Extraordinary tasting in Copenhagen - Bx 1945 vintage

[greatbxfreak]

Crazy, crazy Saturday dinner the 2nd May with friends (we did keep the distance, washing hands, etc.) and some extraordinary bottles. We celebrated the liberation of Denmark from Nazis by the Brits, which happened on the 4th May 1945. So, we mainly tasted 1945s, but wait a minute….

Somebody wise said once – “There aren’t great vintages, only great bottles!” And it was so obvious during the tasting. It was blind and very entertaining one! The wines served were both normal and magnum bottles. All chateau bottled. For pictures check out my website

We kicked off with a magnum of Dom Perignon 2004 in magnum, which was rather a semi dry than dry, elegant and with finesse. Lighter than usual. 92p.

Flight one:
Laville Haut Brion 1939 – very dark yellow in colour, a nose of sherry and lanoline, tasted like demi-sec wine with a touch of sweetness, interesting to taste. A curiosity. 88p
Laville Haut Brion 1945 – much younger in colour than 1939, so I thought it was 1939 before the identity of both was revealed. Still virile and lively, acidity was still there, complex, tasty and with a smooth finish. 93p.

Flight two:
Leoville Barton 1940 - fresh cherry nose, still spanking around, well-knitted, well-balanced, truffles, very complex and with persistent finish. This badass wine’s kept astonishingly well! 95p.
Domaine de Chevalier (magnum) 1940 – rather old, extracted coffee beans, not a very good bottle, which peaked many, many years ago. 86p.

Flight three:
Leoville Barton (magnum) 1943 – again a very fine display. Noble nose, aromatic cherries on the nose and cherry taste, well-preserved and elegant wine. It still has some years left in the tank. 93p.
Bouscaut 1943 (dark horse) – a big surprise when the origin of this wine was revealed. I thought it came from Haut Medoc. Some splendid concentration here, fine complexity, spicy cherries and blackcurrants, fine balance and persistent finish. Absolutely not finished yet and not bad at all! 93p.

Flight four:
Lafite 1945 – at first sip it was obvious, that something superb from Haut Medoc was in the glass. Well-preserved cherries on the nose and palate, acidity is there and supports fruit in an exemplary way, pure elegance and sophisticated touch, great complexity and lingering finish. Well-stored wine for sure. 95p.
Latour 1945 – there is a power and strong backbone here but also some volatile acidity and balance out of function. For me, this wine tasted somewhat disjointed and very old. Maybe it suffered from improper storage. 88p.

Flight five
Ch. Margaux 1945 – salty (oysters) on the nose, elegant and sophisticated, refined and great length. Still having fun and making wine tasters happier. 94p.
Haut Brion 1945 – old blackcurrant aroma on the nose, some scent of truffles, much better on the palate with strong backbone and depth. Balance in this wine suffered a bit. Persistent finish. 92p.

Flight six
Corbin 1945 – young in colour and appearance, unbelievable! Dignified cherry nose and sleek on the palate, sophisticated with great balance and sheer elegance. Great intensity of flavours. Smooth and lingering finish. It was simply an awesome experience. 96p.
Lanessan 1918 (dark horse) – for a 102 years old wine it was so fine experience to taste it. Still very much alive, fruity, round and tasting well. Impressive but it’s not that surprising to see so old Bordeaux wine from lower ranks performing well. 91p.

Flight seven:
Leoville Poyferre 1945 – well past its prime, a bit oxidized with sherry flavours, toffee, pleasant and round. 86p
Calon Segur (magnum) 1945 – in advanced age, old aromas, some truffles, the fruit is disappearing. I don’t believe this wine will last any longer. 2-3 more years? 87p.

Flight eight:
Gruaud Larose (magnum) 1945 – dark coloured, sweet raspberry drops and scent of truffles on the nose, well-balanced and tasty wine, smooth finish. 93p.
Talbot (magnum) 1945 – old flavours, the fruit was in very advanced disappearing and the wine getting volatile. 86p.

Dessert wine 1 – Caillou Crème de Tete 1943, Barsac – fresh with fine sweetness and corresponding acidity, an aroma of honey melon and guava, fine complexity and creamy finish. Big surprise that this wine’s kept so well. 92p.
Dessert wine 2 – Croft’s vintage 1945 – still holding well, medium red with sweet cherries on the nose and palate, elegant with attractive sweetness and lingering finish. 92p.
Dessert wine 3 – Smith Woodhouse 1977 vintage – black in colour, very closed and unevolved. Dense and tight. After 43 years (May 2020) this port wine hasn’t opened the doors yet and we probably have to wait for 10-15 years more. Fine future awaits. 94p.

Extras:
Bouscaut 1955 – has aged well, on the light side with elegance and finesse. Very attractive and very enjoyable wine. 91p.
Montrose (magnum) 1964 – I’d this wine several times before and every time it was great. But the bottle here wasn’t a good one. Tired, musty aromas, acidity well in front, little fruit left. Improperly stored? 84p.

[Claret]

Now that is a liberation libation celebration!

[stefan]

Great tasting you had, Izak. I guess the biggest surprise is the performance of 1945 Corbin. This is an estate that I have liked for 40+ years and has recently become something of a darling on BWE.

Did you verify that all wines in the tasting were legit?

[greatbxfreak]

stefan,

I didn't. My friend who organized this tasting and who's done this kind of tastings for more than 25 years, would have taken wines out if he suspected some irregularities.

I don't think Rodenstock or the recent guy from US helped to create fake bottles for this tasting.

I have no reason to believe and from tasting the wines, that some of these were spiked up with Spanish or Italian or Rhone wines.

A bit strange imho to ask if the wines were verified, while in many other posts through the years here on BWE, I haven't seen anybody ask for the authenticity of the bottles.

[JCNorthway]

Pretty impressive showing for 75-80 year old wines. Thanks for sharing your notes. It's hard to imagine the opportunity to taste such wines.

[tim]

I don't think anyone should take offense when discussing the authenticity of wines, it is a problem much larger than Rudy or Rodenstock. I have fake wines in my cellar that came from neither of those two, and with good stories of provenance. Thus it's a reasonable question to ask.

That being said, it sounds like an amazing dinner with some true treasures side-by-side which is a rarity. I've only had a couple of 45's myself (LLC and Branaire Ducru come to mind immediately). And both were excellent, the LLC being quite special from Francois, shared with some folks here.

[JimHow]

Wow! I always wondered whether 1945 was a sentimental favorite because of the war but someone here posted an article or video where someone was talking about how the harvest was better in 1945 because the vines had been neglected for several years. Is that true?

[stefan]

No offense intended, Izak. I was just curious. 1945 is such a famous year that it tempted many counterfeiters. When sourcing old wines, many buyers these days have bottles examined by an expert to determine that the bottles are authentic.

[SF Ed]

Sounds like a great tasting. I've only tasted the '45 LLC Tim mentioned above, which was very good but not mind-blowing.

And 1964 Montrose from magnum should still be great. I've had it from 750 many times, and being one of the very few Left Bank estates to pick before the rain in 1964, Montrose nailed it, especially if you like your Bordeaux classically styled.

[Musigny 151]

Of course you should ask the question. I spend a lot of time verifying bottles, and I have a cadre of experts who I call on to examine them too. We do not always agree, that is the nature of the beast. And sometimes, despite your best efforts, you are fooled. I still remember the gorgeous bottle of Lafite 1959, and the Côte de Rhone inside.The counterfeiter used the original bottle and capsule.

Then there is the famous incident in a Chicago restaurant where the sommelier pulled the cork of a 1947 Petrus. Somebody had marked the cork “2 Buck Chuck”. So yes, every bottle with this kind of age should be examined.

[Nicklasss]

GreatBxfreak, a great event and i wish i could attend something like that one day.

The Léoville Barton wines look fabulous for the age. And the Lafite and Corbin as well.

Lucky you.

Nic

[greatbxfreak]

Mark,

I understand your point. OK, we call Maureen Downey next time but I am not sure we can afford her to come, check the bottles and give advice.

I trust my friend who btw told me that Corbin 1945 was purchased from a private cellar in Germany. And I wonder who in the world would make a fake wine of Corbin 1945 to earn some big money?? Nobody imho.

[Musigny 151]

When I was in China several years ago, I saw pallets of fake Black Opal, a $4 everyday drinker. We wondered why someone would fake this but then did the Maths. Each pallet yielded around $6000 extra in profit. So that’s when I stopped wondering why somebody would fake this wine or that wine.

That being said, nobody is going to fake 1945 Corbin, which is so obscure, and a complete waste of talent when the faker could aim a lot higher and it could be a lot more lucrative. Unfortunately logic only goes so far. I do a lot of tastings, and almost all of them involve some portion being devoted to older wines mostly fifty plus years old. For me, a wine is guilty until proven innocent or at least the preponderance of evidence suggests it’s real.. I want to know as much about an old bottle as I can, and for every bottle I accept, I probably have rejected two to three others. Occasionally I will take a bottle without the provenance I am looking for, but I make it clear to the group of tasters, and it is always when I cannot find a bottle I am confident in. The price for this is pretty high, usually around 50% higher than the low price on WineSearcher.

And sometimes interesting things happen. I always drop off wines ten days before the tasting so they have time to rest. One time a sommelier called me about as bottle of Lafleur, which did not have the striations one expects on the label. I knew where it came from, and was pretty sure it was genuine, but had enough time to get another bottle. The budget took a hit, but I decided it would be interesting to serve both bottles. Everybody preferred the fake, including the sommelier who I blind tasted with them.

On another note, war time bottles are interesting in themselves. As the vineyards were either in occupied France, or semi occupied in Vichy France, a certain amount was sent to Germany. Not surprisingly it was mostly under market, and of course, resented like Hell by the producers. There are many apocryphal stories of rather unpleasant liquids being added to some of the barrels.

In addition, the winemakers were often at the front, leaving inexperienced family members to make the wine.So it is good to hear that with one or two exceptions, the wines at your tasting were very good. I am curious, what food did you serve them with, and how did they match?

[dstgolf]

GBF,

Fabulous tasting and what a way to celebrate the liberation of Denmark. The Corbin was certainly a surprise and nice to see the Margaux and Lafite held up so well after all of these years.

Were the wines sourced from multiple cellars over the years by one person or were they collected by many contributors. I've never had the experience of having so many old wines at one sitting. What a great experience and thanks for sharing.

As for Maureen Downey when we were together at Tim's B'Day bash a few years back I had a talk with her about fake wines and I thought the targets were the Rodenstock/Kurniawan high end Lafites etc and interested to see if there was any decrease in counterfeiting since these guys were caught. Fascinating discussion with her saying counterfeits have exploded on the market especially for Tuscan wines in the $25-50 range where palates of wine are being produced and labelled for a cost of $5/bottle and shipped around the world to unsuspecting consumers thinking they are drinking a fine Brunello/Super Tuscan etc for a fraction of the cost or dumped onto the retail market to the unsuspected. The Mohawk reserve that borders NY and Canada was caught a few years back of producing thousands of cases of fake wines for the local depanneur(corner stores) blending bulk wines at $2-3 cost and selling for under $20. Huge market out there. She was saying the steps taken in Bordeaux and other regions to develop serial numbers on bottles, holograms on labels and chips imbedded in bottles aren't enough as the weak point is the cork as the empty bottles can still be collected and recorked for the unsuspected. At the time she was working on a patent to develop a tamper proof cork/capsule combination that if not intact you would know the bottle was a fake. I don't think fake anything is going away too soon as people in general don't want to pay the full price for anything if they don't have to and it's always about the label/impression that counts more than the content. Apart from a few who would really know if they were drinking a fake wine, recognize that Rolex/Hublot/Gucci Bag etc and even then the best in the world have been fooled for years and it is people who want to impress that fuel the market along those that want to scam the people.

[JimHow]

At the NYC '03 convention we had 103 attendees. We had firmly set a limit at 100, which was already an overbooking. Towards the end things were getting out of control once John Kapon and his friends worked their way in. I remember having to turn down these two British gals who I had met that weekend. On the day of the event I was getting calls on my cell phone from people I didn't know. Number 103 was Rudy himself, he somehow convinced me to let him in. The list got screwed up, I remember Musigny151 wasn't on the list when he walked in but fortunately I was standing right there and I told them, oh, yes, he is on the list. We had only ordered 100 meals so I told Whuzzup__ and PappaDoc there was a chance we might be going without dinner, but fortunately they made us three more meals. I wonder what Rudy brought that night? I'm sure it was something "really good." <rolls eyes>

[tim]

My understanding is that Rudy brought the 97 Petrus, which was my first ever taste of Petrus. But I could be mistaken.

However, Rudy would often bring the real wines to tastings and dinners like that. That was his M.O., bring the real stuff to establish credibility then sell the fake stuff later.

[JimHow]

I was just thinking about that '97 Petrus. I remember talking to Musigny151 at one point and he was telling me a dirty joke. I had a '97 Petrus in one hand and a '67 Petrus in the other hand. Mark, what did you bring that night? I thought it might have been the '97 Petrus but could it have been the '67?

[Racer Chris]

Wow. Looks like a special event.
I'm impressed by the variety of wines available from that time period.

[Musigny 151]

I brought the 1967. Great bottle, and there was somebody there born in ‘67 who was so happy to try that bottle.

I forgot about the invitation; I thought I had responded.

[sdr]

I’ve only had three Bordeaux from 1945, La Mission Haut-Brion, Latour and Mouton, most of them about 25 years ago. My scores ranged from 82 to 100. Obviously, tremendous bottle variation on the ancients, none of them ex-Château but some of them allegedly from a cold British cellar.

I would have assumed by now even the greatest of them would have faded badly, making the performance of the Corbin even more amazing. Is it possible terroir becomes less important with great age?

Impressive tasting for sure and thanks for careful notes.

Stu

[greatbxfreak]

Thanks guys for comments.

My friend responsible for this 1945 tasting arranged also 1918 tasting - check the same chapter for the 1945 article. Here, one of the best wines was Calon Segur 1918, which he afterwards spoke about. The year on the label is in black which means, it was bottled later than normal. The regularly bottled CS 1918 has vintage printed in red. Would a faker know it?

Btw, 1918 was made by women and my strong guess is that 1945 was that too, both are last year of respective wars!

My friend is a crazy guy, buys a lot of wine, many old wines, and then arrange tastings with a different theme. 1970, 1971, 1918, 1945 added some other vintages like 1983, 1975, 1940, 1943 etc. Thanks to him I have tasted 1953, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975 and 1981 Cheval Blanc in the last 6 months!

I buy sometimes wines from him like f.i fantastic Beychevelle 1949 tasted last year at Domaine de Chevalier (inspected and recorked at the chateau), Troplong Mondot 1950 and Pavie 1950. The latter two wines were made by Valette cousins and were stunning when tasted in 2016. He also supplied a perfectly stored and awesome Trotanoy 1964, Trotanoy 1916 and Trotanoy 1990 for my Trotanoy tasting.

One of my best buys (not from my friend) was fabulous Cheval Blanc 1959 (Cruse bottling) and Danish bottling of La Louviere 1929 (made great entree as a dark horse during Trotanoy tasting in March this year).

Mark,

We had shrimps dish for these two whites, two veal dishes to accompany Leoville Barton 1940 and next flight (veal tatar), afterwards veal again with pearl barley (1.Growths wines) and some nice pieces of beef for St.Juliens at the end. It was a professional chef who prepared the meal. All dishes suited the wines perfectly. He cooks for my friend very often.

[Nicklasss]

NYC 2003. Oh man, that was so big... i was so young and wanted taste the more wines i could... what a bad strategy. It was the last convention i did that. Missed 2004-2005-2006 conventions as at that moment, i really thought i would never go back to any annual BWE convention. Attended lots of offlines during these years, drinking less, appreciate people and wines more. Back to the annual convention in 2007, the first convention in Washington DC.

Thanks again Musigny151 for the 1967 Petrus in NYC 03. I still remember how great it was, perfectly complex and balanced that night.

I remember bringing bottles of 85 (1) and 86 (2) of La Mission Haut Brion to the NYC 03 convention. The 85 was great.

And for GBF, thanks for all the details. I'm trying to remember if i ever tried a 1945 (birthyear of my father). I will look my archive note at home...

Nic

[Musigny 151]

Your friend sounds fun.

Thanks guys for comments.

My friend responsible for this 1945 tasting arranged also 1918 tasting - check the same chapter for the 1945 article. Here, one of the best wines was Calon Segur 1918, which he afterwards spoke about. The year on the label is in black which means, it was bottled later than normal. The regularly bottled CS 1918 has vintage printed in red. Would a faker know it?

Btw, 1918 was made by women and my strong guess is that 1945 was that too, both are last year of respective wars!

My friend is a crazy guy, buys a lot of wine, many old wines, and then arrange tastings with a different theme. 1970, 1971, 1918, 1945 added some other vintages like 1983, 1975, 1940, 1943 etc. Thanks to him I have tasted 1953, 1970, 1971, 1973, 1975 and 1981 Cheval Blanc in the last 6 months!

I buy sometimes wines from him like f.i fantastic Beychevelle 1949 tasted last year at Domaine de Chevalier (inspected and recorked at the chateau), Troplong Mondot 1950 and Pavie 1950. The latter two wines were made by Valette cousins and were stunning when tasted in 2016. He also supplied a perfectly stored and awesome Trotanoy 1964, Trotanoy 1916 and Trotanoy 1990 for my Trotanoy tasting.

One of my best buys (not from my friend) was fabulous Cheval Blanc 1959 (Cruse bottling) and Danish bottling of La Louviere 1929 (made great entree as a dark horse during Trotanoy tasting in March this year).

Mark,

We had shrimps dish for these two whites, two veal dishes to accompany Leoville Barton 1940 and next flight (veal tatar), afterwards veal again with pearl barley (1.Growths wines) and some nice pieces of beef for St.Juliens at the end. It was a professional chef who prepared the meal. All dishes suited the wines perfectly. He cooks for my friend very often.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

None of these 45s scored less than 86 points, including ones with some lousy descriptions. While I credit your descriptions, and your ranking of the wines, this is pretty discrediting to the 100-pt. rating scale, or so it seems to me. This is one of the reasons I have never been able to assign points to a wine. I just can't seem to reconcile where different tasters are coming from with their points ratings.

[greatbxfreak]

Aloha....

To be honest - what exactly point with your comments??

What 1945s are you talking about?

Aren't you just a bit in a bad mood?

[Musigny 151]

None of these 45s scored less than 86 points, including ones with some lousy descriptions. While I credit your descriptions, and your ranking of the wines, this is pretty discrediting to the 100-pt. rating scale, or so it seems to me. This is one of the reasons I have never been able to assign points to a wine. I just can't seem to reconcile where different tasters are coming from with their points ratings.

What scores mean, and how useful they are is a whole thread unto itself. I have returned to this board relatively recently, but I would be shocked if this has not come up before.

I think if you are interested in a discussion of this, you should start a thread, rather than come in on the tale end of this one. You will hear more opinions, and I suspect the discussion will be a little less rancorous, than if you start pointing fingers with this one.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

My point is that those 45s that scored 86 points, your descriptions did not read as though the wines were "above average to excellent." Maybe that is not your definition of an 86-point wine.

As for putting this to a new topic, we can discuss this in generalities all day to no end. I think however it's entirely appropriate to note the malleability of these numeric rating scales where good, specific examples occur, like in this case.

Or, perhaps it is just that in an extraordinary tasting of old wines like these, a different ratings system applies. But either way it goes to my concluding statement, which is that because I have difficulty reconciling the assessment of points by different tasters, perhaps in different settings even, I haven't ever been able to bring myself to assign points.

[greatbxfreak]

I believe Mark (Musigny151) described the subject perfectly!

[Racer Chris]

My point is that those 45s that scored 86 points, your descriptions did not read as though the wines were "above average to excellent." Maybe that is not your definition of an 86-point wine.

To me both "good" and "very good" are above average (ie. somewhere in the 80s).
If I'm willing to call a wine "excellent" it will get a score from 90-93 points.

[AKR]

"86 pts is a failing grade in my class"

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

OK, I have learned from this. Depending on the taster, 84, 86 and even 88 point wines may be very unappetizing.

[JimHow]

Indeed, Hound, I would say my rating scale is really 85-100.
And frankly that’s pretty much Parker’s as well, with the occasional 79 thrown in there.
But I’m a Bordeaux wine enthusiast, not a Bordeaux wine critic.
My scores are generally higher, with an 85 not being swill but not being anything to write home about either.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Sorry, Jim, this is not the place for a general discussion of the points system.

[JimHow]

Ha, thread drift is one of the great traditions in BWE history.
The rule is that there are no rules.

[Racer Chris]

OK, I have learned from this. Depending on the taster, 84, 86 and even 88 point wines may be very unappetizing.

Wow, what?
...
edited for discretionary purposes.

[DavidG]

I guess we’re overdue for a pointless discussion of the pointlessness of points out of context.

Yeah, an 85 point score or higher for a wine that is described as not a good bottle, possibly poorly stored is not logical to me. A lot of wine scores aren’t logical these days if you are expecting them to correlate to grades on an exam, where 90-100 is an "A" (excellent to outstanding) and 80-90 is a “B" (good to very good). That was how Parker said they were supposed to work when he popularized the 100-point system in the late ‘70s and early ‘80s.

I can understand a score of 85 points for a very good bottle that is still poor in comparison to experiences with perfectly stored bottles of the same wine that are outstanding. That can be explained in the accompanying notes. My point being that points without context are pointless. Izak provides no qualifiers, and he gives no indication that he regularly tastes wines of this age for comparison. In the absence of any other clarifying response, it might be logical to conclude that Izak scores on a 15 or 20 point scale, 80 or 85 to 100. I suspect his scale is wider than that, but he doesn’t drink a lot of or doesn’t report on many lesser wines.

If that’s the case, he’s not alone in this. Jim says his scores range from 85 to 100. Are we to assume that when Jim scores a wine 85 points he thinks it sucks? Or only that he’s experienced enough to select wines that are reliably good or very good or better? I suspect the latter.

That was certainly the case with Parker during his heyday. Jim is wrong about Parker scoring only 85-100. He only reported on wines scoring 85 or better, and that only after the early 1990s or so. Parker’s failure to report on the lower scoring wines he tasted was a topic of great controversy, since it favored producers over consumers.

[JimHow]

If that’s the case, he’s not alone in this. Jim says his scores range from 85 to 100. Are we to assume that when Jim scores a wine 85 points he thinks it sucks? Or only that he’s experienced enough to select wines that are reliably good or very good or better? I suspect the latter.

That was certainly the case with Parker during his heyday. Jim is wrong about Parker scoring only 85-100. He only reported on wines scoring 85 or better, and that only after the early 1990s or so. Parker’s failure to report on the lower scoring wines he tasted was a topic of great controversy, since it favored producers over consumers.

That's fair enough, David, but it doesn't quite tell the whole story.

Bobby Parker and I -- and I think you can throw Leve in there, and I'm sure some others -- are not just wine critics.... We are unapologetic Bordeaux wine enthusiasts. We don't apologize for our 85-100 ratings and the failure to recognize the 76+ point wines. We are cup half full. This is why Burghound, with his pathetic 88-91, 89-92, etc., rankings, will NEVER be Bob Parker. If you love Burgundy SO much that you like devote your WHOLE life to it, Burghound, then give out a 100+ once every decade or so, will you, you arrogant puke. Jeff Leve will defend that 15%+ alcohol level in a Parkerized St. Emilion, or even a '15 La Miss, til the cows come home... because he is a Bordeaux wine enthusiast. i LOVED that note on the '14 VCC from Musigny151 earlier... THAT is the note of a Bordeaux wine enthusiast! Don't be afraid! Just let it go! Don't be afraid to be "enthusiastic" about a wine, especially on a site called "Bordeaux wine ENTHUSIASTS." Some self-important snobs will disagree with you, but that's THEIR problem, not yours. It's too bad that they'll never get to experience the high of a “perfect” '89 Lynch, or a '95 d'Yquem, or, hell, my epiphany wine, the '86 Lamarque. Give me that over some self-absorbed know it all who feels he needs to be "conservative" <rolls eyes> in his rankings about the greatest wine region in the history of the solar system... yea, right, it's hard to get a 94 score, you self absorbed puke, thats why you spend like 80% of your waking hours scanning every Bordeaux wine website on the internet, so you can find that wine that is worthy of your oh-so-precious 91+ ranking.... <rolls eyes>. This Lisa Perrotti-Brown gal comes immediately to mind. I'm a Bordeaux wine enthusiast. In my mind, the presumption is that just about anything from that region is going to start out in the B/B+ range over most other regions. If this were the "Piedmont Wine Enthusiasts" website I might feel differently.

[DavidG]

You make a great point about enthusiasm, Jim. It's infectious (in a good way - I guess the connotation may have shifted lately!). I get what you're saying about Allen Meadows. It's not just his scores but his less than enthusiastic prose and his pedantic rather than hedonistic approach that tends to put a damper on things. I can't comment on Lisa Perrotti-Brown because I stopped paying attention to Wine Advocate before she became a presence there.

There is no reason to apologize for being jazzed enough by Bordeaux in general to feel that any wines from there that aren't seriously flawed are worth at least 85 points. I'm with you on that. It's one of the reasons I like to hang out here.

There's a risk, though, on the very high end. One critic in particular stands out for handing out so many 90+ and 95+ scores to wines that aren't knock your socks off that his scores are almost meaningless. And his notes are often so abbreviated that they don't offer enough context to make the reviews useful for anything other than shelf talkers. And there are those ITB whose scores are no more than sales tools. That's not anyone here. You may rarely go below 85 points, but a 95+ from Jim How gets my attention!

[Racer Chris]

I tend to take short tasting notes to be about the most notable characteristics, ones which differentiate that bottle from others, and not a thorough assessment of the wine. Therefore the score is an indication of where those characteristics fit into the overall enjoyment.
These are the 1945s in the tasting which received scores from 86-88:
"Leoville Poyferre 1945 – well past its prime, a bit oxidized with sherry flavours, toffee, pleasant and round. 86p"
Cellartracker has 3 tasting notes including one from Jeff Leve, with an average of 93 points. All of the notes suggest a well stored wine,with the most recent note being from 2013. Izak's note describes a wine on a downward trajectory but still yielding pleasure. Hardly unappetizing though, I would conclude.

"Talbot (magnum) 1945 – old flavours, the fruit was in very advanced disappearing and the wine getting volatile. 86p.
CT has one tasting note written in 2017 with 91 points, from magnum. Why should anyone be surprised that another bottle might be in decline by now, yet still be considered good to very good, despite the appearance of noticeable flaws. I'm sure if it was undrinkable due to the flaws, that would have been noted.

"Calon Segur (magnum) 1945 – in advanced age, old aromas, some truffles, the fruit is disappearing. I don’t believe this wine will last any longer. 2-3 more years? 87p"
4 tasting notes on CT. One from 2007 gave 97 points, going down from there to the most recent being "flawed". So a magnum still considered very good in 2020 isn't an oddity from my perspective.

"Latour 1945 – there is a power and strong backbone here but also some volatile acidity and balance out of function. For me, this wine tasted somewhat disjointed and very old. Maybe it suffered from improper storage. 88p."
Recent notes on CT suggest that bottles are still giving great pleasure with scores still between 92-99 points. So for one bottle of an awesome wine to be suffering from improper storage, yet still considered very good... The noted flaws are why that bottle is no longer outstanding or even extraordinary. Why not?

I wonder what Francois Audouze would have thought of these wines. After all, these are still on the young side for his taste.

[jal]

In the words of the immortal Inigo Montoya
Let me explain
No, there is too much, let me sum up
Wine scoring is subjective. Take it as such