal, there are plenty who line up on both sides of the love it/hate it line.

Regarding Parker, I'll stick with my initial response back on page 1. Initially an extremely positive influence on both Bordeaux and the consumer. More recently a negative influence on the consumer, but only one among many factors. And still a positive influence on the quality of the wine being produced. I should still be around to revisit this argument with respect to the '09s when they've turned into real Bordeaux, so I'll post again in this thread when we all can see this clearly: 2020.

[JonoB]

If you are good enough to taste the La Conseillante-ness in the La Conseillante, then I don't doubt you might be disappointed if it were replaced by even a (objectively?) "better" wine that did not taste quite the same. But it's a brave new world and there's probably an emerging cohort lauding the new, improved La Conseillante and not mourning the old.

Indeed, but both 05 and 06 are from the modern era.
The style hasn't really changed under JEan-Marie... more that they are consistently good now, rather than only being good in suitable vintages. A good thing, but the 05 comments stem from two tastings where on both occasions the table planners sat us next to each other and on both occasions when side by side. I would say the 05 is a great Merlot based wine, and the 06 is a great La Conseillante... if anything it shows not that the wines are bad, but how good a winemaker Jean-Marie is.

[AlexR]

Ken, thanks for helping us to imagine a "contrefactual situation" (i.e. Robert Parker had never been born).

There is a tendency to forget that the great growths of Bordeaux have had a steady following for quite some time.
The demand did not sprung out of nowhere! (nor did Parker "invent" the 82 vintage as has been said, although I know there are people here who will contest that).
In my opinion, it is not as though this demand - and prices - would have necessarily stayed stable without his existence..
There has been a greater interest around the world in fine wine from various origins, and Parker's contribution is only part of the picture.

Parker's first and foremost achievement was to be an interface between Bordeaux and the United States. His scores relate to the US educational system. His notes are in American English. They are also much more freewheeling, enthusiastic and natural than most tasting notes up until then that smacked of the old boy network. He made it possible for people who don't speak French or have an in-depth grounding in wine to go out and buy the stuff with relative confidence. All you needed to know was two digits! The readership of the Wine Advocate is small, but the scoring system is understandable and, as we all known, easy to use as a vector for selling wine.

I think it is impossible for any wine writer not to be influenced by personal relationships. But I believe that Parker has done better than most in not letting that interfere with his judgements. But he is not untainted. He is also a very hard worker and not only tastes, but retastes constantly.

For these reasons, after some soul searching, I voted that his influence was more positive than negative.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[JonoB]

One quick correction. I realized 15 minutes after I sent the previous post (while I was out walking our dog) that I misspoke slightly in responding to the issue of blind tasting.

I should have said that my understanding is that Parker historically tasted wines that were blinded not double-blinded. That is, he knew which wines were in the tasting pool but the identities were obscured through decanting or paper bags. That said, when there are a large number of wines with a range of quality and price, one could argue that there is not much difference between blinding and double blinding.

The purpose of double blinding is, of course, to blind reviewers (usually in clinical trials) to whether an indivdual is in the treatment or control group so that their evaluation would not be influenced by whether they were being treated or not. While drug trials are not as important as wine tasting, I am not sure we really know whether double blinding is necessary for wine tasting and under what conditions.

JonoB - I think you missed the point a bit. The point I was trying to make is that we frequently hear about wines with intense fruit not aging well. The truth is, that does not appear to be the universal case, assuming balanced acidity, alcohol, etc. In fact, they may age better; that is an empirical question that will not be settled by verbal argument. I think it was Bertram Russell who argued against the ontological argument for the existence of god by noting essentially that he either exists or he doesn't; verbal argument does not affect her existence.

Indeed Ken,

I misread that part by reading between the lines, but history shows its contexts as well. Today's 82 and 86 are 09 and 10. If we compare phenolics and alcohol levels, we will find similarities in that they are riper with more fruit and tannin than other vintages such as 83 or 85. However, they are different. 82 and 86 in terms of phenolics, alcohols and component parts would not be considered ripe today. 09 and 10 would have been dismissed as Australian plonk back in the 80s. I won't deny that balanced wines are not going to age well. But I don't find that many modern Bordeaux's are balanced or fresh. 10 is an anomaly as acids are excruciatingly high. If it were white it would be comparable to Rieslings, and those age magnificently, so who is to say what balance is. I look for bright but not harsh acidity and depending on the wine, I look for tannin or fruit on top.

If we look at that basis of structure, for a Pinot you look for white wine acidity, with bright fruit falvours... tannins balanced to the fruit are an added bonus but are not necessary for the wines to age. HWSRN's disdain for Burgundy probably stems from the fact that they do not give him what he is looking for... i.e. lots of fruit and lots of tannin. Similarly, in Piemonte, I look for white wine acidity levels, then for tannin and then either fruit or perfume at levels akin to the tannin. That is a balanced wine that will age for that region. If we look to Bordeaux, I look for acidity, then to tannin and fruit together (these two must be closely knit and harmonious, and there needs to then be enough acid to cut through this combination... if the three are intertwined perfectly, at any level, we see a vintage like 2010. If the acid is higher we see 2008. For me these will both age beautifully, but when the acids drop and the tannin and fruit combination dominates the acid, that is what I would call flabby and will not age in a pleasant way (all wine ages; how is a different question that time and tasting will answer).

A perfect example... I have tasted a number of 2011 Rhone's recently. I think RP will dislike them... as acids are high, and a number of wines are quite green (this is due mainly to winemaking techniques), however, one producers wines were amazing, they will like them but not as much as 09 and 10. They will either (like the top wine as it is the top wine... the issue of blind) or (dislike it for being a grumpy bugger)... I have followed this terroir for a number of years and have basically gone to great lengths to find old bottlings to see what happens (I now have an idea of how this wine should perform) and I believe it to be one of the greatest terroirs in the world, let alone the region it comes from. Many disliked it, and felt it too tough. I was telling everyone, this is how it performs young and from barrel and it needs 15 years in a bad vintage to come good, let alone a good one with bright acidity and poise like this wine... we nabbed the dregs to take to dinner, and low and behold walking outside with the wine sloshing around, and then sitting on the table, it was transformed into a semi-mature example... I reckon the wine will get a reasonable if not amazing score from Parker, but the wine is not about Parker scores, it eschews Parker scores and it is that fresh weedy wine, which will have the most to say when old... it will be the most compelling and probably show the most grace, whilst many of these over-oaked, over-extracted wines fall to pieces.

Show me a 100 pointer from Parker from a producer with little history of ageability that hasn't fallen apart. Show me a Troplong-Mondot that has since the late eighties hit the ethereal heights of those from the good old days.

When the Californian's got whooped in London recently. The Cali's were from great vintages, and those we liked were those that had Bordeaux sensibilities. The wines from Bordeaux that performed, were the ugly-ducklings, the 85s, the 93s, and they showed admirably. These were all thin and weedy, but they had something to say. 90 Troplong-Mondot was such a mess that we all thought the 94 Dominues was Bordeaux. This is real experience of the wines, not some analytical experiment in a laboratory, and it can never be any other way. Wine is a living, breathing thing... like a child it is born and sets out into the world, and if I want ripe, balanced and ageworthy that tastes like Latour... I'll buy some Moss Wood Cabernet thanks, it does modern Bordeaux better than the Bordelaise and has been doing it for decades. I want my Latour to be like Latour, not some top top Cabernet that could be from anywhere other than the fact that it has unique terroir. These old vines are fighting a losing battle and at the minute they are still in the lead where the terroir trounces the winemaking, but what happens when those vines die and are grubbed up? We will see a great lose of terroir distinction as the young vines will do as they are trained or manipulated and adapt to that. Much like when I drink young JJ Prum (sulphur sets off my asthma) my brain expects and produces endorhpins to widen my wind-pipe so that when it closes I can still breathe... if I expect no-sulhpur and it is there, my brain doesn't do this... again, I know this from experience, not through any scientific research or theory, because it is personal to me. These vines live and breathe and have a story to tell. This is why I can't understand the winemaking philosophy of Roberto Veorzio in Barolo... Anyway, I like the mystique of wine... that is what excites me.

[Ken]

Bacchus: The volume by Paul Starr was published, I think, 1982 and won the Pulitizer Prize. It is available in paperback from Amazon and is well worth reading. What Starr does, and he is a sociologist, is use the evolution of medicine as the archtypal example of the development of the "Professions". By profession we usually mean a specialized field of knowledge; which, partly because it is specialized society frequently grants the members with at least: (1) control over who is allowed to enter (e.g., educational requirement) and call themselves "physician"; (2) the ability to self-govern and police the profession; and (3) regulations and public policies governing it. Modern professions frequently have professional journals, professional meetings, and a relatively unique language that is used primarily by members. Thus, in response to DavidG, I would suggest that while the use of the word "professional" is used advisedly, it still may be an appropriate metaphor. We have journals (wine publications), professional meetings (wine tastings), we use a special language (rating systems and wine descriptors, see JonoB's response), and in some sense (except for JimHow, LOL) we claim a special knowledge. The things that are lacking, of course, are the ability to self police the profession and almost as important the presence of the profession in policy and law.

One other note Bacchus, there were back-to-back theme issues of the Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law in 2004 which re-examined Paul Starr's tour de force, written by a range of economists, policy makers, sociologists, and historians which is also quite interesting to read as they attempt to reflect on what we learned and how things have changed. If you wish copies of some of the articles let me know.

I don't disagree with most of JonoBs post immediately above. The one thing I would probably note is my experience in tasting over time; where, when I began tasting and appreciating wines I began by primarily appreciating fruit, perhaps more than any other characteristic. Thus, I naturally started out with an affinity for many of the California wines. My taste changed over time to where I look for complexity, instead of just fruit, balance (particularly with regards to alcohol, acid, and residual sugar (where appropriate), and some degree of typicality. That is, how (and how well) does this wine represent its origins or type. Thus, my palate has shifted dramatically towards bordeaux; although I do have an affinity for the New Zealand sauvignon blancs, particularly for everyday drinking wines. I also love aged white burgundies; but alas there are not many of those around. Perhaps the most important part of my purchasing as opposed to tasting is whether and how much I like the wine and price (particularly given how much wine I drink).

-Ken

[Bacchus]

Thanks, Ken. Starr's book sounds interesting, as do the articles. I have access to the JHPPL here so can chase them down if I decide to read them.

[OrlandoRobert]

I'm so glad to have joined this community. Great debate guys!

I'm not worthy, but I read on . . . .

[JimHow]

We're glad to have you Robert, you and Bobby Goulet clearly have the BWE "attitude"!

[Jeff Leve]

Château 1982 edition of the Féret 1982 edition of the Féret

Ducru Beaucaillou 20,000 C/12 19,000 C/12
Haut Brion 15,000 C/12 16,000 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.
Alex R.

Jeff,

You wrote: "Today, the top chateaux all make less wine" I think you'll find that is inaccurate in most instances.

Yes, I write that. Because it was factually true and accurate. But why let facts from the owners get in the way of a good argument?

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... Sorry for the lateness in the reply, but I've had a life. Your ridiculous contention that Bordeaux is not producing less wine at the top chateaux does not seem to be true, according to the chateau owners. But what do they know? I did check the production figures as you suggested. Only, instead of relying on outdated books, I asked the owners or directors.

Because you mentioned Haut Brion in your post, these are the numbers of cases produced at Château Haut-Brion over the past 30 years. These numbers are direct from Haut Brion. Of course, I am sure you know more than they do... But in case you decide you want to look at reality, instead of fantasy, you might learn something...

1982 21600 cases

1989 17093 cases

1990 18088 cases

2009 11000 cases

2010 8094 cases

As a reminder, this is from a previous post with information supplied by Bruno Borie, the owner of Ducru Beaucaillou. He might know what's going on at Ducru...


In the 80s probably 20 000 to 25 000
In the 90s : 15 000 to 20 000
Since 2003 : 9 to 11 000 (and much less in 2011 & 2012)
In other words we now days produce 50% less grand vin !

I am sure you still think production has not changed. That's fine. I can supply you with the contact information for the tin foil helmt store if you like.

[JonoB]

Jeff,

I think you might want to clarify.
You are talking about Grand vin.

Alex is talking about total production at each property.

These are two entirely different things.
Alex is on the ground, and translates work for a lot of top estates.
He lives and breathes the air there, and the Feret info is given by the people at the Chateau who actually count the inventories and do the accounting.

I'll repeat that... The accountants, and NOT the owners of the Chateau, who are more interested in wining and dining with the world's richest and most influential (and their chums) rather than being all that fussed with exactly how many bottles of what they actually make.

Lets finish and say that you are both correct.
More wine is being produced, but less Grand Vin... make of that what you will.

This is usually one of the less blinkered and belligerant BBs, and I'd like it to stay that way.
You are both speaking in quite a blinkered manner.

Cheers.