Bordeaux Wine Enthusiasts

The 90 point score
It is an important benchmark for me.
When I give a wine 90 points, that means it meets an expected level of satisfaction that I look for in a wine.
I'm not an everyday wine drinker. I rarely drink wines that I expect will rank 89 points or less.
I recognize that that is not necessarily the philosophy of others here on this site.
Indeed, I believe Stefan is on record declaring that he seeks out the 89 point wines because they tend to present the best value.
Maybe I'm misinterpreting his position.
Me, in this time and place, I need my wines to score 90 points.
I'm not getting any younger.
There has to be a certain "wow" factor. Otherwise, don't waste my time.
If it has that "wow" factor, I rate it 90 points or more. If not, I rate it 89 points or less.
It may still be "good," but not "wow."

Life is too short to be drinking 89 point wines.

Then we get into the whole marginal utility of drinking wines higher into the 90s. When we factor in price, is a 91 point really in fact better than a 90 that costs less? How about 92? 93? 95? 100?

Beyond 90 points, price becomes a bigger factor in the equation. There are definitely diminishing returns, obviously, as with anything

Which brings me back to the 2006 Lagrange.
My recollection is that I liked this wine better upon release.
Nonetheless, at age 11, as I cracked open my case, I found it fresh, candy-appled in color, a bit candy-appled on the palate (unfortunately), not complex, but... FRESH... That was a big attribute. At age 11. I doubt it will improve much. Lagrange is a wine to be consumed in the first 15 years following its vintage.

I'll give the 2006 Lagrange an even 90 points.
It was flirting with 89, mainly because it lacked a certain excitement.
But it is a quality wine.
Just don't over-pay for it.
Ducru, LLC, Leoville Barton, heck, Langoa Barton this is not.

Nonetheless, I'll score this 90 points....

Do we exist? Where is the finite point when 89 meets 90? Does it exist?

I don't know about the 15 year rule for Lagrange.
I had the '96 last fall and thought it was still excellent.

Stefan:
Explain to me:
When does 89 points turn into 90 points?

89 point wines often are undervalued because of the score. I open, on the average, 10 bottles per week. So I love to have very good wines that don't break the bank. Sometimes these 89 pt wines are better than that on my scale, either because I like them more than the critics did or because the wines evolved or whatever. Then I buy more. Wines that important critics rated 90 tend to carry a premium. I don't avoid them, but typically their QPR is worse than wines that have been rated 89.

As for my own ratings, 90 is a break point. When I rate a wine 90 or more, it suggests that I will buy more if the price is reasonable. For me the difference between a 90 and a 91 rating or a 89 and 88 rating is less than the difference between a 90 and 89 rating.

You both have a good point.

I rarely use points. Excellent or outstanding are my markers for wow and holy cow wow wines. Like Jim, I'd rather drink wow wines, and for the reasons he gave.

Not to put too sharp a point on it, but I should point out that without understanding another's rating system, trying to compare scores is, well, pointless.

All good points

To me the 1996 Lagrange is still a very young wine. I've had the 1990 twice this year and it is going very strong at 27 years

--Gary Rust

I've been drinking that 96 Lagrange from release too, and for my preferences, I thought it was better younger.

I still have quite a bit to chew through.

One man's trash is another's treasure.

I tasted the 2013 Mouton almost exactly a year ago with Philippe Dhalluin and Neal Martin. It was surprisingly good.

This does not surprise me. Modern winemaking and strict selection are such that Bordeaux can produce quality wines every year, including vintages like 2013.
I'm sure most 2013s are of good quality, the problem is whether the prices make sense.

JimHow wrote:

I tasted the 2013 Mouton almost exactly a year ago with Philippe Dhalluin and Neal Martin. It was surprisingly good.

This does not surprise me. Modern winemaking and strict selection are such that Bordeaux can produce quality wines every year, including vintages like 2013.
I'm sure most 2013s are of good quality, the problem is whether the prices make sense.

As Comte pointed out, some tasters thought that some chateaux chaptalized their must...Here is the link from decanter...

http://www.decanter.com/wine/wine-regio ... ars-13750/

As the article points out, last time that happened on a big scale was in 1994...As I recall, 1994 was not liked by many on the board...

Jim, I have to say I agree 100% with your philosophy of "Life is too short to be drinking 89 point wines." I only wish I came up with that line first, I'd make it part of my signature in my profile. Maybe that's why I recently picked up a case of 89" LB? I've come to that conclusion recently since I've dramatically cut back how much wine I drink in an effort to drop some weight. For the last month I've eliminated drinking any alcohol during the week and I've dropped 10 pounds just doing that and watching what I eat. Nothing drastic but focusing on reducing carbs. Only thing I'm missing is potato's, rice and ice cream. It's actually been fun since I've forced myself to cook things that previously I never thought of and the experience has been eye opening. Getting back to the point, I'm drinking much less wine so I really don't want to waste it on a "blah" bottle. I used to chase the qpr's but now I save those for cookouts and non-winos who think any bottle over $10 is great.

I do however prefer my wines with some age on them. While I enjoy wines "young" (5-10 yr old), I really dig how the wine changes over the years and while shedding the tannin and maybe some of the fruit, it picks up more tertiary points that add complexity. That, to me is what separates Bordeaux from most of California.

No wrong answers here. I believe it's individual preference. While wines may lose some particular characteristics over time they hopefully gain others. It's just a matter of which you prefer.

Gerry M. wrote:Jim, I have to say I agree 100% with your philosophy of "Life is too short to be drinking 89 point wines." I only wish I came up with that line first, I'd make it part of my signature in my profile. Maybe that's why I recently picked up a case of 89" LB? I've come to that conclusion recently since I've dramatically cut back how much wine I drink in an effort to drop some weight. For the last month I've eliminated drinking any alcohol during the week and I've dropped 10 pounds just doing that and watching what I eat. Nothing drastic but focusing on reducing carbs. Only thing I'm missing is potato's, rice and ice cream. It's actually been fun since I've forced myself to cook things that previously I never thought of and the experience has been eye opening. Getting back to the point, I'm drinking much less wine so I really don't want to waste it on a "blah" bottle. I used to chase the qpr's but now I save those for cookouts and non-winos who think any bottle over $10 is great.

I do however prefer my wines with some age on them. While I enjoy wines "young" (5-10 yr old), I really dig how the wine changes over the years and while shedding the tannin and maybe some of the fruit, it picks up more tertiary points that add complexity. That, to me is what separates Bordeaux from most of California.

No wrong answers here. I believe it's individual preference. While wines may lose some particular characteristics over time they hopefully gain others. It's just a matter of which you prefer.

Exactly...Each one to his/her own...


Here is the excerpt of what I thought and wrote on other thread...

http://www.bordeauxwineenthusiasts.com/ ... 017#p57119

Well, I am not a daily wine drinker and my consumption is around 60 to 80 bottles per year. I just want to keep it that way and be steady moving forward when I grow older so that I do not have to worry about spikes or cut downs of consumption in future. For that reason, I generally do not buy non-growths and the likes. Let's be real. Although there are exceptions, generally speaking, growth properties and the equivalents in other regions have much better quality than the rest. Therefore, I do not try weekly quaffers even out of curiosity (but thank goodness to some fellow BWErs, I have procured some that I enjoyed. Unless someone like that who I can trust recommends, I won't buy quaffers).

I feel it's like reading a book. There are millions of books out there, but life is too short to spend time reading something that is not worth reading or that is not up to the mark. So you pick and choose what you want to read. Similarly, life is too short (in my case even shorter due to lower consumption rate) to drink something that does not live up to my preference of high-threshold pleasure. I would rather drink better and less than drink more...Since I also love cooking, having a quality wine to pair with also complements my needs.

I've lost 18 pounds since the first of the year, and I'd like to lose another 15. Pretty much like you guys, I try to keep my consumption at about two bottles per week, sometimes I might have a glass or two more if I'm in NYC, which these days is at least every other week.

Well done on the '89 Lynchs, Gerry. Let them sit for another 5-10 years.

Basically, good arguments here. But I think that if you drink only "90 points" wines, at a moment or another, you'll drink a wine that is "supposed" to be a "90 point" wine, but you'll rate it lower or will not have enjoyment.

It is important to drink "85 points" wines once in a while, to keep appreciating the "90 points" wines.

Another very important item: how do you know it is not a "90 points" wine if you don't taste it? That means that you don't trust your own smelling and tasting abilities? You need to refers to label (expectations) or to someone else palate that taste the wine? Come on, don't be so simple.

Nic

Lucie and I drank a wonderful 89 pointer tonight: 2012 Kirwan. Sweet fruit, fullish, and even Margauxberries at this young age.

Then I looked it up and found that the usual suspects all rated it 90 or above. I give it 91- (minus for me means that I do not expect improvement with further age, while + means the opposite).

Nicklasss wrote:Basically, good arguments here. But I think that if you drink only "90 points" wines, at a moment or another, you'll drink a wine that is "supposed" to be a "90 point" wine, but you'll rate it lower or will not have enjoyment.

It is important to drink "85 points" wines once in a while, to keep appreciating the "90 points" wines.

Another very important item: how do you know it is not a "90 points" wine if you don't taste it? That means that you don't trust your own smelling and tasting abilities? You need to refers to label (expectations) or to someone else palate that taste the wine? Come on, don't be so simple.

Nic

I think the best way for people to calibrate what they like is to taste things blind. It's a little bit more of a pain to organize a tasting group around that. But I think people learn more, especially what is 'good' versus 'great', from their own perception rather than a critic deciding that for them.

I don't feel a need to drink "just OK" wines to appreciate the good stuff. But I won't turn my nose up at a good wine that doesn't reach the Wow level. If that's what's available, plenty of enjoyment to be found in the 85-pointers.

I agree with Arv about blind tasting but most of my wine drinking these days is more for enjoyment than for comparison, especially since I've exited the purchasing phase of my wine obsession and am currently only consuming. We've typically got just one bottle open and we know what to expect from it. In larger dinners when the goal is enjoyment rather than making purchase decisions, I'd rather know what the wines are. If the label increases my enjoyment, whether due to reputation or anticipation or past experiences, so much the better. The whole point is enjoyment.

Blind tastings are hard work for me. I like to have a context for judging the wines, so I prefer semi-blind tastings, where, say, the wines are from the northern Medoc between 10 and 15 years old.

I don't seek out wines rated higher than 89 points, but will not turn them down necessarily if they come at the right price.

Stay thirsty, my friends.

Folks, I always seem to get flamed when I disagree, but I've learned to trust my own palate over points.

Here in hot, balmy Singapore, the wine market is rather immature, and there are a lot of label drinkers who would not know the difference between a nice wine and camel urine.
So at tastings, I normally just talk to the usual enthusiasts and ignore the show-offs.

Anyway, I went to tasting 2 weeks ago put on my a business associate and ALL the wines had received ratings of at least 95 points by someone who has a more famous palate that mine - WA, WS, James Halliday, various British writers, whatever.
Some wines had a trailing number pattern that looked like braille to me. " This was received 98, 98, 97, 96, 96, 95, 95, 94, 3 gold medals, 2 trophies, 4 silver medals, one unpronouncable award, whatever.
So I gave it a good sniff. Err, it smells like a cross between road tar, unwashed cigar ashtrays and a horse stable.
The person pouring it then tells me how many points, awards and the like it got from people who drink 600 wines a day and make a living from it. How could they be " wrong"!!!!
Clearly, it must be my peasant palate, I simply drink it, I don't analyse the anthrocyanins, dry matter, flavinoids or weigh it with a scale.

Next, I drink it. The alcohol was so hot I thought it was barrel strength whiskey.
The wine was so sweet and cloying, so fiercely tannic, that I got whacked with sugar as well as being left with black stained teeth.
And to make matters worse, it was voted the best wine at the tasting at the end of the night.

Next, wine. Yes, it had again got 98 points and who am I to argue?
It was 18.5% alcohol and was so thick it could be used as wheel bearing grease.

Unfortunately, the rest of the wines were not much different.
It did at least give me an idea of what wines to send off to auction.

After 50 wines (there were 100 at the tasting) I did not want to think about wine for a few days.
My palate had stopped working and my head was starting to hurt.

A few days later, I opened a 2001 Ch Poujeaux. From its original case, it has been sleeping for some years.
It smelled, strangely, of wine.
Quite amazing really. No road tar, horse dung or burnt out ashtrays.
I imagine that it would have received about 3/100 at the above tasting.
Yet this fully mature Bordeaux, with no pretense to greatness or high price was a very pleasant drink and I didn't need a visit to the dentist or neurologist after it.

Well put, Claudius, although He Who Shall Remain Nameless used to proudly describe roadside tar as a positive not a negative.

I've always thought the whole creosote thing to be strange - and one reason why I hardly keep any Barolo / Barbaresco around. I guess there its considered a feature. I like the floral/rose petal aspect but not that other aspect. (I sometimes pick that up in younger syrah too)

=====

I've said before that the attributes designed to impress in a big panel tasting, or win over professional critics based on a quick sip, aren't the same that make for a nice bottle over a whole evening. It's like scouting on people who might thrive in speed dating situations versus a longer term partnership.

Marc, what were these high rated wines that are undrinkable?

A little road tar in young Syrah is a good thing in my book. Not so much in Cab. I suppose those are learned responses.

Jim,
When I read "road tar" or "ashtrays" in a tasting note I normally opt for the mineral water.

Stefan,
the two examples I mentioned were both South Aust Shiraz.
I think one was Shirvington and the other was Greenock Creek.

However, please don't think all South Aust Shiraz is like this.
Both had 98 pt scores from WA and a slew of points and awards otherwise.

There are two Barossa estates I still bring over, which are Rockford and Turkey Flat. I used to buy Henschke but now they are too expensive.
I occasionally buy Hewitson (Barossa and McLaren Vale), Burge Family, Grant Burge and a few others from time to time.
Penfolds are good but they have a tendency to taste the same and have a lot of American oak.

So in balmy Singapore, I mainly drink Aust chardonnay and riesling, white Burgundy, red Burgundy, the occasional Bordeaux and Rhone, a few Italians and Spanish wines, and Aust reds from cooler areas (e.g., Frankland River, Coonawarra, southern Victoria). I have also started guzzling NV champagne on a regular basis as it is so inviting on a hot and humid day.

Well, ash tray yes, roadside tire I'm not so sure.
I think I "get" the roadside tar of La Tour Carnet and some of those racy St. Emilions.

Jim
Ashtray can mean a note of tobacco or smoke, which isn't bad.
I often use cigar box, tobacco leaf or green tobacco as a descriptor and in a good way.
If it starts smelling like a tray full of hot, acrid burnt ashes that's not so good.

agreed.
what meant was ash tray no, tar yes.

Over the hill claret often smells of stale ashtray to me. Yuck.

I actually love the smell of pipe and cigar stores. I don't smoke, but love that aroma.