Ave atque vale (sortof)

[rthomaspaull]

The "gremlin" that destroys my posts is really working overtime.
My "system" for "classifying " left bank red Bordeaux wines of a given year depending on that year's Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.) for its sub-area can produce apparently anomalous results. THe W.A.V.R. for St. Estephe etc. was 98 in 2010, and I gave the 2010 "La Dame de Montrose" a 94. This
made it a bottom second growth. The W.A.V.R. for Margaux for 2012 was 89, which under my system is raised to 90 (so that a fifth growth does not score below 85). The 2012 Alter Ego de Palmer got a 92.5 from me, making it a bottom first growth for that sub-area and year.
By way of a sort of "legacy" I am giving piecemeal the results of Grudeken combined at equal weights (so as to give somewhat more weight to recent
results) with a study I did of many left bank red Bordeaux wines from 2002-2014 (excl. 2013). All ratings were from bottle and all wer by Robert Parker except that 2014 was by Neil Martin. The total period covered was from 1982-2014 (excl. 5 poor years). More to follow, rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Part 2. Herewith is the combined list of "first growths" (minimum score 93.0) in descending order:


Lafite-Rothschild 95.15
Latour 94.9
Haut Brion and Margaux 94.65
Leoville Las Cases 94.45
La Mission Haut Briony 93.5
Mouton-Rothschild 93.4

rthomaspaulll

[rthomaspaull]

Part 3. Herewith is the combined list of "second growths" (minimum score 90.5) in descending order:


Cos D'Estournel 92.75
Montrose 92.55
Ducru-Beaucaillou 92.35
Palmer 92.05
Pichon Lalande 92.0
Leoville Poyferre and Pape Clement 91.8
Pichon Baron 91.7
Pontet Canet 91.6
Leoville Barton 91.45
Lynch Bages 91.15
Smith Haut Lafitte 91.1
Haut Bailly 90.95
Grand-Puy-Lacoste 90.5

rhomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Part 4, Herewith is the combined list of "third growths" {minimum score 88.5) in descending order:


Saint Pierre 90.35
Duhart Milon 90.2
Sociando Mallet 90.15
Les Forts de Latour and Rauzan-Segla 90.1
Calon Segur 90.05
Branaire Ducru 89.85
Clerc Milon 89.8
Malescot-Saint-Exupery 89.65
Gruaud Larose 89.5 [ The only major point of disagreement I have with Parker/Martin: I would say 90.5 "second growth" as
as I would score the study period for this wine at 91.3 instead of 89.3 ]
Clos du Marquis 89.25
Les Carmes Haut Brion 89.2
La Lagune 89.0
Domaine de Chevalier and Bahans/Clarence de Haut Brion 88.95
Lagrange 88.9
D'Armailhac 88,8
Talbot 88.65
La Louviere 88.55
Kirwan 88.53
Beychevelle 88.5 rthomaspaull

[greatbxfreak]

RTH,

You're spamming our board with endless long posts of various classifications, which nobody here is really interested in.

I think is better for anybody here that you simply stop posting here on the forum.

Your long essays about this or that classification are not at all useful.

[rthomaspaull]

To greatbxfreak: Je m'en fiche.

Part 5. Herewith is the combined list of "fourth growths" (minimum score 87.0) in descending order:


D'Issan 88.45
Brane Cantenac 88.4
De Fieuzal and Langoa Barton 88.35
Du Tertre and Gloria 88.25
Lafon Rochet 88.2
Haut-Bages-Liberal 88.15
Giscours 88.05
Grand-Puy-Ducasse and Prieure Lichine 87.95

Haut Batailley and Haut Marbuzet 87,7
Cantemerle and Carbonnieux 87.55
Potensac 87.15
Phelan Segur 87.1
Hortevie rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

Part 6: Herewith is the combined list of "fifth growths" (minimum score 85.5) in descending order:



D'Angludet 86.9
Siran 86.4
Meyney 86.3
Batailley and Les Ormes de Pez 86.25

(Marquis de Terme just misses at 85.45)


I am very glad to say that I have found a website far better suited to my needs than BWE and WB. A little maths work
is needed, but I do not mind that.





Ave atque vale, especially to DavidG and jckba, rthomaspaull

[Racer Chris]

The "gremlin" that destroys my posts is really working overtime.
My "system" for "classifying " left bank red Bordeaux wines of a given year depending on that year's Wine Advocate Vintage Rating (W.A.V.R.) for its sub-area can produce apparently anomalous results. THe W.A.V.R. for St. Estephe etc. was 98 in 2010, and I gave the 2010 "La Dame de Montrose" a 94.
...

I too discovered that the 2010 Montrose 2nd wine was outstanding in its youth, and a bottle I drank in December was not far off its best performance as well.
Croix de Beaucaillou also outperformed in 2014.
I'm very happy to have found both at favorable pricing when I was just beginning to grow my cellar.

I think that labeling them "First Growth Quality" is a bit overstated though.

[rthomaspaull]

To Chris F,
As its you I will reply. Neither of th e 2nd wines in my preamble made my {really RP's) lists. La Dame de Montrose was a low 2nd in m system in 2010, and
Alter ego de Palmer was a low first (!) in 2012. rthomaspaull

[Blanquito]

A little mescaline to start the day?

RT, cessate et sic desinunt.

[Racer Chris]

To Chris F,
As its you I will reply. Neither of th e 2nd wines in my preamble made my {really RP's) lists. La Dame de Montrose was a low 2nd in m system in 2010, and
Alter ego de Palmer was a low first (!) in 2012. rthomaspaull

Oops, my mistake. I would accept that LDM in 2010 may be of 2nd Growth "quality". The first wine ought to be exceptional in that vintage. I purchased one bottle of 2012 and one of 2014 Montrose which I decided was affordable to me in the moment, but if I am to ever taste 2010 Montrose it will be due to someone else's generosity.
I've never had the Alter Ego but in your opinion is it better than Rauzan-Segla in 2012?

[Jay Winton]

I am humbled at your ability to rate growths to a tenth of a point. Seriously, far above my skill rating.

[rthomaspaull]

To Jay Winton: I personally only rate wines to half a point. The combined lists, essentially by Robert Parker are averages, and so can be within .05 (a twentieth of a point), but they are not at all my ratings. rthomaspaul

[Blanquito]

To Jay Winton: I personally only rate wines to half a point. The combined lists, essentially by Robert Parker are averages, and so can be within .05 (a twentieth of a point, but they are not at all my ratings. rthomaspaul

Oh come on, any self-respecting rating system worth its salt should at least go to the 1000th place with precision and reproducibility.

[rthomaspaull]

As a parting "gift" I will give my opinion about sensible pricing for wines of low or very low first growth quality for 2016. Of the combined list "second " growths only Pare Clement and (easily) Grand-Puy-Lacoste clearly make it, while Leoville Poyferre and Haut-Bailly are borderlinen cases. Domaine de Chevalier is a "third " growth (it would be higher more recently) and the 2016 is in my opinion a fine bargain with a 96.5 score. rthomaspaull

[rthomaspaull]

To Chris F. : The 2012 Alter Ego is of bottom first growth quality at 92.5 in Margaux, while the 2012 Rauzan-Segla at 94.5 is noticeably better.

rthomaspaull

[JoelD]

To Jay Winton: I personally only rate wines to half a point. The combined lists, essentially by Robert Parker are averages, and so can be within .05 (a twentieth of a point, but they are not at all my ratings. rthomaspaul

Oh come on, any self-respecting rating system worth its salt should at least go to the 1000th place with precision and reproducibility.

I have thus far abstained from any of this nonsense. However this made me chuckle.

I wonder if I sound similar during the Lynch Bages debate?

The potential self enlightenment is the real gift from RT!

[rthomaspaull]

To Blanquito: It is (nearly) always nice to find someone with a sense of humor. As a matter of fact, I rounded to hundreds of a point one rating (by Parker) that was really 5 one-thousands of a point because I was unsure of which of 2 alternative figures of Parker''s to use. rthomaspaull

[Nicklasss]

A little mescaline to start the day?

RT, cessate et sic desinunt.

I think we need to send the Paw Patrol for a control.

[greatbxfreak]

One of my American friends, who now lives in Texas and has just planted an own vineyard, teached me a typical American expression that is used towards a very irritating person - "you're a pain in the a.."

RT, just disappear from the forum, nobody here has the slightest need to read your nonsense.

[rthomaspaull]

To greatbxfreak: kindly stop your thoroughly detestable messages, and stop reading mine. People on this forum like you and Tim seem worse than anyone on Wine Berserkers. BWE is not nearly as polite as it pretends, and I question how JH is doing (or not doing) his job.

To Blanquito: Mesvaline is an illicit hallucinogenic drug, and it may be a crime to suggest using it. Maybe you should cease and leave off.

To Nicklasss: Paw Patrol? Are you being a bxxxh? (just joking) rthomaspaull

[JoelD]

Just trying to understand here.

You have now said that you are leaving and quitting posting here, but this is your second post on that subject and you're still responding?

You also said you quit Wineberserkers, but you've still been posting on there?

It doesn't appear that anyone has use for your system, which I actually respect the idea behind it in theory although in practice I think it's useless. Why not just chat with us on your own tastes, and use the system yourself? Or try to collaborate with people here and see if theres a way that they might be interested in using some similar methodology without RP numbers.

[DavidG]

To Jay Winton: I personally only rate wines to half a point. The combined lists, essentially by Robert Parker are averages, and so can be within .05 (a twentieth of a point, but they are not at all my ratings. rthomaspaul

Oh come on, any self-respecting rating system worth its salt should at least go to the 1000th place with precision and reproducibility.

I have thus far abstained from any of this nonsense. However this made me chuckle.

I wonder if I sound similar during the Lynch Bages debate?

The potential self enlightenment is the real gift from RT!

Reminds me of Dan Kravitz, the Hand Picked Selections guy. He used to post scores to the hundredths of a point to mock the presumed precision of Parker's palate.