AFAIC, RP’s questionable palate or scoring?

[Chateau Vin]

I know, discussion about RP’s change in palate and penchant for ripe wines, especially during last 2 decades, is like beating a dead horse. But nevertheless...

I was in the mood for a cab, and was rummaging my cellar for the lone bottle of wine I have from ‘Down Under’. So I pulled 2001 Greenock Cellars Roennfeldt Cabarnet over the weekend.

I let it air it out in the bottle itself for half an hour or so, and consumed over the next 2 hours. On the nose, hints of bell pepper, sage and mint. On the palate, tannins are ever so lightly in the background, and showed amalgamation of black fruit and cassis. And that’s the only best part of the wine...

For my tastes, the wine was overripe, sweet, and showed loads of oak. It lacked any depth or complexity. If I have to talk about it’s finish, the sweet and overripeness feeling lingers on the palate (which I didn’t appreciate it), and that’s about it. Can’t understand why RP was gaga about it, and he clocked it at 96! Assuming it’s not an off for him but a routine assessment, geez then his spoofulated palate is for real!!

I have had much pleasure from non-growth Bordeaux such as Sociando, Gloria and even La Tour de mons...That aussie wine is not worth 96, not worth the hype either and definitely not worth the current price of nearly 200 bucks...

For giggles, feel like dropping OrlandoRobert on a deserted island with this lone bottle of Greenock Roennfeldt Cab (and it wouldn’t pair up well with fish or coconuts either... )

[AKR]

I remember trying these kinds of wines on release, specifically the Roennfeld Rd, although I don't remember which vintage, maybe it was 99 or 00. They do very well in panel tastings, where you have a small taste, and it smokes away 'normal' less concentrated wines. But they feel like too much to drink in larger dosages. Like a super salty potato chip! Nice if you have one, and preferred to less seasoned peers.

Time ought to have helped it though. I had some 98 Fox Creek Reserve Cabs from that era that actually rounded out very well with a decade plus of time, shedding their beastly tannin and turning smooth, flavorful and complex. Gone now, but a surprise. Most other OZ wines imported during that 'this one goes to 11' frenzy didn't blossom the same way.

[Musigny 151]

Any acid?

[Tom In DC]

At the risk of being ostracized (or is that my usual state?), those Aussie ooze-monsters were fun to drink on release. Mostly as cocktail substitutes at parties or with a giant slab of grilled beef.

Parker made some wild guesses about aging curves for a whole new style of wine. It certainly doesn't surprise me that his WAG's didn't play out.

[Chateau Vin]

Any acid?

It did have moderate amount of acid, but I was not overall impressed by the wine. Not worth my time or resources for such wines...Am glad I had only one bottle...

[AKR]

These can be good in panel tastings to demonstrate some attributes. HM$ showed us a Yocachuya (sp?) at BWE confab some years ago and it was instructive. It is something I think St. Rolland makes from the southern hemisphere.

[Claudius2]

Chateau Vin
I really do understand as I have had 2001 GC wines many times and they were quite frankly close to undrinkable.
RP gave the 01Creek Block Shiraz 100 points and all the other wines at least 95.
I just about choked on both the wines and points.
They are unabashedly extreme wines and as such generate polarized views.
The vintage was really hot like 03 in Bordeaux and the vines shut down. I was in Barossa during the harvest and some vintners complained that the had hi alc despite NOT being physiologically ripe. Thus you get bell pepper and vegetal characters as well as tarry and bramble flavors. I am pretty sure the Roenfeldt Rd wines get a lot of new oak and mixed with tar and black fruit, they are what the most PC taster would called an acquired taste.
I feel bad bagging Aussie wines but I liked them so much I sent them all off to auction.
Please don’t think all Aust reds taste like that as you have really hit the pointy edge here.

[OrlandoRobert]

I know, discussion about RP’s change in palate and penchant for ripe wines, especially during last 2 decades, is like beating a dead horse. But nevertheless...

I was in the mood for a cab, and was rummaging my cellar for the lone bottle of wine I have from ‘Down Under’. So I pulled 2001 Greenock Cellars Roennfeldt Cabarnet over the weekend.

I let it air it out in the bottle itself for half an hour or so, and consumed over the next 2 hours. On the nose, hints of bell pepper, sage and mint. On the palate, tannins are ever so lightly in the background, and showed amalgamation of black fruit and cassis. And that’s the only best part of the wine...

For my tastes, the wine was overripe, sweet, and showed loads of oak. It lacked any depth or complexity. If I have to talk about it’s finish, the sweet and overripeness feeling lingers on the palate (which I didn’t appreciate it), and that’s about it. Can’t understand why RP was gaga about it, and he clocked it at 96! Assuming it’s not an off for him but a routine assessment, geez then his spoofulated palate is for real!!

I have had much pleasure from non-growth Bordeaux such as Sociando, Gloria and even La Tour de mons...That aussie wine is not worth 96, not worth the hype either and definitely not worth the current price of nearly 200 bucks...

For giggles, feel like dropping OrlandoRobert on a deserted island with this lone bottle of Greenock Roennfeldt Cab (and it wouldn’t pair up well with fish or coconuts either... )

Haha, between the Aussies, Cali Cults and Big Jay Spanish duds, it went sooooo wrong.

[Musigny 151]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.

I left a group that had been going for decades, when the average topped sixty and they seemed to develop a group love for 16% Zinfandels. The final straw was when somebody (not me) served some lovely aged Bordeaux, and another member of the group went after him, and even suggested that the host submit a list of wines to be tasted. After serving 1970 Haut Brion and 1975 Pichon Lalande, it was really insulting.

[OrlandoRobert]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.
.

This, 100%

The change was so palpable.

[AKR]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.

I left a group that had been going for decades, when the average topped sixty and they seemed to develop a group love for 16% Zinfandels. The final straw was when somebody (not me) served some lovely aged Bordeaux, and another member of the group went after him, and even suggested that the host submit a list of wines to be tasted. After serving 1970 Haut Brion and 1975 Pichon Lalande, it was really insulting.

Was this WineCop? If it's who I think it was....

"Don't be bringing no F'ing Beychevelle" is what I think is what he told me in the 90's once....

[jal]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.

I have a problem with this, I can understand having a preference for more fruit and sweetness to earthiness but a professional critic should be able to evaluate structure, balance and complexity and the lack of the latter characteristics is my main issue with these modern wines.

[AKR]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.

I have a problem with this, I can understand having a preference for more fruit and sweetness to earthiness but a professional critic should be able to evaluate structure, balance and complexity and the lack of the latter characteristics is my main issue with these modern wines.

To me the difficult with projecting complexity is that if its a new style/region, there is not much of a history to look at. Just hypothetically if we observe chocolatey notes in young St Emilion, we might reasonably guess that in 20 years it will turn peanut buttery, truffley, sandalwoody etc. (I'm just using that as a made up example)

If someone tasted a 99 GC Roennfeld Rd on release, and found that it tasted pruney/porty, it would not be easy to guesstimate what kind of complexity it might develop in a few decades, because there wasn't some gigantic library of aged wines to explore or build mental imagery from. I remember quite liking all those d'Arenberg single vineyard CNDP esque clones on release.....laying some down and wondering what happened a decade later, with no positive changes.

I got snared by a lot of the new wave oaky high scoring Rhones during this era, and most, but not all just didn't merit the years, nor money. So it wasn't just an OZ only thing back then. Paul Autard, Janasse, Usseglio and a few others all sort of broadly in this camp. Jaume and some their bottlings did pull it off though.

I think all these people dropping $40+ on English sparkling wines, expecting Champagne's aging properties, have this risk now too. (Personally I like bubbly on release best, so am not expecting that dimension)

[Musigny 151]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.

I have a problem with this, I can understand having a preference for more fruit and sweetness to earthiness but a professional critic should be able to evaluate structure, balance and complexity and the lack of the latter characteristics is my main issue with these modern wines.

Jacques, I think we will probably continue to have very different viewpoints on this.


I am not looking for someone to just tick the boxes. I demand that a critic scores a wine honestly based on his own reaction to the wine, not how he thinks others react. Most critics claim that they can, I can’t help feeling it’s intellectually dishonest.

I love John Gilman’s newsletter because he scores wines based only on how he likes them. He doesn’t try to extrapolate on how other people will score the same wine. How can you taste for another person’s palate preferences? So he will never say, “I don’t like this at all but it is a well made wine, made in the modern style 92 points.” Instead he will talk about the overripeness, lack of acidity, lack of precision etc.Thus he will score the Cos 58-62? while Jeff Leve will give it 100.

If we want a critic to be all things to all wines, then there are plenty of them to draw from. I suspect that you might be disappointed, because trying to be fair, they lose themselves in the extrapolation. Better, a critic who knows his own palate.

[Musigny 151]

Parker was pretty reliable for a long time, but when his palate failed, it failed spectacularly. I have to put it down to age, medications, and tasting way too much wine for twenty five plus years.

I left a group that had been going for decades, when the average topped sixty and they seemed to develop a group love for 16% Zinfandels. The final straw was when somebody (not me) served some lovely aged Bordeaux, and another member of the group went after him, and even suggested that the host submit a list of wines to be tasted. After serving 1970 Haut Brion and 1975 Pichon Lalande, it was really insulting.

Was this WineCop? If it's who I think it was....

"Don't be bringing no F'ing Beychevelle" is what I think is what he told me in the 90's once....

This was a local Westchester group. I very much doubt you knew any of them. A lot of very nice, older wine lovers. The only person from this group you might have known was Nick Poulos of Pops, who sadly died recently. And if they knew the word f*ck, I doubt whether any of them ever used it”

I love the quote though.

[stefan]

I align with Jacques on this issue. I really do not care what personal preference someone else has. With a good description from a critic I can decide whether I will probably like the wine. Is 2009 Cos a poorly made wine? "...overripeness, lack of acidity, lack of precision" suggests a poorly made wine while “I don’t like this at all but it is a well made wine, made in the modern style” does not.

[Claudius2]

Guys
One factor that affected RP's palate is the simple fact that he tried (by his own admission) around 600 wines a day.
Try that for a few days and see if you can make sense of the wine. I mean any of them.
Next, do it for 30 years possibly with a break or two for a short time.

I am much more inclined to take notice of tasters (professional or otherwise) who actually drink the wine, rather than sip a bit and spit it out.
And as the wine IS generally spat out, the more concentrated, fuller bodied wines stand out in a long line of samples to try.

Can I also say this.
I few months ago I posted some notes on how to make hi alcoholic, concentrated and viscous wines.
Luckily, most Australian makers are NOT following that recipe any more, and are looking for balance and freshness, without sacrificing intensity of flavour.
A good example it the Turkey Flat wines - and I'll post another note separately.

It is also worth noting that going back 20-30 years, winemakers could sell their wine at high prices when they got really high RP points.
A simple example was the 2001 Greenock Creek Creek Block Shiraz.
I bought it on the mailing list for about $A40, drank one bottle, and then flipped it at auction for over $200 the following week.
In the meantime, RP gave the wine 100 points, and the only way I could describe it was that there is no rational way I could rate it.
The cellar door price also jumped accordingly, and at the small CD facility, each wine had RP points signs next to it.
C'est la vie.

[jal]

Jacques, I think we will probably continue to have very different viewpoints on this.

I didn't make myself clear.

I have no issues with personal taste, John Gilman and Jeff Leve have different preferences and I respect that.

I have a problem with the way Parker changed his views and started describing wines based mainly on fruit while giving ridiculous impressions on quality. I looked up the descriptions of the 1998 Fox Creek Reserve Shiraz, a wine I detested and that gave me a massive headache twice - ten years apart; "Exceptionally rich and explosive, with great purity as well as remarkable symmetry and overall balance for such massiveness" I found no purity and most certainly no balance, I found overbearing sweetness, jammy alcoholic fruit and most certainly heat and alcohol. I clearly remember descriptions of "multidimensional personality" and "multi layered mouthfeel" in several of his descriptions of Shiraz of that era. What layers? Only layer I ever noticed was jammy sweet fruit that was completely monolithic.

So I agree with Stefan when he says

I really do not care what personal preference someone else has. With a good description from a critic I can decide whether I will probably like the wine.

And Parker got sloppy, maybe as Claudius noted, it's from tasting 600 wines a day, but I don't care, he got sloppy and started distributing scores of 98 and 99 to wines that had no layers, no balance and no purity contrary to what his descriptions said.

Obviously, I learned my lesson quickly and stopped buying after 3-4 bottles but I want my money back at least for the Advil.

[Claudius2]

Jacques
I think many, many critics and writers have now fallen into the habit of giving crazy high points (98,99) to numerous wines which simply do not deserve it.
I am not picking out Greenock Creek by the way, and these wines also get extreme points by other tasters.

My recent comments about Wynns Coonawarra CS is an example. This wine got super high points and is a nice, well made commercial wine but it left me wondering how many points a truly mind grand wine should get.
I think that in future, they will have to start using a different scale as 100 points isn't high enough.

I will not give wines points ratings with the exception of Cellartracker simply as I know many just look at the average points.
I have never had any idea what "96 points" or whatever actually tastes like.

[jal]

I agree Claudius, points aren't everything. That's why I read descriptions and why Parker was so disappointing.

Just to get back for a second to Gilman and Leve: my palate is closer somewhat to Gilman and I have said before that I like everything he likes but I don't dislike everything he dislikes. He is for me the standard.
For Jeff Leve, it is mainly the clear descriptions of the wines and I can understand from them if it will be a wine I can enjoy or not.
As for Parker (ok, not now obv, but ten or so years ago and before), the descriptions and my experience of the wines clash. Again, in my opinion he was sloppy at best. It took a while to calibrate that the important words were "explosive" "massive" "dense" "voluptuous" "fruit bomb" while ignoring "purity" "balance" and "layered' (which for me is as close to complexity as I can think of) and that meant avoid at all cost.

[Musigny 151]

I think the idea of balance is where we start to run into problems. Jeff finds that you can have balanced wines with extremely high alcohol. For some reason, I cannot get his descriptors for the Troplong Mondot 2010, but he did give it a 98. Just to be clear, the wine weighed in at 16.2%. Despite not being able to download the note, I can infer that he did not think it was unbalanced, while my note describes a horror show in the glass. Ditto the notorious Cos 2009, which in one of his many notes he described as having balance.

Ultimately, while description cannot be objective, one would hope for some measure of agreement on the actual note, before subjecting it to scoring. The fact that there are such wildly differing views suggests that there is not much overlap between the extreme palates such as Gilman and Leve, and I would find it hard to to place much confidence I n anybody who tries to reconcile those extremes.

[Nicklasss]

The 2010 Troplong Mondot is more balanced after the fourth of fifth glass... but you have to pass over that first sip impression .

What I'm looking for in wine critics, is sincerity on what they are actually tasting, when they taste it. It is very easy (even for me) to say that any wines will be better in 10 years. Many wine critics are making "a show" : using new unexpected words, giving many very young wines rating of 98, saying every wines is balanced in any vintage especially when it is a producer with great reputation (they never do any small mistakes?)... they drifted away from what wine is made for: pleasure. And they forget to say the reality, with respect to the product or producer.

For Parker, did he lost his track when he started to enjoy bigger wines and/or with more alcohol? And getting the feeling that the more concentrated bigger wines are making a bigger impression when having 500 sips a day? By the way, i hope this is not true because i find this ridiculous to try that amount of different wines everyday...

But sincerity is saying that the wine isn't to your palate now, and you hope you'll revisit in 10 years to see the wine evolution.

Nic

P.s. The 2006 Troplong Mondot was also a weirdo beast two years ago, even if some critics thougth it was great...sometime I feel like wine critic are the ultimate label drinkers!

[Jeff Leve]

I find these threads to be nonsense. The reason is, Parker enjoyed a broader range of wine styles than most people.

Yes, he loved powerful wines. But he also adored elegance and finesse. Some examples in this thread. He likes Paul Autard Chateauneuf, yet Rayas earned higher scores. He likes Troplong Mondot, but Cheval Blanc grabs higher marks. He loves Smith Haut Lafite, but Haut Brion and LMHB gain higher marks. If I had to sum up Parker's taste, it would be that he likes good wine as he sees it.

I must admit, I will never understand his positive comments for all those Aussie monster wines. They are just undrinkable! But that's why ice cream comes in more than one flavor.

For the poster stating RP tasted 600 wines in a day. Is that hyperbole? Without even aksing, I am willing to bet money that did not happen, not even close. Personally, I am exhausted after100. Some days it is closer to 125 or so, but for me that is tiring. I imagine in his prime he could do 200.

On to the questions or comments with me. I do not like nearly the wide range of wines Parker enjoyed. I have my wheelhouse, which works for me. I might not venture much out of my sandbox. I admit it. But it is a big ass sandbox with a beach full of sand.

[Jeff Leve]

I think the idea of balance is where we start to run into problems. Jeff finds that you can have balanced wines with extremely high alcohol. For some reason, I cannot get his descriptors for the Troplong Mondot 2010, but he did give it a 98. Just to be clear, the wine weighed in at 16.2%. Despite not being able to download the note, I can infer that he did not think it was unbalanced, while my note describes a horror show in the glass. Ditto the notorious Cos 2009, which in one of his many notes he described as having balance.

Mark, you can always go to my site to either the page on the wine you want to know about, or use the tasting note seach. To make this one easy https://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bo ... ng-mondot/

Yes, alcohol is just a number for me. I do not judge a wine based on numbers. I look at what I think about that is in the glass. Troplong is a very specific style. I would never think it is for you. But I think it is a compelling wine as you can see from my note.

Ultimately, while description cannot be objective, one would hope for some measure of agreement on the actual note, before subjecting it to scoring. The fact that there are such wildly differing views suggests that there is not much overlap between the extreme palates such as Gilman and Leve, and I would find it hard to to place much confidence I n anybody who tries to reconcile those extremes.

Here we almost agree. Wine tasting is not objective. It should not be. But descriptors should mean the same thing to everyone, allowing us to share a common language. You, or anyone, if not everyone does not agree to agree on my score. But my notes should inform you on what you are going to find in your glass.

You are 100% right, there is ZERO overlap with Gillman. I would hate to spend a lifetime drinking the wines he covets. I am sure the complient is returned

[Jeff Leve]

I align with Jacques on this issue. I really do not care what personal preference someone else has. With a good description from a critic I can decide whether I will probably like the wine. Is 2009 Cos a poorly made wine? "...overripeness, lack of acidity, lack of precision" suggests a poorly made wine while “I don’t like this at all but it is a well made wine, made in the modern style” does not.

Personally, all I want is an opinion. That is what you pay for, or not. But that's just me.

[Jeff Leve]

Guys
One factor that affected RP's palate is the simple fact that he tried (by his own admission) around 600 wines a day.

Where did you read this? Can you cite this? Or is this some urban legend?

At 60 seconds per wine, that is 10 hours a day with no break. That does not seem possible.

I can tell you with Bob, if a wine didn't pass the smell test, he would move on and no note was written.

But still, do the math. However, I am open to being proven wrong. Please show me where Bob said this?

[Jeff Leve]

To me the difficult with projecting complexity is that if its a new style/region, there is not much of a history to look at. Just hypothetically if we observe chocolatey notes in young St Emilion, we might reasonably guess that in 20 years it will turn peanut buttery, truffley, sandalwoody etc. (I'm just using that as a made up example)

That is silly and plain wrong. A wine is a wine is a wine. Frankly, anyone writer, critic, taster that cannot evaluate and extrapolate where a wine is coming from and going to from a new property should get a new gig.

One of the best things about Bob was his big set of iron balls. He would taste a wine nobody ever heard of, or a wine from a property that had never ade a good wine before and give it a monster score without fear. Few, if any people could do that.

Some examples: Le Pin, Tertre Roteboeux, Troplong Mondot, Gracia, Valandraud, La Mondotte, Pingus, Sine Qua Non, Colgin, Harlan, Abreu, Marcassin and perhaps over 100 more. If I did not want to take a dip in the pool, I could go on listing wines he went big on right out of the gate. He has always had that ability and confidence. It was one of his best traits.

[Musigny 151]

I think the idea of balance is where we start to run into problems. Jeff finds that you can have balanced wines with extremely high alcohol. For some reason, I cannot get his descriptors for the Troplong Mondot 2010, but he did give it a 98. Just to be clear, the wine weighed in at 16.2%. Despite not being able to download the note, I can infer that he did not think it was unbalanced, while my note describes a horror show in the glass. Ditto the notorious Cos 2009, which in one of his many notes he described as having balance.

Mark, you can always go to my site to either the page on the wine you want to know about, or use the tasting note seach. To make this one easy https://www.thewinecellarinsider.com/bo ... ng-mondot/

Yes, alcohol is just a number for me. I do not judge a wine based on numbers. I look at what I think about that is in the glass. Troplong is a very specific style. I would never think it is for you. But I think it is a compelling wine as you can see from my note.

Ultimately, while description cannot be objective, one would hope for some measure of agreement on the actual note, before subjecting it to scoring. The fact that there are such wildly differing views suggests that there is not much overlap between the extreme palates such as Gilman and Leve, and I would find it hard to to place much confidence I n anybody who tries to reconcile those extremes.

Here we almost agree. Wine tasting is not objective. It should not be. But descriptors should mean the same thing to everyone, allowing us to share a common language. You, or anyone, if not everyone does not agree to agree on my score. But my notes should inform you on what you are going to find in your glass.

You are 100% right, there is ZERO overlap with Gillman. I would hate to spend a lifetime drinking the wines he covets. I am sure the complient is returned

Thanks for the link; for some reason it wasn’t working earlier today.

I think it is fair to say that you did not find the Troplong unbalanced, given the language you used to describe it. I would agree with you on most of the descriptors except I did feel the alcohol, tasted an overripe pruniness and found the wine top heavy and very low in acid, hence my comment about balance. We seem to have very different ideas on what constitutes balance.
BTW both you and John like 1989 HB.