An open letter to Robert Parker: Bob, please retire.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:18 pm

Your 100 point scoring system has created an obsessive world wide competition for the finest Bordeauxs that has turned the world's greatest wine region into a luxury item for the rich and famous. Bordeaux has gone Rolex on us.

Do you or others have to buy the top rated wines? There are so great Bordeaux wines made today that sell for a pittance, when compared to wines from other in-demand regions.

Of course I don't have to buy the top rated wines. I don't have to buy my beloved Lynch Bages anymore. I mean, I'm not going to die if I can't buy any more vintages of Pichon Baron, Pichon Lalande, Ducru Beaucaillou, Duhart Milon, Palmer, etc., all wines I could afford just a few years ago. As I've indicated to you previously, for me personally, the Haut Bergeys and Charmails and Vrai Canon Bouches of the world just don't thrill me. No matter how much I have tried, I just can't make myself love those new age Parkerized wines the same way I've loved other wines that are now out of my price range at least in part because of the world wide obsession among the rich and elite for top Parker points.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:19 pm

Also, I think many of us feel that your American scoring system has created a homogenization, an internationalization, a "Parkerization" -- a sameness -- in the wines that are being produced in Bordeaux.

Who is the many of us? Some people agree with you, but I do not see it that way.

Fair enough, maybe i should have said "some" of us rather than "many" of us.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:21 pm

Give me the wines of the past -- wines of character, wines of uniqueness -- over these boring, alcoholic, cookie cutter efforts being produced today with the sole intention of garnering the highest Parker points possible.

There are numerous producers that still make wines in a traditional style. And fortunately for fans of those wines, they have not shot up much in price.

Sociando Mallet is a traditional wine that I like that has not shot up in price. Seems to me those wines are becoming more and more rare. What are some others that you would consider traditional that are still rationally priced?

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:23 pm

Jeff -

Do you think Robert Parker is good for consumers now, and if so, why?

Thanks.

Robert

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:27 pm

To Jim's point, you can also see how Parker's ratings and heavy hype have also shot up the price of other regions as well, most notably in the Rhone. Look at the price of the CDPs these days. Even my beloved Clape, once barely getting the attention of Bob, now garners 99 and 100 in 2 consecutive vintages, and the price has gone up 2-3 times. The current price for the 2010 Clape Cornas is $189-$265. I paid $89 for the 2009. A 1-point difference.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:27 pm

There are many out there today who will say that your influence has had a positive impact on the wine making of Bordeaux; that there is stricter selection, more investment in equipment and cellars, etc. That may be true to a certain extent.

What do you mean by may be true to some extent?

i'm guessing that Parker must have had at least some impact on better winemaking... cleaning up cellars, better selection, etc. I'm also just guessing that a lot of improvements would have occurred as a matter of course in the past thirty years without Parker, just as cars, computers, spaceships, medical equipment, and just about everythig else has improved with advances in science and technology. Couple that with increased wealth in the world and I think Bordeaux and other wine regions would have improved their winemaking regardless of Parker. i have no idea how to quantify that one way or the other, it's just an opinion. The reason why I cited the decade of the 1980s is that it seems like there were many well made wines from that decade that were produced at a time when Parker, while making a name for himself, probably did not have anything close to the impact on the markets that he has today.

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 9:37 pm

I request that you consider retiring from the 100 point system of rating wines, in an effort to preserve the integrity of the wine markets of Bordeaux. I ask that you do it in the best interests of we the world wine consumers on whose behalf you have worked so hard to advocate over the past three decades or so of your distinguished career.

If you were really serious about this, with at least the hope of him reading it, you should post it on his website.

I have not been on his site in years. I beiieve you have to register to go on it? Is Squires still involved with the site? My recollections about the site were that the members there, in general, think robert Parker walks on water. I also seem to recall that it is a pretty "serious" group, lacking the irreverence and humor we have here. I'm sure that's an overgeneralization and I'm sure there are many good natured people who post on the Parker site. My guess is that, if I posted a letter like this over there, it would result in personal attacks, vitriole, insults, ridicule, etc. as I said to David above, my "open letter" to Parker was not intended as any sort of "attack" on him. Maybe the title of the thread urging "retirement" is a bit provocative, but the point I'm just trying to make in the letter is similar to those I tried to make in the thread with the poll asking whether we are better off or worse off because of the existence of Robert Parker. I'm just one person who believes it is at least not a cut and dry issue, that at least some questions can be raised on both sides. The beauty of BWE (and obviously I'm biased) is that we can usually have discussions about these things without devolving into the nastiness and bile that we often see on other sites. So, while you make a fair suggestion, Jeff, I just don't think they would be able to "handle" such a discussion on the Parker site. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, I haven't been over there in years. I just recall some of those really, really nasty discussions they used to have over there, and I'm skeptical that a rational discussion could be had on the subject on the Parker site.

Tom In DC · Post by **Tom In DC** » Sun Mar 17, 2013 11:32 pm

For the record, I don't think Duhart Milon pricing went up due to Parker - its association with Domaines Lafite and the subsequent demand in China caused that particular huge increase.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:34 am

JimHow wrote:Some fair questions Jeff. I'm tired this afternoon but I'll try to answer your points individually in the next day or so.

I was looking forward to buying some 2010 Cantemerle. Since your 94 point rating last month, it has risen in price and disappeared from the shelves of many retailers. It is my fault, of course, not yours, that I waited too long to pull the trigger on some Cantemerle. However, some of us are concerned that Cantemerle will be the next "victim" of the Robert Parker 100 point scoring system, following in the footsteps of such other previously accessible wines like Duhart Milon, Pontet Canet, Pape Clement, Leoville Poyferre, La Lagune, Smith Haut Lafitte, Leoville Barton, etc., etc., etc.

Jim, are you serious? Cantemerle has moved from $35 to $40. It might be more expensive at your local store, but that is not the case all over the world, But more important, if Bob had rated the wine 87 pts, and it remained the same price, would you be buying it? I doubt it. You are only interested in the wine because Parker gave it 94 Pts and it sells for nothing. Isn't that a bit of a double standard?
A $35 to $40 increase basically overnight. Gee, Jeff, that's a 15% increase in price, and that's one of the more modest examples of the impact of Robert Parker. But I don't agree that I want 2010 Cantemerle because it gathered a RMP94. I wanted to buy Cantemerle because it's a wine I've been enjoying in recent years, but now because of the worldwide fascination with Parker points, I see it going the way of Duhart Milon, Pontet Canet, etc., etc. Bob Parker has every right to score his wines, and score them whatever he wants. But in doing so he is hurting us consumers, not helping us, because the prices are rising dramatically based on what he says.

Jim.... You can math it out anyway you want, but you are talking about $5. While you can say the $5 jump in price was overnight, another point could have been made that it took almost 2 years to move in price. But neither of those points are paramount.

First, you are still getting a great, classified growth that Parker scored 94 Pts for $40. If you say you were going to buy 2010 Cantemerle, even if Parker gave it 85 Pts, OK, if you say so. Personally, no disrespect meant, but I find that hard to believe. But if so, why would wait and only buy it after the scores came out?

The wine market is not solely based on points. People are seeking the best wines for the money and they have come to trust Parker's taste. If you like the wines he enjoys, that is a smart move.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 12:40 am

JimHow wrote:
Give me the wines of the past -- wines of character, wines of uniqueness -- over these boring, alcoholic, cookie cutter efforts being produced today with the sole intention of garnering the highest Parker points possible.

There are numerous producers that still make wines in a traditional style. And fortunately for fans of those wines, they have not shot up much in price.
Sociando Mallet is a traditional wine that I like that has not shot up in price. Seems to me those wines are becoming more and more rare. What are some others that you would consider traditional that are still rationally priced?

Jim... There are lots of traditional wines. Most of St. Estephe and much of the Haut Medoc produce traditional wines of quality. There are traditional producers in Pessac Leognan as well.

It's just my opinion, but, while 82, 89 & 90 Lynch Bages are stunning, 2009 Pagodes, the second wine of Cos is better than every other vintage of Lynch Bages in the 80's, and with the exception of 1996, it's better than all those other vintages as well. While there are wines that have become more expensive, your house, car, stocks and everything is more money as well. Would you give back those gains to buy wines for less?

As for producers seeking Parker points, perhaps they are just striving to make better wine, and in the process, they are earning higher scores.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:00 am

Jeff Leve wrote: "If you say you were going to buy 2010 Cantemerle, even if Parker gave it 85 Pts, OK, if you say so. Personally, no disrespect meant, but I find that hard to believe."

Actually, Jeff, I wouldn't doubt that Jim and at least some of the others on this board would buy wines rated by Parker at 85. I only joined this on-line community about 2 years ago, and it is not uncommon at all for Jim and others to not only recommend wines that Parker rates from 85-89, but to suggest deliberately seeking these wines out. More than one has commented that the wines they like best are commonly rated by Parker in the 87 +/- 2 range. Different strokes, eh?

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:10 am

If it were just a matter of Cantemerle going up by $5, we wouldn't be having a problem here. But the problem is a lot worse than that.

Do you think there has been "Parkerization" Jeff? I.e., do you think there is any trend among Bordeaux winemakers to appeal to Parker's palate to achieve higher scores and thus achieve higher profits? Or is that just an over-exaggerated and/or imagined phenomenon?

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:15 am

Jim you have a valid point that RP's high scores contribute to higher prices, which is not good for consumers. Particularly the ones who can figure out what they want without his advice. He is still probably helpful at least on one level, if not on the price level, for those less experienced consumers who want and need guidance on what to try. I used to depend on Bob's reviews pretty heavily, but less and less so as I've learned what I like.

Nicklasss · Post by **Nicklasss** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:24 am

Jeff Leves wrote: it is just my opinion, but, while 82, 89 & 90 Lynch Bages are stunning, 2009 Pagodes, the second wine of Cos is better than every other vintage of Lynch Bages in the 80's, and with the exception of 1996, it's better than all those other vintages as well.

Weirdest thing I've read in the last 10 years! But I won't add more as BWE is a respectuous community that like to read everyones opinion. But Please, If the 09 Pagodes is "better" than the 85, 86 or 88 Lynch Bages, don't say it too loud because that mean that the 09 Pagodes is better than 99% of the "glorious" Bordeaux of the 80's...

Nic

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:51 am

I have read many of Leve's notes and it is clear that Jeff enjoys the flamboyant wines of the last decade.(though I never had the '09 cos it has been deemed a bit Cali-like or port-like)..and he really loves those sexed up right bankers and rightfully so......but to make a statement like that above is really a matter of style...and I will go with the 80's lynch over Pagodes 6 out of the 7 days of the week. Anyway '09 pagodes here in Orlando, all day...any 80's lynch wouldn't last an hour on the shelves.

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:35 am

My palate is similar in some respects to Jeff's in that we share a love for ripe vintages of Bordeaux and I think we both believe that they will turn into true Bordeaux as they age. And we both think Burgs are under-fruited acid water. Jeff's comment that '09 Pagodes is better than any Lynch from the decade of the '80s gave me pause, though.

Jeff's praise and prose may be exuberant at times but he is not prone to tossing out false or exaggerated comparisons in my experience. As outrageous as it seems on it's face, that little nugget about Pagodes has me thinking I need to invest $60-70 to see for myself. I think BobbyG is right about it being a style thing. Cos in '09 is very polarizing. I'm not interested $300-350 worth to see for myself about Cos, but the Pagodes may just be affordable enough and approachable enough in its youth for Jeff's comment to get me to pull the trigger on one.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:57 am

Bacchus wrote:Jeff Leve wrote: "If you say you were going to buy 2010 Cantemerle, even if Parker gave it 85 Pts, OK, if you say so. Personally, no disrespect meant, but I find that hard to believe."

Actually, Jeff, I wouldn't doubt that Jim and at least some of the others on this board would buy wines rated by Parker at 85. I only joined this on-line community about 2 years ago, and it is not uncommon at all for Jim and others to not only recommend wines that Parker rates from 85-89, but to suggest deliberately seeking these wines out. More than one has commented that the wines they like best are commonly rated by Parker in the 87 +/- 2 range. Different strokes, eh?

Like I said to Jim, you could be right. But, I find it a little harder to believe, once people start buying the wine after Parkers scores came out. If Jim or others say it is true, I believe them. But I find the timing makes it seem a little bit disingenuous.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:04 am

Nicklasss wrote:Jeff Leves wrote: it is just my opinion, but, while 82, 89 & 90 Lynch Bages are stunning, 2009 Pagodes, the second wine of Cos is better than every other vintage of Lynch Bages in the 80's, and with the exception of 1996, it's better than all those other vintages as well.

Weirdest thing I've read in the last 10 years! But I won't add more as BWE is a respectuous community that like to read everyones opinion. But Please, If the 09 Pagodes is "better" than the 85, 86 or 88 Lynch Bages, don't say it too loud because that mean that the 09 Pagodes is better than 99% of the "glorious" Bordeaux of the 80's...

Nic

Nic... Why is it weird? I have tasted 09 Pagodes multiple times. There are tasting notes on my site. I have tasted all the 80's vintages of LB on numerous occasions. Those notes are on my site as well. That is how I see it. You can, after tasting the wine, agree or not. FWIW, I did not say, nor did I imply 09 Pagodes was better than 99% of all the wines from the glorious decade of the 80's. I was talking about LB. If you want to toss in Cos too, aside from the 82, & 90, 09 Pagodes is better than all the other vintages of Cos from that decade as well.

IMO, while there were numerous wonderful wines produced in the 80's, when you look at it, OK, when I look at it, they are from perhaps 20-30 producers. Today, that is not the case. More than 100 producers are making good wine today!

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:11 am

JimHow wrote: Do you think there has been "Parkerization" Jeff? I.e., do you think there is any trend among Bordeaux winemakers to appeal to Parker's palate to achieve higher scores and thus achieve higher profits? Or is that just an over-exaggerated and/or imagined phenomenon?

Jim, IMO, Parkerization is frankly a boogeyman word without meaning. If you think Parker only likes one style of wine, and that is fine if you do, there is no point in having the discussion. But if you think Parker enjoys a myriad of styles ranging from Pavie to Cantemerle to Haut Brion, to PIchon Lalande, to Haut Bailly to Cheval Blanc to Trotanoy to Vieux Chateau Certan to Lynch Bages to Palmer to Sociando Mallet etc... there is something to discuss.

As I posted earlier in this thread, producers get higher scores for making better wine. It is that simple. If that is Parkerization, I am all for it. You and others are welcome to think Parker is wrong, that is what a palate is for.

Bacchus · Post by **Bacchus** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 7:35 am

Well hello serendipity; a bit of insomnia led me to another board and the discovery of a discussion of 86 Bdx, including some blind tasting notes:
http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vie ... e96ff102f6

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:13 am

So Jeff is $79 for pagodes reasonable to u? That's the going price around here

JimHow · Post by **JimHow** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 10:41 am

My plans to buy Cantemerle really had nothing to do with the RMP94. I had been eyeing it on the PJs site, where it was available on pre arrival. I almost never buy any wine on pre arrival, although I did buy a few 2009s that way, I agree Parker likes all styles of wine but he seems to be very enthusiastic about those Parkerized wines.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:22 pm

[quote="Jeff Leve......It's just my opinion, but, while 82, 89 & 90 Lynch Bages are stunning, 2009 Pagodes, the second wine of Cos is better than every other vintage of Lynch Bages in the 80's, .......[/quote]

2009 Les Pagodes de Cos is a scaled down version of Cos d’Estournel. It lacks the intensity and completeness, but at a fraction of the price, it offers some of what makes COS sublime in 2009. Dark berries, floral, spice and chocolate aromatics fill your glass. The long finish ends with waves of ripe, dark, fresh berries and spice. 91-93 Pts

1. 1985 Château Lynch-Bages
1. Tobacco, truffle, earth and red fruit. Medium bodied, light, fully mature, the fruit had started to fade in this bottle, which ended in a cassis and cranberry finish. While this bottle was probably not perfect, based on other examples, this is not a wine to hold. I'd drink it sooner than later.
90 points - Tasted Dec 7, 2011
6650 Views
2. Fully mature, with a light ruby color and hints of tea at the edges, cedar wood, cassis, herbs, tobacco, coffee and forest aromas are easy to find. Soft in texture, and lacking the levels of concentration found in the best vintages of Lynch Baqes, this silky wine ends with spice coated red and black fruits. This is not going to improve and has already started to gently decline. Drink up.
92 points - Tasted Oct 31, 2011
6512 Views
3. The wine is filled with scents of cedar, tobacco, cassis, earth, forest and blackberry aromas. This old school, charming style of Pauillac is mature, but is not in danger of falling apart in the near future. The full bodied spice and cassis filled finish shows a bit of rusticity.
93 points - Tasted Jun 25, 2010
5958 Views
4. Lots of ripe dark and red fruit with hints of cedar in the nose. Unlike the 86, ample charm is discovered in this mature, cassis filled wine that is a pleasure to drink.
92 points - Tasted Nov 1, 2002

Seems like a pretty week agrument.

And for what its worth I think the homogenous nature is due more to weather patterns. But price is correlated with Paker points.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 1:32 pm

Jeff wrote: Do you or others have to buy the top rated wines? There are so great Bordeaux wines made today that sell for a pittance, when compared to wines from other in-demand regions.

Cool. What are they? Where are they? I know a lot of people is the business and they are NOT interested is selling these. The profit margins are in the heavy point hitters.

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:19 pm

Neil Martin slapped a (must have)

87-89 point score on it...I think Jancis went 15.5

Sounds like a typical controversial Parker wine

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:22 pm

robert goulet wrote:So Jeff is $79 for pagodes reasonable to u? That's the going price around here

I lke the wine, but not at that price. At the roughtly $50 it was first priced at, it was a steal. I would not buy it or tell others to pay $80. Your much better off buying wines like d'Issan, Grand Puy Lacoste, Brane Cantenac, Branaire Ducru and others for that much money.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:26 pm

RDD wrote:Jeff wrote: Do you or others have to buy the top rated wines? There are so great Bordeaux wines made today that sell for a pittance, when compared to wines from other in-demand regions.

Cool. What are they? Where are they? I know a lot of people is the business and they are NOT interested is selling these. The profit margins are in the heavy point hitters.

I am not up on all the prices for wines. I bought a lot of 2009. I took down a lot less 2010.

For true value wines, spend a minute or two on this page. It focuses on $20-$40 estates. http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... ons-guide/

All

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 2:35 pm

Jeff Leve wrote:
RDD wrote:Jeff wrote: Do you or others have to buy the top rated wines? There are so great Bordeaux wines made today that sell for a pittance, when compared to wines from other in-demand regions.

Cool. What are they? Where are they? I know a lot of people is the business and they are NOT interested is selling these. The profit margins are in the heavy point hitters.
I am not up on all the prices for wines. I bought a lot of 2009. I took down a lot less 2010.

For true value wines, spend a minute or two on this page. It focuses on $20-$40 estates. http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... ons-guide/

All

I understand the appellations. My point was there is no consumer's advocate (other than you perhaps) that is championing any particular bottles or estates. I rarely see anything but the most well known Bordeaux stocked or advertised in price lists.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:20 pm

RDD wrote:
Jeff Leve wrote:
RDD wrote:Jeff wrote: Do you or others have to buy the top rated wines? There are so great Bordeaux wines made today that sell for a pittance, when compared to wines from other in-demand regions.

Cool. What are they? Where are they? I know a lot of people is the business and they are NOT interested is selling these. The profit margins are in the heavy point hitters.
I am not up on all the prices for wines. I bought a lot of 2009. I took down a lot less 2010.

For true value wines, spend a minute or two on this page. It focuses on $20-$40 estates. http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bor ... ons-guide/

All
I understand the appellations. My point was there is no consumer's advocate (other than you perhaps) that is championing any particular bottles or estates. I rarely see anything but the most well known Bordeaux stocked or advertised in price lists.

The importance of page I sent you to, is the individual estates, not the appellations. But setting that aside, I do not understand your comment. Parker tastes and writes about more Bordeaux value wines than any other 2 writers combined. He seeks the stuff out. He must write about hundreds of value priced wines in his report. It could be argued, that is what he does best.

FWIW, most of the wines on the link are closer to the more modern, sexier side of the style range. In the Medoc and Haut Medoc, you can buy top wines for between $50 & $100. While that is not cheap, those wines compete with many wines selling for twice the price.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:51 pm

Too early Monday to worry about all this.
I just don't see many of these wines flogged in price letters etc.....
I gave up on the Wine Advocate when Rovani came on board. Want some crap Verget?
But in my limited world I see New Zealand/Australia/Argentina/Chile/California taking up much more shelf space than Bordeaux QPR.
Different strokes..............

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:36 pm

robert goulet wrote:Neil Martin slapped a (must have) 87-89 point score on it...I think Jancis went 15.5

Sounds like a typical controversial Parker wine

On my 94-rated Cantemerle!?! Damn, anyone wanna buy my futures for $35 and I'll take the $5 loss?

robert goulet · Post by **robert goulet** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:41 pm

No Robert we r discussing the pagodes '09

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:48 pm

robert goulet wrote:No Robert we r discussing the pagodes '09

Phew, I dodged a bullett!

DavidG · Post by **DavidG** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 4:51 pm

I think Rob's point is that he's just not seeing that much QPR Bordeaux at retail. It's overwhelmed, volume-wise, by stuff from other countries in the $20-40 price range. Retailers' Bordeaux focus seems to be on the wines that get the big scores. This is something that Alex frequently complains about - the focus on cru classe wines in the US.

Last year at Macarthur's, one of the bigger DC retailers, I saw a small shelf promoting about a dozen inexpensive '09s in the $15-$30 range. I tried a few of them and they were good early drinkers, but they weren't being sold as and didn't come across as wines that would develop the Bordeaux magic in the bottle 15-20 years out. For that, you gotta pay the big(ger) bucks. Jeff's value page linked above seems to be in between these extremes. I wonder what kind of aging record these wines have. Because for me, Bordeaux isn't really Bordeaux until it gets old. For early drinking stuff, I'm happy with Cotes du Rhone or Beaujolais in good years. Inexpensive Bordeaux may be an adequate substitute for those, but so far it hasn't been an adequate substitute for the Gruauds, GPLs, Pichons, Leovilles, etc., never mind the first growths, which got too expensive years ago.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:29 pm

DavidG wrote:I think Rob's point is that he's just not seeing that much QPR Bordeaux at retail. It's overwhelmed, volume-wise, by stuff from other countries in the $20-40 price range. Retailers' Bordeaux focus seems to be on the wines that get the big scores. This is something that Alex frequently complains about - the focus on cru classe wines in the US.

Last year at Macarthur's, one of the bigger DC retailers, I saw a small shelf promoting about a dozen inexpensive '09s in the $15-$30 range. I tried a few of them and they were good early drinkers, but they weren't being sold as and didn't come across as wines that would develop the Bordeaux magic in the bottle 15-20 years out. For that, you gotta pay the big(ger) bucks. Jeff's value page linked above seems to be in between these extremes. I wonder what kind of aging record these wines have. Because for me, Bordeaux isn't really Bordeaux until it gets old. For early drinking stuff, I'm happy with Cotes du Rhone or Beaujolais in good years. Inexpensive Bordeaux may be an adequate substitute for those, but so far it hasn't been an adequate substitute for the Gruauds, GPLs, Pichons, Leovilles, etc., never mind the first growths, which got too expensive years ago.

I'm good with numbers and symbolic logic. Words ........not so good.

But David clearly stated my point..............

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:33 pm

DavidG wrote:Last year at Macarthur's, one of the bigger DC retailers, I saw a small shelf promoting about a dozen inexpensive '09s in the $15-$30 range. I tried a few of them and they were good early drinkers, but they weren't being sold as and didn't come across as wines that would develop the Bordeaux magic in the bottle 15-20 years out. For that, you gotta pay the big(ger) bucks. Jeff's value page linked above seems to be in between these extremes.

David...At least to me, it is unreasonable to expect magic in the bottle for $15-$30. Even the value wines I like are IMO, best in their youth. To get wines that age and develop, you need to spend more money, not just in Bordeaux, but in every region. That is part of what you are paying for. What people paid for wines 10 and 20 years ago is not relevant.

That being said, there are a lot of $50-$100 strong Bordeaux wines that will age and develop for decades.

RDD · Post by **RDD** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 5:45 pm

Magic in a bottle of Leoville Las Cases in now north of 300/btl.
Guess we are just whining about it.

OrlandoRobert · Post by **OrlandoRobert** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:01 pm

Jeff Leve wrote: David...At least to me, it is unreasonable to expect magic in the bottle for $15-$30. Even the value wines I like are IMO, best in their youth. To get wines that age and develop, you need to spend more money, not just in Bordeaux, but in every region. That is part of what you are paying for. What people paid for wines 10 and 20 years ago is not relevant.

That being said, there are a lot of $50-$100 strong Bordeaux wines that will age and develop for decades.

I agree with much of this proposition as it pertains to Bdx. I'd actually say there are very solid offerings in the $30-$75 price point that will reward maturing. Heck, I've even bought classified growths from 2009/2010 vintages in this price range. The key is avoiding those that have gone hard right modern on us.

As to your first point, something I have said in other threads, there remain other wine regions that offer up amazing wines that age beautifully for sub-$50. Loire is one of the best examples, with whopper Chinons coming in at $25-$35 for superstars like Baudry and $25-$50 for Joguet. So I still think we can find magic in a bottle for less, but we just have to work for it. The Northern Rhone is also cranking out amazing value from "under-the-radar" producers, with Gonon being the best example.

Jeff Leve · Post by **Jeff Leve** » Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:26 pm

RDD wrote:Magic in a bottle of Leoville Las Cases in now north of 300/btl.
Guess we are just whining about it.

If you are, you are. Do you NEED LLC? Are you entitled to buy it for less for some reason? FWIW, LLC has always been a pricey wine. The truth is, when compared to other famous wines, it's only gone up slightly more than twice over the past decade. If you think you need to spend $300 for magic in a bottle, there is not much to tell you. But I do not see it that way. As I've pointed out, there are strong wines for under $100, that will deliver the goods. I bought some.

The best of everything always cost more. So what? Buy it, or buy somethng else. That is life...

AlohaArtakaHoundsong · Mon Mar 18, 2013 6:26 pm

The 1982 Ch. Citran I had Saturday night was pretty good. It probably cost $5 on release and it cost me $25 in the past year.

Now it's true, when I pulled the cork a rabbit did not jump out of the bottle. Otherwise it did the trick.

I have not found it to be the exception that the lesser Bdx - and here I'm talking about maybe the 100 wines below the "top 50" - do not age well. Quite the contrary.