Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post Reply

In light of HWSRN's scores, do you consider 2010 to be:

Better than expected
1
11%
Less than expected
2
22%
About as expected
6
67%
 
Total votes: 9
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

I know He says it is a "very great" vintage. I know the scores are high. I know there are ten 100 pointers. I know all that. Still.... When I see the Almighty Lafite coming in at "only" 98 points.... When I see other wines He's been rating high on the left bank in recent years coming in in the low 90s or even (gasp) high 80s, it just doesn't "feel" like a "greatest-since-prehistoric-times" vintage. (Not that He ever said it was, but I do think there has been considerable hype/anticipation about this vintage ) That's just my gut reaction. Some of these estates should be pulling Pontet Canets and Pape Clements and generating 99 or 100 point scores by now. Or at least 95+. Instead, Giscours comes in at 91. La Lagune under 95. Lanessan 87. Chasse Spleen barely a 90. Some of those Parkerized wines like Joanin Becot and Cap de Faugeres only in the high 80s. The mighty Haut Bergey "only" 92, down two points from the 2009. Gruaud Larose.... You'd think theyd be up there. Obviously, the scores are high. I haven't seen His notes yet, but just judging from some of the scores, it seems to me, at least anecdotally, some of the wines He has been thrilled about in recent years hit a ceiling or took a step back. I'm sure there will be a lot of irrational exuberance in purchases, but I'm wondering if the results just don't quite match the anticipation that had built up. Just a gut reaction, without having tasted a single 2010 or without having even seen His notes on the wines, only the scores.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: So... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

More 2010 "disappointments":
De Fieuzal (only 90, down from 94)
Barde Haut (only 92)
Grand Mayne (only 90, a point away from a disastrous 89)
La Vielle Cure ( only 91, although I thought He was high on drugs for rating the gross 2009 at 94 points)
Lagrange ( a disastrous 89+)

Again, at Giscours they've gotta be considering 91 a huge disappointment, if not minor disaster.

I guess I expected to see more scores like the 97 that St. Pierre got, Cantemerle's 94+, etc., etc., etc.
User avatar
JonB
Posts: 501
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2009 2:27 am
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JonB »

There are some similarities to 2005. RP in his first two of 3 reviews cautioned about the high tannin levels in the northern Medoc. Then in the in-bottle review said that the wines came together and was taking away his caution flag. He also did this in 2010, saying in the in-barrel reviews comments related to harsh tannins, that were reversed in the in-bottle reviews. Frankly I was surprised by how strong he reviewed so many wines from the right bank.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

Is there any consensus developing out there about how his final 2010 scores match up to his barrel assessments?
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

If I were Robert Parker, I would have this question for Jim How:

"Jim, for my next Bordeaux report, would you like me to score them too high or too low?"

Kidding aside, I go more by the subjective commentary about the nature and style of a vintage rather than the scores when it comes to getting excited (or not) at this stage of the game. You can argue about whether there really is any validity to that sort of a generalization but we all do it. Later down the road, my impression of a vintage tends to be colored more by the wines I've actually drunk. Right now the 2010s are just words and numbers for me.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

Jim, here's a post from Kevin Shin, comparing his scores to Parker's barrel and bottle scores for a bunch of 2010s:


2010 Bordeaux
I compared my top 50 to Bob’s once again. Some of you may find it interesting. I only spent three days tasting the 10 so I missed Latour, Lafite, Petrus and etc.

Vintage Wine My rating 2012 Bob 2013 Bob 2012
2010 Vieux Château Certan 100 99 96-98
2010 Château Mouton Rothschild 100 98 97-100
2010 Château Beausejour (Duffau Lagarrosse) 99 100 96-100
2010 Château La Violette 99 100 94-97
2010 Château Léoville Poyferré 98 98 95-98
2010 Château Haut-Brion 98 100 98-100
2010 Château Pavie 98 98 95-98
2010 Château Margaux 97 99 96-98
2010 Château Pape Clément 97 100 93-95
2010 Château Haut-Brion Blanc 97 98 94-97
2010 Château Pavie Macquin 97 95 96-98
2010 Clos Fourtet 97 98 95-97
2010 Château Larcis Ducasse 97 98 95-97
2010 Château Faugères Cuvée Spéciale Péby 97 97 94-96
2010 Valandraud 97 97 94-96
2010 Château Pichon-Longueville Baron 96 97 97-99
2010 Château Rauzan-Ségla 96 95 89
2010 Château La Mission Haut-Brion Blanc 96 96 93-95
2010 Château La Mission Haut-Brion 96 98 98-100
2010 Château la Bienfaisance Sanctus 96 88 91-93
2010 Château Rol Valentin 96 92 90-93
2010 Château Smith Haut Lafitte 96 98 95-97
2010 Château Bellevue Mondotte 96 95 93-95
2010 Château Angélus 96 98 94-96
2010 Château Le Gay 96 98 95-97
2010 Clos l'Église (Pomerol) 95 95 92-95
2010 Pavillon Blanc du Château Margaux 95 92
2010 Château Pape Clément Blanc 95 95 93-96
2010 Château La Tour Figeac 95 92 88-90
2010 Château Lucia 95 89 91-93
2010 Château Vray Croix de Gay 94 88
2010 Château Clerc Milon 94 94 91-93
2010 Château Petit Village 94 91 90-92
2010 Château Lascombes 94 96 94-97
2010 Château Magrez Fombrauge 94 95 94-96
2010 Domaine de Chevalier 94 95 91-93
2010 Château Pavie Decesse 94 96 94-96
2010 Château Laplagnotte-Bellevue 94 90
2010 Château Barde-Haut 94 92 91-94
2010 Blanc de Valandraud No. 1 94 87
2010 Château Branon 93 97 96-98
2010 Pavillon Rouge du Château Margaux 93 94 90-92
2010 Le Clementin du Pape Clément 93 92
2010 Château Les Grands Chênes 93 89 87-88
2010 Château La Tour Carnet 93 93 92-94
2010 Château La Gaffelière 93 95 91-93
2010 Château Tertre Daugay 93 88-90
2010 Château Poujeaux 93 90 90-92
2010 Château Les Carmes Haut-Brion 93 90 88-90
2010 Clos des Jacobins 93 90 90-92
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

Anyway, having read Bob's commentary, I don't think he's changed his tune much from the initial report. Dry weather, late harvest, very ripe wines with huge concentration, extract and tannins, plus unusually high acidity given the ripeness and alcohol levels. Quality in the same ballpark as '00, '05 and '09. i think he's still ranking '09 tops of that quartet, with '05 and '10 tied for second, and '00, while still great, bringing up the rear. He says the acids which add freshness and the high tannins in the '10s make them stylistically most like the '05s. Given the stylistic differences, different palates would naturally be expected to rank them differently. A crunchy fruit lover like Jim might put the '10s (or '02s, but chacon a son gout) at the top of the list.

One thing that does seem to have changed from Parker's initial report is that he feels the wines are not shutting down as hard as he initially predicted. At least not yet. I don't think he's backing off on calling this a very structured year that will take a long time to come around.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

Interesting, at least in that sample it looks like the scores are more often than not higher or at the higher end of the range.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

I'll have to try some 2010s and see how they match up against 2002L, the vintage against which all others are measured.

Are any 2010s out there on the shelves yet?
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by robert goulet »

That 91 for the giscours is great news...................for us!! At least one chateau that I like that will not be engaging in price gouging
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

Good point, Robert, although Jeff Leve said he likes it (even) better than the 2009 (HWSRN94). Although, pomilion likes the 2009 better.
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by robert goulet »

Well, leve says '10 labegorce qpr of the vintage....I can go right down the street and buy this for $39....and u know what?....I think I will :)
User avatar
pomilion
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by pomilion »

Here are some stats comparing Parker's current scores for the top red bordeaux of 1982, 1989, 1990, 2000, 2005, 2009 and 2010:

1982:

100 -- 6 wines
98-99 -- 3 wines
96-100 -- 15 wines
95-100 -- 21 wines

1989:

100 -- 4 wines
98-99 -- 1 wine
96-100 -- 9 wines
95-100 -- 15 wines

1990:

100 -- 4 wines
98-99 -- 6 wines
96-100 -- 19 wines
95-100 -- 20 wines

2000:

100 -- 7 wines
98-99 -- 11 wines
96-100 -- 38 wines
95-100 -- 50 wines

2005:

100 -- 2 wines
98-99 -- 16 wines
96-100 -- 35 wines
95-100 -- 63 wines

2009:

100 -- 18 wines
98-99 -- 25 wines
96-100 -- 64 wines
95-100 -- 83 wines

2010:

100 -- 10 wines
98-99 -- 22 wines
96-100 -- 55 wines
95-100 -- 80 wines

Aside from the grade inflation that now has Parker boxed into a corner, I suppose you could say he liked 2009 a little better than 2010. Personally I'd rank the last top recent vintages 2009=2005>2010=2000 but that's just a matter of personal taste and style preference.
User avatar
Bacchus
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by Bacchus »

I voted less than expected. With all the hype, all the Bordelaise claiming 10 was better than 09, I was expecting the Bobber's numbers to be higher, you know, to match the other number which is SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER, the PRICE! For me it was Giscours' score -- what I like to call the G-score -- that stood out; only a 91 in the Vintage of the Millennium!! When I saw that I had just finished reading Molesworth who said 2010 was the best Giscours ever and gave it a 94, which serendipitously, is the same score HWSRN gave to the 09! On the other hand, Jancis Robinson scored the 10 quite a bit higher than she scored the 09.

As for Labegorce, a quick check with Farr suggests a preference for the 09 over the 10. Mr. Parker gave the 09 a 90, while the 10 only got 87. Jancis Robinson also preferred the 09 to the 10, giving it a 17 while the 10 gets slightly less at 16.5. I think I'll have to try the 09 Labegorce, which along with other chateaux like d'Angludet are going to make Margaux the QPR of the 2009 vintage.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

Is it grade inflation if the wines are better? More importantly, are the wines actually better?

An interesting experiment would be to compare the 2009 and 1982 versions of the 40 or 50 wines that scored 96 points or more in 2009 but not in 1982. Of course it would be impossible to account for the 27-year age difference without a time machine.

I think the wines are probably better. But even if that's true, Patrick makes a good point that Parker's boxed in at the top end of the scale. This isn't new. He once wrote of '96 Lafite something to the effect that it was a better 100 than other 100s. And it's only gotten worse since then.
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by robert goulet »

An interesting experiment would be to compare the 2009 and 1982 versions.
I can not concur with this since these wines are in completely to different stages in their evolution


But I agree Parker and others have boxed themselves into a hyperinflation points corner, wine techniques and vineyard/viticulturist management will only improve so what happens in the next vintage of the century?

Oh, I know what will happen........................Giscours 100 pts
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

BobbyG - did you not read the rest of that paragraph? All we need is a time machine...
User avatar
Bacchus
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by Bacchus »

My goodness, I decided to check on the availability of Ch. Labegorce. My local store has both the 08 and 09 (no 10s yet). The shocker is that the 09 is the cheaper of the two! Anyone else find that in their local market?
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by robert goulet »

Hahahaha, my bad, was skimming because I was reading and messing with the kids, multitasking!

Though With many many '09 vs.'10 tastings....it's going to be fun times ahead!
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

Not seeing that on Wine Searcher Bacchus, where the '09 Labegorce runs $40 and the '08 $35 at Total Wines nationwide.
User avatar
Bacchus
Posts: 1000
Joined: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:25 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by Bacchus »

Guess we're a little idiosyncratic out here, all alone, in the middle of the cold, cold Atlantic ocean! Oh well, gotta take advantage of the inverted pricing scheme.
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

To those here who fret about the supposed 100-point ceiling (or box as you call it), I have already supplied the solution, right here in this forum, within the last year, complete and with a full logical, philosophical, and near god-like, bullet-proof and teflon-coated explication/justification/geometric/algebraic/quantum theory-compatible proof. I don't recall the thread but I'll try and dig it up when I have more time.

In brief, there is no reason why a critic should be bounded by 100 points. Frankly I'm a little surprised that no critic has realized this (well, not really given what I know of critics) and has attempted to capture the publicity and notoriety attendant to handing out the first supra-100 point scores.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20106
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by JimHow »

Hmmm are you referring to the theoretically possible yet never before seen quantum God score?
User avatar
OrlandoRobert
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by OrlandoRobert »

Back to the poll question, there really should be - and I say this respectfully, a voting option of "Who the "f" cares".

I really do not care how he or any critic ultimately scores the vintage or the flagship wines. I got a huge chuckle by all the vitriole on eBob over Bob's final bottle scoring of the 2005s. Lots of people bought the big names clearly for investment, and felt like a 98 killed their investment. I doubt most of us can truly discern a couple of points here and there, whether X wine is really a 97 or a 99. I have scored 2 wines "perfectly" in my camp, but is that 100, 99, 101 or whatever? They were the two best wines I ever had and I could not have imagined anything better. Is that 100 or just 100 compared to everything else I have personally experienced.

This is not to say that critics' scores and notes have no relevance. I would be lying if I said I did not look at them. They are helpful in some respect to frame your purchasing decisions, especially if a lot of the critics agree. Then I look to the Boards and people I respect. And the vintner, some of whom like Sociando, Ridge, La Lagune, etc., that I buy in many vintages. As I do not get to try any wines in barrel or in advance, I rely on those data points. If I can wait and taste, everything else becomes irrelevant.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by DavidG »

Parker does not play dice with the Bordeaux scores.
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by Blanquito »

"Parkerized mechanics are certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not the real thing. The Parker theory says a lot -- green harvesting, stricter selection, minimum manipulation, ultra-low oxygen in elevage, etc. --, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the "old one", AKA the '61 Latour.

I, at any rate, am convinced that old school wine-makers do not throw dice."

- Translation of Clive "Good Grip" Coates' letter to Michael Broadbent, Harvest 2006
User avatar
robert goulet
Posts: 1266
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 8:18 am
Contact:

Re: Poll... In light of HWSRN scores, is 2010 a disappointment?

Post by robert goulet »

. This is not to say that critics' scores and notes have no relevance. I would be lying if I said I did not look at them. They are helpful in some respect to frame your purchasing decisions, especially if a lot of the critics agree. Then I look to the Boards and people I respect
What Robert is subtlety saying here is.....I buy no wine Goulet recommends ;)
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 14 guests