Since this is a civil debate - yes, pun intended - not a criminal debate, the jury only needs a preponderance of the evidence to rule. That's 51%. We are there! I'm at 98.5%!Comte Flaneur wrote:I feel exactly the same way CV about alcohol. I am on record for saying this, and echoing Robert and Mark’s distaste for highly alcoholic right banks. I just remain to be convinced that these wines are a write off.
Robert provided an impressive list of offenders, but among the more serious estates the jury is surely still out. When I last tried 2005 Pavie I found it verging on abhorrent. But can I exclude the possibility that this will be magnificent in 20-30 years? Absolutely not. That is the market, which is more knowledgeable than any of us, which doesn’t mean we can’t bet against it. Pape Clement went very modern around 2000: who’s to say how the 2005 evolves?
I do think these now modern wines from great terroirs will do better than these amped up wines from lesser terroirs. The latter definitely fall apart whereas the former remain more staunchly in the opulent realm. That 2005 Clos Fourtet was there.
For me, it just makes zero sense to keep buying any of them when there are alternatives that I love, have loved and will continue to love in the future (I hope, aging palate excepted) from historic, classic estates that have remained classic. Classic, and class, never goes out of style.