What is your favourite super second?

User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

How do you define 'super second'...? A moot point. Some like to define it to include Palmer (understandably) and even some over-achieving wines from lower down the spectrum (e.g., Lynch Bages, Pontet Canet) and of course La Mission. But if we could stick to second growths (as opposed to second wines) what is your favourite and why? Favourite could mean what you think is the 'best' vs. your favourite.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Nicklasss »

Hard to define, but i would say simply, a wine that will never be a First, but will never be challenged too much be the other below.

My favorite, being a Saint-Julien fan, is Château Léoville Las Cases. It is very Bordeaux, never giving itself easily, but always true to it terroir, consistent and emotionnal instead of spectacular. But, it is true, very near of the First sometimes...

All the vintages I had, are there in my mind: 1978, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1988, 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2004. Of course, i would like to try the 1986, 1990, 2000, maybe one day.

Of course, many other "super second" are great too, but my perception is that LLC kept almost the same "similar" basic style for the last 34 years.

Nic
User avatar
Blanquito
Posts: 5923
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Blanquito »

Pichon Lalande, not really a contest for my mileage.

1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1995 and 1996. I've been lucky to try all of these, and each is tremendous in the context of the vintage.

True Bordeaux, yet with an extra panache that makes it stand out in a crowd of claret.
User avatar
Carlos Delpin
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2014 9:44 pm
Location: Puerto Rico
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Carlos Delpin »

+1 for Pichon Lalande. The 1982 still is one of the best Bordeaux to ever cross my lips.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by stefan »

Ducru Beaucaillou, with Pichon Lalande second. The Ducru fragrance is unmatched in years when Ducru hits. The downside is that Ducru has struck out a lot (not that Pichon Lalande is a model of consistency).
User avatar
Harry C.
Posts: 538
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 1:00 am
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Harry C. »

Baron all the way.
User avatar
Winona Chief
Posts: 806
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:11 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Winona Chief »

Blanquito wrote:Pichon Lalande, not really a contest for my mileage. 1978, 1979, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1989, 1995 and 1996. I've been lucky to try all of these, and each is tremendous in the context of the vintage. True Bordeaux, yet with an extra panache that makes it stand out in a crowd of claret
Same here. Also good experiences with PLL in 1967, 1970 and 1975 (showing surprisingly well right now).

Chris Bublitz
User avatar
Rudi Finkler
Posts: 221
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2009 6:15 pm
Location: Saarland, Germany
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Rudi Finkler »

What Stefan said. Ducru and Comtesse.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

For me it is a really tough call. I narrowed my universe down to eight wines. In alphabetical order: Cos D'Estournel, Ducru Beaucaillou, Gruaud Larose, Leoville Barton, Leoville Lascases, Montrose, Pichon Baron and Pichon Lalande. 

First to go would be Gruaud, a wine I love, and despite an incredible run between 1982 and 1988, it was patchy in the 1990s. Next to be crossed off would be Leoville-Barton, which is always a ‘go to’ estate for me but does not quite scale the heights of some of the others. 

Next to be let go would be Cos D’Estournel, because I think it has moved over to the dark side recently, but was very strong in the 1980s and 1990s. Next to go is Pichon Lalande. Based on its performance between 1978 and 1989 it would probably be the winner, but since 1990 it has become a bit inconsistent and less reliable than the Baron, as will be revealed in my next post.

Now it gets really tough. In fourth place is Pichon-Baron, which really has stepped up since 2000, but was also brilliant in 1988-1990. As I noted it is a little more consistent than Pichon Lalande these days, though I prefer the latter’s 2010. In third place is Montrose, which has been on a roll since 1989 and really hasn’t put a foot wrong. 

Choosing between Ducru and Leoville-Lascases is really tough. In fact there is little to choose between them now. Ducru is my sentimental favourite, but Leoville-Lascases just edges it in the end because over time it has been more consistent. So my vote goes to Leoville-Lascases, king of the super-seconds.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Nicklasss »

I think i never met you personnally Comte Flaneur, but I always thought you are a wise and intelligent wine lover!

:-)

By the way, of course I did not tried a lot of First Growth, but my favorite would probably be Château Haut-Brion, again for having kept approximately the same style in the last 34 years, and probably being the more consistent First.

That said, of course I would like to try the 1990 Château Margaux, the 1982 Château Latour, the 1986 Château Mouton Rothschild and the 1996 Château Laffite Rothschild, but all these First have a ? period somewhere, in the last 34 years, where it seems that Haut-Brion don't...

Nic
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Hi Nic - we have just come off a Committee meeting call for the May Bordeaux tour. It's going to be epic. I hope you can come...

Maureen and I did some research this afternoon on the super seconds and the firsts, collating scores from Cellar Tracker for 27 vintages going back to 1970. We left out a few off the off vintages like those from the early 1970s.

We collated data for the eight estates I mentioned in my previous post. This was the result. Leoville Lascases is the clear winner. It is also noticeable that Pichon Lalande drops down the pecking order since 1990.

Image
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

If we add Palmer and La Mission to the mix this is how it looks:

Image
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

When it comes to the first growths and their equivalents this is how it looks:

Image

Chateau Latour is the top dog...but only just...ergo it is the greatest wine in the world.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by DavidG »

That CT analysis is meaningless. It presupposes:

1) That there is any statistical validity to comparing CT average scores. There isn't.
2) That if there were any validity to the CT scores, they would apply to an individual's ranking. They wouldn't.

I find it much more interesting to hear individuals' opinions, primarily because they lead to interesting conversation about different preferences and different ranking criteria.

I'm not a fan of LLC because it never seems ready, even at 20 years, but then I don't purchase older ones. I do love both Pichons and Gruaud, even though they are less consistent, because they have provided some peak Bordeaux experiences.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

DavidG wrote:That CT analysis is meaningless. It presupposes:

1) That there is any statistical validity to comparing CT average scores. There isn't.
2) That if there were any validity to the CT scores, they would apply to an individual's ranking. They wouldn't.

I find it much more interesting to hear individuals' opinions, primarily because they lead to interesting conversation about different preferences and different ranking criteria.

I'm not a fan of LLC because it never seems ready, even at 20 years, but then I don't purchase older ones. I do love both Pichons and Gruaud, even though they are less consistent, because they have provided some peak Bordeaux experiences.
That's a bit harsh David :(

On your first point: why? Please explain.

I would disagree because the sample sizes are quite big for most of these observations, often over 100. I would certainly not claim that these findings are definitive but I would say they probably are significant. Sure opinions are influenced by the critics and other things, but when you have such large numbers a more accurate picture tends to emerge. I think I am correct in saying that there are over 90,000 people signed up to CT...a pretty large and no doubt diverse community.

I don't understand your second point.

I thought the analysis revealed several interesting points:

(1) the consistent outperformance of LLC in the second growths
(2) the relative slide of Pichon Lalande - which fits with the view that this estate has become less consistent than its peers

I would imagine that if all the off vintages were included LLC would increase its lead - likewise Latour in the first growths - because it has been more consistent, and like Latour tends to outperform in off vintages.

When it comes to comparing and evaluating wines like these I put a lot of weight on what other people on this forum say, but this approach is probably superior to relying on any particular critic or even an average of critics, because the sample is much bigger and irrational/noisy components tend to net out.
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by DavidG »

Ian, it came out sounding a lot harsher than intended, and for that I apologize, but at its core it's true. Mis-application of statistics is a bit of a pet peeve for me, so here I go:

First point: Large sample sizes are meaningless when there is no standardization of the scale. This is a common error in statistical analyses. You can read TNs associated with 90-93 point scores containing words ranging from "good" to "outstanding " and some even note flaws in the wine. In the 85-90 range, the variability in descriptors is even greater, ranging from "poor" to "very good."

Second point: Another common error, but this time in the interpretation of population-based analyses. The behavior of the mean or median subject has a limited likelihood of applying to any given individual. This is why I tell my preop patients that while cataract surgery has less than a 1% risk of making their vision worse, it's not possible to predict whether they will be that one in one hundred patient. This is why I'm more interested in what you and others here whose palates I know have to say, and why, rather than looking at a population-based ranking by score. Though a valid list would be of more interest, even an invalid list has value in generating discussion. At least it got this pedant energized, so your efforts paid off if you enjoy reading my statistical ranting.

Third (new) point: The score distributions are not even close to Gaussian (bell curve), making the mean a less realistic measure of the "typical" response. The median is likely a better representation. A look at the quartile distribution available on CT also gives a better representation than the mean but is not amenable to reporting with simple tables.

Fourth (new) point: Also related to the score distribution. There appears to be marked clustering of scores for many wines. That could represent agreement on how good it is. But the agreement seems much tighter than one sees with blind tastings. Due to the larger sample size in CT, perhaps. But everyone posting on CT has access to everyone else's scores, and in many cases those of the critics as well. That can cause bias. We have no way of knowing how much influence that has.

We do agree that opinions of people on this forum carry a lot of weight. We disagree on our favorite super seconds because we use different criteria for defining our favorites and because we have had different exposures to different wines. Our yardsticks measure differently, which goes back to my primary issue with CT scores. At least here we can discuss our differences and understand them.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

David, I ran this past one of my friends who is a statistical whizz and he dismissed your points as irrelevant or red herrings. He said: ‘he must really have it in for you!

I am not claiming that this is the most sophisticated methodology...far from it...but to dismiss it as completely meaningless is just pedantic and churlish.

Every year there is a Bordeaux ‘ten years on’ tasting over here, where the wines from the vintage ten years ago are tasted, (an exclusive event for the British wine establishment. Needless to say I am not invited.) Every taster ranks the wines out of 20. At the end of tasting the scores are added up and the wine with the highest average score is the winner.

This is a very simple way of doing it, but it conveys valuable information and is not meaningless. It tells you that on that particular occasion, in that particular environment a particular wine came out on top for those people in the room. It might be a completely different result on a different day, or in a different location. But with that caveat it is useful information. 

The same applies here, but this time we have much bigger samples, a much more diverse range of participants, in a diverse range of environments in different regions over a different periods of the wine’s evolution. In that sense it is more robust than the ten year tasting. This is more valuable information.

What you are also implying as that the numerical scores on CT are useless, which I find incredible for someone who posts so regularly there. 

The first point about large sample sizes being meaningless with no standardisation of scale. That is functionally irrelevant here. Sure people use their own criteria, but it tends to average out in large samples. The law of large numbers applies: rogue elements tend to cancel out. 

Second point: who cares about individuals for the purpose of this analysis? That is not to say I don’t value what certain individuals think, but it is irrelevant for this analysis. Third point, ‘these are not even close to a Gausian bell curve?’ How do you know that? A cursory sample suggests medians and means generally pretty closely aligned. Fourth point, sure people are influenced by others and especially critics, but again the law of large numbers will tend to apply.

I would not dispute that there are far more sophisticated ways of doing this, but to say it meaningless is churlish. And we find it to be a valuable and useful exercise. 
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by DavidG »

I don't have it in for you Ian but I do have it in for misuse of statistics, and I wonder what your statistical whiz would say about the power of large numbers when no one is using the same scale. I don't think you can count on them differentiating tiny differences of a point or two when there are multiple variables. Now if everyone was ranking the wines with a uniform scale, like how many dollars they would pay for them, I would be with you. At least with respect to whether the data was meaningful.

Even if the rankings were reliable, they still wouldn't predict what an individual's preferences would be. Which is why I'm more interested in hearing individual opinions.

Oh, and you can see more detailed breakdowns of the CT scores showing that they are not Gaussian. All you have to do is look.
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Tom In DC »

This reminds me of the discussions about the Grand Jury Europeen and their methodology. They would taste dozens of wines and everything in the tasting would come in with a score between 87 and 93. At the end, they would tout how their methodology (all of the tasters get all of the wines at the same time, in a random order) allowed for all possible variables and thus the results were irrefutable.

Of course, one wine might have a beautiful bell curve around a score of 90 while another wine might have twin peaks at 85 and 95 - they would be indistinguishable with their 90 point results although not a single person in the room had felt the second wine was a 90 pointer.

CT scores are not better than the average of the pros scores - I think they're just weighted to the subscription rates of the CT posters. A few folks (even a critic or two) might want to make a statement, but the vast majority of CT tasters have already seen the score of the wine at hand of the respective taster's most followed critic - that's why they bought the wine in the first place, right? So a Joe Blow subscriber who bought the wine because JB gave it a 92 is quite likely to score the wine within a point or two of a 92, right?

Follow this process to its conclusion and the CT scores will most likely (I hesitate to suggest correlation) align with the critic with the most subscribers. Someone might get a B-school degree by following up on the hypo that CT scores more closely correlate to the Wine Spectator, given that the WS is likely the most "subscribed to" "wine critic" among CT members.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Tom I agree a lot of people are influenced by the scores of their favourite critic but you have to give credit to some people in the sample who are not wildebeest. The independent thinkers will make a difference. In large numbers and large samples irrational and erratic elements tend to cancel out, and that's why CT scores are generally far superior to the average of pros scores...in my humble opinion.

David your position fails the common sense test. Let's take Latour and Gruaud Larose. Your position is that the relative scores...approx 95 for Latour and 90 for Gruaud is meaningless, and conveys no useful information. Most reasonable people would say that is a ridiculous position to take, because a reasonable person would reasonably infer that on the basis of this Latour is the superior wine. Perhaps not in some individual's opinion but that is irrelevant for this analysis...as I am getting tired of saying, even though I respect your preference to listen to certain individuals.

At the same time if you take Latour and Lafite, based on these scores most reasonable people would infer there is no material difference. My comment about Latour 'therefore' being the greatest wine on the planet was deliberately tongue in cheek. When it comes to comparing super seconds there is enough daylight between LLC and G-L to reasonably infer that LLC is the overall better wine. Likewise one can reasonably infer that Pichon Lalande's relative performance has deteriorated, notwithstanding grade inflation. Btw I looked at the LLC means and medians and they are very close in virtually every vintage. Looks pretty Gaussian to me.Certainly there no no twin peaks. I bet this applies to other estates too.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by stefan »

"Btw I looked at the LLC means and medians and they are very close in virtually every vintage. Looks pretty Gaussian to me.Certainly there no no twin peaks. I bet this applies to other estates too."

Ian, closeness of median and mean is implied by gaussian, but many other distributions have this characteristic.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Yes sure Bill but all the ones I have had time to look at seem reasonably normally distributed as well.

I would be interested in your opinion. If one can make reasonable common sense inferences from this data. Of course it is unsophisticated back of the envelope stuff and there are more sophisticated ways of doing it. But with common sense hat on can one make reasonable inferences on these numbers?
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by stefan »

I dunno, Ian. Perhaps you can say which wines are more preferred, but even that conclusion is suspect because we do not know who drank what. As David said, the scales are different. It is fun to look at the scores but hard to draw conclusions from them. I do not think you can conclude from the scores that Latour is a better wine than Gruaud even if we all know that it is. If we assume random distribution of the wines among random wine drinkers, it is reasonable to conclude that Latour is preferred, but that preference could be just because it costs more or is more famous. Moreover, it is possible that the scale tasters use on firsts is skewed upwards.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

"I do not think you can conclude from the scores that Latour is a better wine than Gruaud even if we all know that it is."

Another example of a mathematician with his head firmly rammed up his ass with no application of common sense.

All scores are therefore meaningless. How so?
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by DavidG »

Ian, common sense told us that the world is flat and the Sun goes around the Earth. Those who insist that this remains the case despite scientific evidence to the contrary are the ones who are not seeing clearly. Perhaps their view is obstructed because their heads are rammed up their asses, but in many cases it is simply adherence to what appears to be common sense when one lacks a thorough understanding of the science. Sure, Latour is better than Gruaud for most people, and even on an objective scale, if such exists. But CT scores don't prove it. They certainly don't prove that Wine A is "better" in some objective standardized way than Wine B because the average CT score for Wine A is 0.4 points higher.

I'd much prefer to talk about why I personally like Gruaud over LLC even though the latter is the better wine by most yardsticks rather than argue over the validity of the yardsticks. I've had more peak experiences with Gruaud and too many "not ready" experiences with LLC. That's just me, but comparing personal preferences is more interesting to me than comparing numbers.

But if you want to talk about scores, I do think they are highly suspect (maybe meaningless is too strong a word, I'll apologize for the hyperbole) unless you are comparing a single taster's scores at a single sitting. Some tasters are highly consistent and repeatable, so their scores are more meaningful when comparing from one tasting to another. Not everyone is that consistent. And there is little evidence that one person's scores mean the same thing as the next person's scores unless they do some sort of calibration. I can't count the number of papers I've rejected for poor design based on lack of standardization of a grading scales. Whether it's ocular surface disease or wine ranking, you really have to be talking about the same thing in order to compare scores.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by dstgolf »

I'll pipe in and hate say tend to side with David. Too many scores on CT are based on what people have predetermined the wine should be in the first place. Many if not most scores are biased and not the most reliable.

The difference in a point or two between wines let alone 3-5pts does not significantly differentiate what that wine is going to mean to the individual drinking it. I've had multiple occasions where someone has loved a particular wine rating it very highly mostly because they new the label and/or Parker rating then they go out of their way to convince people around the table how great the wine is(or reported to be)....BIAS! 82 LLC was described by Parker as a 100pt wine. I jumped on a lot at auction a number of years ago and is one of my great disappointments. Three bottles later and good but that 100pts was no comparison to my love for PLL or Gruaud for that matter. Certainly finding someone with similar taste profile as yourself or some reliable reviewer whom over time you come to find has a reliable taste profile holds much more weight for me than cellar tracker. Not saying that I don't check cellar tracker but more to see where people feel a wine is in its evolution and should I open something for dinner/take to an event etc. This is another kettle of fish in that peoples ideas of when a wine is ready,over the hill etc is all over the map for any given time. I find the variability quite funny but still look. I tend to put more faith in many people that I've known for years on this board for these reasons. Sad part is the number of discussions on this site has dwindled to a crawl. Maybe some have gotten used to reviewers on CT and may find the same comfort level comfort there but thankfully for the most part once you've built your cellar and drank enough wine you just pretty much know!!

Danny
Danny
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by stefan »

""All scores are therefore meaningless." I did not say or imply that, Ian. It would be meaningful to have scores on the wines drunk blind listed by drinker with all the drinkers experienced. One could then calibrate for differences in scale and biases due to knowing what wines drunk were drunk would be eliminated.

BTW: Perhaps I have no common sense, but I am much too sensitive to odors to ram my head up my ass.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Nicklasss »

Something is sure with that thread: there is statistically more discussion about CT and statistics, than your preferred Super Second and why :-).

By the way, they are all excellent the Super Second. The best way to determine which one is the "real" best, would probably be to have over 30 tasters, tasting blindly the last 35 vintages of all the Super Second, of which each bottle would have been controlled by an independant person to avoid non perfect/corked bottles. Doing that, It would be excessively difficult to predict the winner, as like you wrote, when people are tasting a wine non-blind, people will refer to what they know (ranking, critics rating, expectation, price, vintage rating...) to influence their final judgment. The blind thing will give a better picture, but two days after, doing the same exercice, could give a different picture.

I like Château Léoville Las Cases because i tried some vintages, poor, good, excellent and great, and the wine delivered all the time what I was expecting (correspounding to MY conception) of what should be a genuine excellent great red Bordeaux. Of course, when I compare LLC to other Super Second, i tried probably more LLC than the other Super Second, so this where I have a bias.


So my super second vintages
LLC 78-82-83-85-88-89-93-94-96-98-04.
Cos 83-85-86-95-96-01-02-06.
Pichon Lalande 75-79-82-83-85-86-88-89-96.
Pichon Baron 82-88-89-90-95-96-01-04.
Gruaud Larose 66-75-78-82-83-85-86-88-89-96-00-01-06.
Montrose 70-82-85-86-89-93-96-03
Ducru-Beaucaillou 75-78-83-90-96-01
Léoville Barton 75-78-82-86
Mission Haut Brion 85-86
Palmer 70-82-83-95

Nic
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

You know you can throw out the high and the low and you still have the corrupt Russian judge. It's an intractable problem.
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Tom In DC »

dstgolf wrote:Too many scores on CT are based on what people have predetermined the wine should be in the first place.
Exactly what I said quite a bit upstream. If they think it's a 92 point wine (for whatever reason) and they bought it because it's a 92 point wine (for the same or whatever other reason), there a damn good chance they're going to give a score close to 92 points when they taste it, comment upon it, and give a numerical score. Self fulfilling prophecy, plain and simple.

The subset of CT tasters, albeit a self selected "cognoscenti" population, who are not wildebeest in your metaphor is likely a small percentage of even the small percentage of wine aficionados who know about CT. Those of us on the interwebs seem to consistently overstate our relevance in the market.

Ian, I thought you were a "scores are an abomination" kind of guy anyway, right?
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Tom In DC »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:You know you can throw out the high and the low and you still have the corrupt Russian judge. It's an intractable problem.
Don't forget the East German judge, Art!
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

David - I feel like I am banging my head against the wall. Sure these scores do not definitely prove anything, but what I am arguing is that it is not unreasonable to make inferences from these scores. I am going to leave my killer fact to the end of this thread.

Second at the risk of repeating myself for the purposes of this analysis YOUR personal preferences are not relevant. Yes I too like to talk about personal experiences and those in whom I trust, but this is not relevant to this discussion. 

Third I nearly fell off my chair when you implied that people who make reasonable inferences belong to the flat earth society, when it is surely the other way round. If the world was run on your basis by mathematicians we would still be living in caves and running after wild animals with spears. 

Tom Danny...sure critics influence but in large sample sizes rational elements tend to prevail and the truth comes out. There are quite a lot of people I know who like to be contrarian, e.g., anti-Parker. Tom yes I am not a fan of scores more generally because it is a form of dumbing down an often complex object. But I would not deny that scores have any information content.

But all that is by the by. When it comes to ranking these super seconds, all which have roughly similar output, the ultimate arbiter is the market. Yes there maybe some market failure (e.g., Parker - but his influence arguably has been on the wane for a while) but there is no better arbiter than the market.

And market prices provide strong reinforcement for the pecking order of super seconds reasonably inferred from averaging the scores for 20-odd vintages. I wish I could afford Leoville Lascases 2005. I had to settle for Pichon Baron instead. 
Shame this thread got hijacked and sabotaged by a pointless pissing match. 
User avatar
mek
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 12:43 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by mek »

At last, back to the subject at hand. By the way, any signs of Pichon Lalande returning to its former glory?
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by DavidG »

Ian, I still believe that it IS unreasonable to make inferences from CT average scores.

I do believe that one can make reasonable inferences from market prices, but any correlation between rank order of prices and CT scores still lacks any significance for all the reasons listed above. Add to that the potential price bias. It's well-known that price influences peoples' scoring. Add to that the effect of knowing the critics' scores and the non-uniform scales, and CT average scores simply can't be relied on as a primary source.

Anyway, I think the real value of this thread lies in what individual preferences are and why. That's what brings us closer and promotes understanding of each other's' palates. That to me has more value than any presumably objective or external ranking, regardless of the source of that ranking. If we did agree on the validity of some external ranking system (and I think we probably would agree that market prices for widely available wines are a pretty good indicator), that would certainly provide an interesting backdrop against which to compare and contrast our personal preferences.

So my apologies to all for hijacking this thread with a statistics rant, and to Ian for any portion of this that came across as personal. I did not mean to imply that you are a flat-earther. I was only using that as an example of the difference between perception of what seems obvious on its face and the reality revealed by a more thorough understanding. Ian, I value your opinions and friendship and I did not mean it as a personal attack. Inasmuch as market prices seem to align with the rankings you've listed, I'm happy to accept them as a valid background for discussion and to drop my off-topic blathering about CT scores.

I do seem to have preferences that differ from the "norm" suggested by Ian's rankings. Gruaud and Lalande, when on, have provided me with some of my most extraordinary wine drinking experiences, while I yet to have a Leoville Las Cases which has lived up to its reputation. That may be in large part because I just haven't had that many of them. I'm especially lacking in tasting really mature vintages of LLC. Someday to be remedied, I'm sure.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

David

Many thanks for your post, most conciliatory, I appreciate it.

I never thought in my wildest dreams that when I posted those tables that they would create such a stir...that was not my intention...it was just having a bit of fun on a Sunday afternoon. Just back of the envelope stuff to satisfy my own curiosity.

When I posted those tables last Sunday I said that LLC is the 'clear winner' but did not go on to claim that this proves the point. There was an element of tongue in cheek in all this when I said the FG scores showed "Latour top dog...ergo the greatest wine in the world." Likewise when I earlier referred to LLC as "king of the super seconds" a sentiment I knew would not be universally shared.

I personally don't think it is unreasonable to draw inferences from this but agree it is hardly definitive and certainly doesn't prove anything. But it is not meaningless in my opinion. That has been my line all along. However others including yourself and Bill disagree with that, so let's agree to disagree. The constellation of market prices I think provides much stronger backing for postulating any pecking order but as you suggest disentangling other influences on prices is not easy.

Apologies if I came across as overly defensive, and apologies to Bill for suggesting that his head resides where the sun doesn't shine, which would be quite a feat of yoga...and for my comments about mathematicians.

ATB

Ian

PS sorry to disappoint lurkers who might have hoped that this spat might descend I to a no holds barred slanging match.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by dstgolf »

Nice to see everyone kissing and making better.

David, your sentiments mimic mine entirely regarding LLC and don't need to be repetive. For the price I've never been wowed by this wine. Good yes but never had a great one that left me wanting more. Gruaud and Pichon Lalonde from the 80s are a different story. Both have many great memories with the 82,83 and 86s all exceeding expectation. Palmer was also on a roll in the 80s however they don't seem to be showing the same I gotta have more feeling that I had from the past. Never been disappointed with the Ducru that we've enjoyed but vintages exposed to have been limited so I need to exclude them only for lack of sample size. Still for my wife her ultimate epiphany was a 59 Ducru shared with Werner and Chris in SF around 2008 that she/we will never forget. Again another BWE memory!!

Danny
Danny
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by stefan »

I don't like the word "meaningless" in connection with the data, and I changed Ian's "better" to "more preferred" because "better" is much harder to define and suggests an objective standard. I prefer Ducru to LLC, but I would not say that Ducru is better than LLC even if I am allowed to define the standard for better. Even "more preferred" has to be explained. I assumed that Ian was using better to mean "more preferred because of the characteristics of the wine".

As the economist mentions, price is a good criterion for deciding which product is, well, more preferred, especially if the supply of competing goods are comparable and the goods have comparable "status". It is a perfect criterion if one defines "more preferred" (or "has higher utility") to include all factors. A drinker can get utility from drinking Lafite just because it is a famous name. Do you? I do. Some get utility from a high price. I don't.

As for LLC: I would not be surprised if my average scores for LLC are higher than those for Ducru even if I prefer Ducru. I have the sense that LLC is more like the first growth Pauillacs Latour and Mouton but usually is not as good as they are. The Ducru I love are not like the first growths, not that I believe that I could distinguish any in a blind tasting.
User avatar
Nicklasss
Posts: 6384
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 5:25 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Nicklasss »

So stefan, what would you say about that 1985 Château Léoville Las Cases, paid 69.95 $ If I remember well, we had at le Petit Bistrot in DC in 2012?

It was:

A) a let down, like only LLC can be.
B) glorious.
C) a dream.
D) a correct/ excellent Saint-Julien.
E) I don't remember, I was still under the influence of the previous bottle, the 1998 Petit Cheval.

Nic
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by Comte Flaneur »

Beautifully articulated Stefan. Part of the utility of drinking Lafite is knowing you are drinking it…absolutely. Similarly I agree that Ducru is more amenable to be loved than the somewhat more clinical Leoville-Lascases. Nic I wish I was there.

I can understand people’s frustration with Leoville-Lascases. I remember Patrick expressing such sentiments after a tasting a few years back in which the 1975 and 1990 featured. The former was predictably austere, the latter an atypical LLC, and not one of the estate’s finest efforts in my opinion, even though it is highly regarded. The 1982 meanwhile can be variable and I drank my only bottle far too young, and it was frustratingly obdurate.

But I have had plenty of exhilarating experiences with LLC. The most memorable was a dinner held in NYC hosted by D. Wainwright at which pristine bottles of the 1982 and 1986 were served and they were a match for anything on the table, which included the likes of Mouton 1986. At one of Jacques’s dinners at Kittle House, the LLC 1982 showed a clean pair of heels to Gruaud 1982 in its flight and in a formidable line up was second overall to Lafite 1995, which stole the show.

When I was living in CT. I picked up a batch of the LLC 2002 and they were brilliant, by far the best 2002 I have tried, including Mouton. The LLC 2010 is extraordinary, easily a match for the FGs. There are many brilliant super seconds in 1985, but in my opinion LLC is the pick. It is the most complete, and offers everything you could ask for in a mature and perfectly resolved glass of claret.

I have had memorable experiences with all the other wines of the list too. One of the first wines I ever owned was Pichon Lalande 1978, which was a gift. Pichon Lalande was extraordinary between 1978 and 1989, especially in the 1978-82 period. Much has been written about the 1982, as probably the finest ever super second (which one day could perhaps be eclipsed by the 2010 LLC and Ducru), but the 1978,79 and 81 epitomise the brilliance of Pichon Lalande in that era. I don’t think that magic has ever been recaptured, although some wines like the 1996 come close.

I thought Gruaud Larose was also inspired in the 1980s, and my favourites are the 1983, 1985, and 1988, while I prefer the 1986 over the 1982. Likewise Cos D’Estournel, which also made great wine in the mid-90s. Montrose and Baron may not be so easy to fall in love with but seem to be very consistent these days, while Ducru is still my sentimental favourite. My most recent super second purchases, all this year, have been Ducru 78 (four bottles), LLC 88 (two bottles), a case of Ducru 1999 (a very under-rated wine) and a case of Pichon Baron 2005 to lay down and forget about for a while.
User avatar
dstgolf
Posts: 2083
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: What is your favourite super second?

Post by dstgolf »

Thanks Ian,

I learned a new word today that I had to look up and may describe more than just wine on this board!!

OBDURATE:

adjective ob·du·rate \ˈäb-də-rət, -dyə-; äb-ˈdu̇r-ət, əb-, -ˈdyu̇r-\
: refusing to do what other people want : not willing to change your opinion or the way you do something.

Nice to hear about the 2002 LLC. Got 3 of these in Palm Springs a few years back for $79 and have been hanging on. Since we loved Denver so much on our recent visit and my wife wants to go back maybe I'll haul one of these down to share with Patrick and his gang....as long as we're talking about the same Patrick!!

Danny
Danny
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot] and 12 guests