Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

I still have a lot of reading to do in Issue 224. From what I have read so far, though, Neal Martin seems to lack that extra pizzaz about the right bank. I'm not saying this is a good thing or a bad thing. It just seems like the enthusiasm isn't there. It seems that Jeff Leve's notes about the right bank have that extra get-your-heart-rate-going enthusiasm, especially about the right bank, regarding the 2015 vintage. I'm seeing him quoted a lot more lately, his scores published a lot more. I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else who has been writing about the right bank with anything approaching the enthusiasm of Parker himself!

I didn't renew my eRP subscription last year as I was no longer paying any attention to Parker, and the bulletin board was withering on the vine. Plus I'm no longer buying young Bordeaux, and I can get a good fix on Bordeaux from reading Jeff Leve's and Alex's comments.

Then he turns into a dud when he reviews the left bank?

Ha I think his heart beats just a little faster for the right bank, but that's just one man's observation. And there's nothing wrong with that!

I do not look or rely on one critic and I am not looking for extra enthusiastic notes....I look for people I respect that my palate aligns with (and they do not have to be a semi/professional critic).....when I find these people and they recommend a wine I have no issues going out and procuring a bottle with the utmost confidence that I will like it...currently this is a very small circle of people but I'm always on the look out!

Leve's first BWE moniker was pomerollover.

indeed...

I'm changing mine to Gravesdigger

i like it, but I like the name of my distant cousin robertgoulet better...

You seriously think Bordeaux, of all places, and the right bank, of all parts of Bordeaux, needs a hype man? Can't you just read some Suckling when you want to hear about chocolate hand grenades going off in the midpalate and LITERALLY ENDLESS finishes?

marcs
I really can't take wine tasters seriously when they use hyperbole and sophistry to describe wines.
I'm good friends with a local importer here in Singapore, and he tells me that there are a handful of words and phrases that sellers use to get easy sales.
For example, "Valhrona chocolate" or "Mississippi Mud Cake" though not heard of a chocolate hand grenade before.
Not sure why people want wine to taste like a dessert, let alone an explosive.
Now, if I wanted mud cake, I would not spend $100 or whatever on a bottle of it.

I just received an email from Sokolin regarding a Hot Off the Press: 100-Points for 2003 Chateau Montrose with a Jeff Leve score attached. Not sure I have ever seen this before but good for him.

"This Left Bank beauty keeps getting better and better. If the 2009 Montrose was not also off the charts, I’d say that 2003 Montrose is a contender for the best wine I’ve ever tasted from this famous estate. And if you know something about Montrose and its track record of producing legendary wines in: 1989, 1990, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2009 and 2010, you’d know that is really saying something...The nose, with its truffle, tobacco, spice box, blackberry, cassis, cigar wrapper and dark cherry nose could not get any better. But the perfume is only part of the show. The main event is on the palate, where this exotic, decadent wine really shows its stuff. Fat, rich and intense, there is intense concentration, silky, tannins and a mouth filling, powerful, yet regal, supple finish that sticks with you for at least one full minute!" Jeff Leve, The Wine Cellar Insider - May 2nd, 2016

I'm telling you, Neal's notes lack that je ne sais quoi that Parker had, I think Jeff's enthusiasm for Bordeaux, on both the left bank and, especially, the right bank, are going to elevate him in the wine critics hierarchy now that the old man has moved on.

But does he use discriptors like "panty dropper?" I missed my calling....lololol....fail

JimHow wrote:I'm telling you, Neal's notes lack that je ne sais quoi that Parker had, I think Jeff's enthusiasm for Bordeaux, on both the left bank and, especially, the right bank, are going to elevate him in the wine critics hierarchy now that the old man has moved on.

I think the way to investigate that would be to find some wines that Neil likes, that Jeff doesn't and try them. And see what you think.

Neil tends to award good grades to GPL, and lower ones to Kirwan, for example. Parker is the reverse.

It's a little bassackwards, but Neils scores/notes can be found on the eRP site, one has to click around for his WineJournal link.

I'll say that in a very small sample set of current release cru bourgoise, I haven't found Neil's experiences to line up with mine.

It is always sad to read that my Messiah (the BD) needs his own Messiah!

Nic

I am not the Messiah, my son. I am just a kind and benevolent dictator.

You guys are funny! This thread definitely made my day!!!

There are just as many opinions on wine as there are wines. I happen to like and value some opinions and wines more than others, which is as it should be.

I tasted over 500 wines this year. A new, personal record for me. You can find them here, sorted on an appellation by appellation basis. http://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/cat ... formation/

I'll put out a nice summary next week, that will be easy to follow, but as I have time, I'd like to answer a few posts, and of course any questions.

For those of you that know me in the real word, or just the net, I have a very consistent palate, with likes and dislikes. Wines I like, I really like. The reverse is also true. So, one way or the other I am dependable.

RobertG... No, I do not turn into a dud when it comes to the Left Bank. It is about the wines, not me. Read my effusive praise for Margaux, Pessac Leognan and select Pauillac wines in 2015. You can see the same high energy for many St. Estephe and Pauillac wines in 2014. One other point, at least for me. It is not about palate alignment. It is about consistency. Regardless of who you like or not, it is the ability to understand their goal posts and make sure those posts do not move, so you know where they stand. To me, that is a good start as to what makes a taster someone you can or cannot count on. Again, this is for me, but I want enthusiasm. If a taster is not rocked by a wine, why would I bother? That is no different than at a dinner. If a friend grabs me, shakes me and says he's moved by a wine, I need to buy it, try it, etc, it is that level of excitement that I pay attention to.

Marcs... Needs attention? Fair question when it comes to the Right Bank. Frankly, most consumers focus on the Classified Left Bank wines. So, yes it does not hurt. But that is also where the action takes place in 2015. There should be no question about that from anyone. If there is fine, but they are not someone I would place a lot of stock in, when it comes to valuing their judgment, when it comes to BDX. 2015 is close to 2009 for the Right Bank, and that is really saying something from me!

Claudius... I do not use Mississippi Mud Cake as a descriptor, but why not types of chocolate? Clearly, there is a difference between milk chocolate, dark chocolate, cocoa, and different types of chocolate based on levels of coco.

Jock... Thanks I had not seen the Sokolin Email, We are not quoted a lot. It's still cool to me. And plus I write strong tasting notes so people get enthused to buy or at least try the wines that rock me. That is what it's all about!

RobertG... I like that descriptor, "Panty Dropper!" I might not use it, but I get it. There are definitely Panty Dropping wines in 2015!

Arv... There are numerous wines were Neal and I do not agree, especially in St. Emilion. I am guessing Troplong Mondot and Fleur Cardinale for example. There are others as well.

Keep in mind, wine is an alcoholic beverage. It is supposed to be fun. If you are sharing it with a significant other, sex might even be involved! The best wines are not supposed to be a boring, by the numbers, industrial product. If that is case, why bother? Hopefully, the excitement I have for some wines carries over to readers and also enjoy the same pleasures I did. At least that is the goal I set for writing tasting notes.

Nice discussion...I have also noticed that I have been seeing Jeff's ratings lately more in wine searcher, and by some retailers on west coast also in their offerings...

Jeff, one more thing. The new website aesthetically is much better and professional looking. Although I find a bit slower, it could just be my internet connection that day..

Chateau Vin wrote:Nice discussion...I have also noticed that I have been seeing Jeff's ratings lately more in wine searcher, and by some retailers on west coast also in their offerings...

Jeff, one more thing. The new website aesthetically is much better and professional looking. Although I find a bit slower, it could just be my internet connection that day..

Thanks for the nice words. The site should be be much faster than before. As I like to know about users experiences, what part of the site is slow for you? Opening the home page, switching between pages? Searches for tasting notes, or articles? Or? It would really help if you could let me know as I will look into it.

RobertG... No, I do not turn into a dud when it comes to the Left Bank. It is about the wines, not me. Read my effusive praise for Margaux, Pessac Leognan and select Pauillac wines in 2015. You can see the same high energy for many St. Estephe and Pauillac wines in 2014. One other point, at least for me. It is not about palate alignment. It is about consistency. Regardless of who you like or not, it is the ability to understand their goal posts and make sure those posts do not move, so you know where they stand. To me, that is a good start as to what makes a taster someone you can or cannot count on. Again, this is for me, but I want enthusiasm. If a taster is not rocked by a wine, why would I bother? That is no different than at a dinner. If a friend grabs me, shakes me and says he's moved by a wine, I need to buy it, try it, etc, it is that level of excitement that I pay attention to

Exactly why I try to find tasters that my palate aligns with. You mention "it's not about palate alignment," and you comment, " if a taster is not rocked by a wine, why would I bother?" Because sir you just missed out on some bad ass wines because many of the wines that rock me do nothing for others...but if this happens (isn't rocked) by someone who I know shares a similar palate, then yes, I probably would not bother. I hope that made sense.

The nature of this whole wine thing, what makes it fun and interesting, is that everyone brings their own opinion and no one is provably right. Only opinion and possible consensus. That and the stuff is just so damned interesting.

I think it's fair to say that whether or not you agree with his opinion, there is no one who brings more enthusiasm to the subject than Jeff Leve.

I agree Scott. Jeff is enthusiastic. And he's consistent and reliable. He's not a Parker clone but his palate aligns a lot more closely to Parker than anyone else I know.

If your palate preferences trend to those of the Orlando Bobbies or if you lean AFWE, your favorites and Jeff's will be largely different. But there will be some wines you'll probably agree on... yet another thing that makes this wine hobby so fascinating.

robertgoulet wrote:

RobertG... No, I do not turn into a dud when it comes to the Left Bank. It is about the wines, not me. Read my effusive praise for Margaux, Pessac Leognan and select Pauillac wines in 2015. You can see the same high energy for many St. Estephe and Pauillac wines in 2014. One other point, at least for me. It is not about palate alignment. It is about consistency. Regardless of who you like or not, it is the ability to understand their goal posts and make sure those posts do not move, so you know where they stand. To me, that is a good start as to what makes a taster someone you can or cannot count on. Again, this is for me, but I want enthusiasm. If a taster is not rocked by a wine, why would I bother? That is no different than at a dinner. If a friend grabs me, shakes me and says he's moved by a wine, I need to buy it, try it, etc, it is that level of excitement that I pay attention to

Exactly why I try to find tasters that my palate aligns with. You mention "it's not about palate alignment," and you comment, " if a taster is not rocked by a wine, why would I bother?" Because sir you just missed out on some bad ass wines because many of the wines that rock me do nothing for others...but if this happens (isn't rocked) by someone who I know shares a similar palate, then yes, I probably would not bother. I hope that made sense.

Not my point at all. What I am saying, regardless of the wine any taster is writing about, if that taster is not enthusiastic about that wine, regardless of the what or why, I really have no reason to pay attention. Boring tasting notes and dull tasters are as lithless as a dull, boring wine. Wine is supposed to be fun. If all I want is wet, there is Pelligrino!

When I saw the blurb about the 2003 Montrose, it reminded me of the way I felt when I first tried 1989 Montrose.

That was one of those times where I remember vividly being blown away by an extraordinary example.

I think Neil's notes are fine, and I get the understated sensibility he brings to his writings.

I'm just not sure that I'll end up being as happy with his lesser known picks.

So far, its been patchy.

I quite like the Janoueix line up as well as the Jeffrey Davies lineup, for example, and I don't sense that NM likes those as much as I do.

Jeff Leve and I see Bordeaux very differently, especially since the 2003 vintage, but Jeff's palate is very consistent and so his notes are quite useful for me, as the wines Jeff loves the most are the ones I know to avoid especially on the Right Bank (I'm sure he would feel the same away about my notes, if he used them!).

What is also fascinating is that he and I usually agree on Bordeaux from the 80's. The only difference there are drinking windows, as I often think a wine has finally hit prime time right around when Jeff is saying "drink up". Fascinating indeed.

David and Blanquito's points about consistency are really the heart of the matter. I don't have to agree with a critic lockstep - or can disagree completely - what's critical is consistency of opinion. That is useful and actionable, regardless of style preference. I can use any yardstick as long as it doesn't switch randomly from metric to English.

When it comes to Bordeaux I also struggle with the notion of being 'rocked' by a wine. I can see see that elsewhere in other regions, especially in the new world, but great Bordeaux is more about balance, equilibrium, finesse, complexity...it rises above such primeval instincts.

I think Jeff writes well, and is very much a continuum of the Parker-style palate. I think he is consistent in that. That is what you get with Jeff. What you get with Neal is an altogether different and more European, and dare I say "quirky' perspective. It is very different from Bob and Jeff. Parker to his credit, for whatever reason, anointed Neal as his successor and Bordeaux Czar at the WA.

Clearly Neal wants to make a good impression, afterall these are big shoes to fill - and I have started reading his report on Bordeaux 2015 and so far I must say it had been brilliant - but let's be clear he is not trying to make a splash just for the sake of it. His commentary has been measured. While his write ups are imbued with interesting anecdotes it is not littered with hyperbolae.

I have only read through some of his report but I really like what I have read so far especially on Pomerol (he wrote the book on it). In my opinion, if Neal is having an influence on winemaking in Bordeaux ... and I am sceptical that he is the only force taking Bordeaux away from super-extracted fruit-bombs - it is in a very exciting direction. I just wish I was younger and a lot richer.

In my experience the Parker reviews of the 1996 vintage in bottle was my favorite edition.
"The ripest Cabernet in 50 years..."
Loved those wines: Lafon Rochet, Lynch Bages, Pontet Canet, Sociando Mallet, Leoville Barton, and on and on and on....
I obsessed over those notes. I have been barely able to bring myself to read Parker in at least ten years, he just seemed tired. But maybe I'm just over analyzing....

I think Neal is great, his palate is in general alignment with mine in Bordeaux, and he has come a long way from his Wine Journal days which I used to read regularly. In fact, my only criticism of Neal (and I'm not sure it even still holds) is he can change his tune on a wine dramatically through time. 'Quirky' isn't a bad summation of this. Part of me admires his honesty-- 'hey this wine is great now even though I gave it 84pts 6 year ago'-- but Parker's scores were much more consistent through time. It was very rare for Parker to truly whiff on a wine, meaning either Parker was better at calling a wine when young than Neal (and I do think calling young wines was one of Parker's true strengths) or Neal is just more honest about it.

My impression is Neal does a lot more blind tasting than Parker and that could explain a lot of this in a place like Bordeaux where Parker could rely on the track record of the chateau to bracket his scores.

Reminds me of the Wall Street joke, two analysts hired at the same time, one is right 60% of the time, the other is wrong 95% of the time. Come annual review time, +60% guy gets a nice raise and decent bonus, while the -95% gets a promotion, corner office, limo service, the works. "WHY?" asks the 60-percenter? "Cause we do the opposite of what he suggests and make a fortune" says management.

LOL, Tom.

Blanquito wrote:I think Neal is great, his palate is in general alignment with mine in Bordeaux, and he has come a long way from his Wine Journal days which I used to read regularly. In fact, my only criticism of Neal (and I'm not sure it even still holds) is he can change his tune on a wine dramatically through time. 'Quirky' isn't a bad summation of this. Part of me admires his honesty-- 'hey this wine is great now even though I gave it 84pts 6 year ago'-- but Parker's scores were much more consistent through time. It was very rare for Parker to truly whiff on a wine, meaning either Parker was better at calling a wine when young than Neal (and I do think calling young wines was one of Parker's true strengths) or Neal is just more honest about it.

My impression is Neal does a lot more blind tasting than Parker and that could explain a lot of this in a place like Bordeaux where Parker could rely on the track record of the chateau to bracket his scores.

I think that is a fair assessment Patrick. At the Mouton tasting Neal was asked about that, and he said that when you get it wrong it is best to put your hand up and admit it, take it in the chin, move on and perhaps learn from the experience - rather than go into denial. Every critic is going to make mistakes. What Parker and his machine were good at was spinning his successes and airbrushing his failures. Parker's success at calling the 1982 vintage will forever eclipse everything else he achieved in his illustrious career, and certainly his failures. For example he badly misread the 1985 vintage and never really understood burgundy at all. While Parker's dominance and standing among critics will probably never be eclipsed I think Neal is the more complete all-rounder because he understands the other region that really matters, i. e., burgundy.

Blanquito wrote:Jeff Leve and I see Bordeaux very differently, especially since the 2003 vintage, but Jeff's palate is very consistent and so his notes are quite useful for me, as the wines Jeff loves the most are the ones I know to avoid especially on the Right Bank (I'm sure he would feel the same away about my notes, if he used them!).

What is also fascinating is that he and I usually agree on Bordeaux from the 80's. The only difference there are drinking windows, as I often think a wine has finally hit prime time right around when Jeff is saying "drink up". Fascinating indeed.

You are 100% right on all your points in this post. Now, as for your tasting notes

JimHow wrote:In my experience the Parker reviews of the 1996 vintage in bottle was my favorite edition.
"The ripest Cabernet in 50 years..."
Loved those wines: Lafon Rochet, Lynch Bages, Pontet Canet, Sociando Mallet, Leoville Barton, and on and on and on....
I obsessed over those notes. I have been barely able to bring myself to read Parker in at least ten years, he just seemed tired. But maybe I'm just over analyzing....

I do not think that is correct. Parker remained quite consistent in his likes, dislikes and passion. He was always a kid in a candy store that was easily excited by a new wine he had not tried, or a young vintage that rocked him. Read his notes for 2009 and 2010....

Comte Flaneur wrote:I think that is a fair assessment Patrick. At the Mouton tasting Neal was asked about that, and he said that when you get it wrong it is best to put your hand up and admit it, take it in the chin, move on and perhaps learn from the experience - rather than go into denial. Every critic is going to make mistakes. What Parker and his machine were good at was spinning his successes and airbrushing his failures..

I do not think that is true at all about Parker. There are numerous instances, up and down where his scores shifted in either direction. Look at 1982 Petrus and 1982 Lafite for example. There are stacks of scores that changed over the years.

Changing your score by a few points here or there is not tantamount to admitting you got it wrong Jeff. That is far too simplistic. For any given wine, critics tend to adjust their score up and down based on how that particular wine performed in any particular environment...maybe the atmospherics were different from one tasting point to another. And it is not just about points or wow factor/or being rocked, it is also about the qualitative assessment, articulated. The points scores are surely secondary, or should come after, the qualitative analysis, based on, or controlling for, a particular environment? But every critic gets it fundamentally wrong sometimes even adjusting for atmospherics and environmental changes. Surely it is better to man up and admit it? I think critics get a lot more respect that way. To pretend otherwise is to invite ridicule.