Is Parker the new Gilman?!

[Bacchus]

I saw some 08 Figeac on the shelves of my local store, so decided to take a look at HWSRN, who wrote:

Lean and austere with vegetal characteristics, this dark ruby-colored 2008 reveals a hollow mid-palate and moderate tannins in the finish. There are some complex elements in the aromatics, but that does not follow through on the palate. Drink it over the next 7-8 years as it does not appear to possess the substance or concentration to last.
Score: 81 Robert Parker, Wine Advocate (194), May 2011

After our discussion of Gilman, I can't help but wonder, is that a stunt score?

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

I think you need to try a bottle for the team. It's the BWE way, you know.

[pomilion]

Parker's basic attitude toward Figeac is encapsulated in this excerpt from his latest review of the 2000 (sounds like a wine Gilman would love!):

"... a herbaceous, thin, washed-out style. Of course, there are those who would defend this wine as a quintessentially elegant, old-style, classic wine, but dilution is dilution, vegetal is vegetal, and the wine frankly lacks concentration and is a major disappointment."

Would be interesting to see what Parker thinks of '09 Figeac (which he hasn't reviewed, for reasons that are unclear but may have to do with his frosty relations with the estate) -- it was one of the top wines at last year's UGC and reminded me more of 2000 Pavie than Parker's description of 2000 Figeac quoted above...

[Nicklasss]

HWRSN is kinda same attitude lately with Gruaud Larose. Hé was the same with Belair. And Beausejour Duffau, before being bought.

Seems like each critic has his "black sheep", for sometime obscure reasons... And I don't think it is very fair.

But Croizet-Bages is the "black sheep" of all critics.

Nic

[stefan]

>>
But Croizet-Bages is the "black sheep" of all critics.
>>

And deservedly so!

[OrlandoRobert]

Luv me sum Figeac!!

A 1990 I had last year was mind-bogglingly good.

[JCNorthway]

I had a single bottle of 1990 Figeac which was drunk about 6-7 years ago. Your description mirrors my experience!

[DavidG]

If Parker were pulling a Gilman he would've given it a lot less than 81 points. Maybe even less than his minimum of 50 - a "negative" score!

And I guess he'd have to hate the 2010 Troplong Mondot.

[MatthewB]

As a big fan of Gilman's palette, I hesitantly share some of the producers he provided in a recent personal email that represent classically-styled BDX. Obviously for purposes of this thread, Figeac is on this list. He also places the 2008 vintage in front of the '09 and '10.

Beychevelle – Saint Julien (4th)
Calon-Segur - Saint-Estèphe (3rd)
Canon - Saint-Émilion (Premier Grand Cru B)
Cantemerle – Haut-Medoc (Cinquièmes Crus)
Chasse-Spleen - Moulis-en-Médoc
Figeac - Saint-Émilion (Premier Grand Cru B)
Haut-Bailly – Pessac-Leognan (Premiers Crus)
La Tour de By- Medoc
Lagrange – Saint Julien (3rd)
Laujac - Medoc
Magdelaine - Saint-Émilion (Premier Grand Cru B)
Montrose - Saint-Estèphe (2nd)
Pontet-Canet – Pauillac ( 5th)
Potensac – Medoc
Rauzan-Gassies – Margaux (2nd)

[Winona Chief]

Not quite sure why Parker has this thing against Figeac. He gave his lowest score by far (76 points) to 1982 Figeac in his tasting notes of the wines at the big 1982 Bordeaux 30th Anniversary gala he hosted last fall. In contrast, most people in our wine group had 1982 Figeac as one of the top two or three wine in a big DC tasting a couple years ago. Panos Kakaviatos, Howard Cooper, Faryan Amir-Ghassemi (Faryan scored it at 98) and others raved about it. I really liked it as well.

Agree with OrlandoRobert regarding 1990 Figeac, I have had several good experieces with 1990 Figeac over the last few years. At a vertical of 11 selected notable vintages of Figeac (1986-2009) in DC with owner Eric d’Aramon in January 2012, I found the 1990, 1998, 2005 and 2009 Figeac to be outstanding. My only complaint was how expensive the 2009 has gotten. Others at the tasting had good things to say about the 1986 and 2001 (I tried them but can't remember them right now). I do tend to agree with Parker's view on the 2000 Figeac - I thought that one was a bit unripe and pretty weak for the vintage.

Chris Bublitz

[Michael Malinoski]

Going back through my notes, it appears I've managed to go all these years without ever tasting a Figeac from any vintage. I'll have to get on that right away! I did have a very nice 2000 Yon Figeac a month or so back, though, which I'll post a note on soon.

-Michael

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Beychevelle – Saint Julien (4th)
Calon-Segur - Saint-Estèphe (3rd)
Canon - Saint-Émilion (Premier Grand Cru B)
Cantemerle – Haut-Medoc (Cinquièmes Crus)
Chasse-Spleen - Moulis-en-Médoc
Figeac - Saint-Émilion (Premier Grand Cru B)
Haut-Bailly – Pessac-Leognan (Premiers Crus)
La Tour de By- Medoc
Lagrange – Saint Julien (3rd)
Laujac - Medoc
Magdelaine - Saint-Émilion (Premier Grand Cru B)
Montrose - Saint-Estèphe (2nd)
Pontet-Canet – Pauillac ( 5th)
Potensac – Medoc
Rauzan-Gassies – Margaux (2nd)

I've had at least one of almost each of those wines, with the notable exception of Figeac and Canon, and liked them all. And they weren't always from the most heralded vintages either. Of course I've also liked a lot of wines that have been tagged with the "modern" label too.

It's one thing for someone to say he doesn't like a wine and score it 81 or 79 points (or 3 even), yet it seems to me to be an entirely different thing to declare that "dilution is dilution" as that's dipping into the realm of the objective, and I don't think the minimum concentration level for Bordeaux is empirically determined anywhere nor defined in the "rules" governing to what wines the name Bordeaux may be applied. So saying that arrogates to oneself the status of "decider" and not merely critic. For me the same thing apples to criticism of Pavie or whatever other wine along the lines of alcohol levels, viscosity or "this is Port, not Bordeaux."

It also sort of undermines a claim to be able to not like the style of a wine yet pretend to assign some sort of meaningful score to it as if you were a neutral arbiter.

[Comte Flaneur]

I attended a Figeac vertical tasting with Comte Eric D'Aramon in London in November. He admits he is going for an elegant, nuanced, style of Saint Emilion and doesn't really care what Parker thinks or says. In fact he revels in the criticism and wears it as a badge of honor because he has his devotees and can easily sell his wine at high prices.

However he does readily admit that he picked too early in 2000. I tried that wine last year and I really liked it, but the 2001 is better. As for his 2008 I thought it was an outstanding wine. At the vertical we tried 2010, 09, 08, 07, 06, 05, 04, 03, 98 and 86, and of the noughties' wines the 08 was probably my favorite because the 09 and 10 were noticeably heavier and bigger hitters and may have sacrificed some finesse.

However, the stars were 1998 and 1986, which demonstrated how well these wines age and develop. Having said that I had the 1982 twice last year and was disappointed on both occasions. At our 1982 horizontal it was the weakest link and outclassed by Cheval Blanc.

http://www.decanter.com/wine-events/pic ... #slideshow

[Jeff Leve]

Figeac is not one of my favorite St. Emilon wines. It's often, light and unripe. Having tasted with Parker the same bottle of 2000 Figeac, I gave it 85 Pts. I happily sold all my 1982 and 1990 Figeac ages ago. Your mileage may vary. www.thewinecellarinsider.com/?page_id=1339

[Tom In DC]

Catch 22. Parker takes tons of heat for not publishing reviews of Figeac since it didn't typically make his 85 or more point cutoff for publication.

So he publishes a review or two, and guess what? He takes a lot of heat!

[Blanquito]

Catch 22. Parker takes tons of heat for not publishing reviews of Figeac since it didn't typically make his 85 or more point cutoff for publication.

So he publishes a review or two, and guess what? He takes a lot of heat!

Good point, Tom. Parker calls 'em like he sees 'em. Too bad the prices remain so high despite his panning of the wine (proving that some wines, and Burgundy, are critic-proof).

I haven't had many Figeac's, but I really enjoyed the 2000 the one time I had it back at a BWE tasting in 2006. The whole table really liked it, I recall, including Dale, Arv, Ramon, and others FWIW. We lost those notes when the old BWE archives went off-line (a shame that, a bit of history, a more innocent youth, lost in cyberspace).

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

He takes the heat but he doesn't feel it. That 85-point rule makes sense for no-name wines, but seems a bit of a disservice to the consumer when is comes to something as rare/exalted as a PGCC-B or whatever Figeac is.

I still say Bacchus needs to try a bottle of this. Actually I think it's in the bylaws, right Jim? I think it's under the section on call-outs.

[Bacchus]

Still thinking about it Art.

[Claudius2]

Guys
I have had 08 Figeac on at least three occasions and the first time I liked it so much I bought a case.
It does not matter to me if anyone else likes it or not.
It is not thin and vegetal at all.
Yet it is not a super concentrated, extracted wine either.