Don't believe the hype!
For the most part the fervor has died down but every once in a while someone comes in the shop and asks the question: "Do you have any of the 2000's from Bordeaux?" This is generally a tip off that amateur hour has begun and I try my best to explain the pros and cons associated with such a vintage, usually to no avail. In fact, this happened earlier this week yet I believe I may have converted at least one person. To the rest, I say this: There are other vintages. Of course, this depends on who you talk to and who you believe.
While I don't generally talk to myself, I do trust my own palate. And I am constantly amazed by how many people don't seem to do the same. This is not a rant against Parker and Spectator and the like, although in a way it is. Why is it that their word is law? Why is it that people blindly take opinion for fact? And why is it that France, particularly Bordeaux, is held to a different standard? The following is a summary of Parker's 'Vintage Chart' at erobertparker.com.
From 1989 to 2002:
First off, Bordeaux
Pauillac - Average 87.6 with 3 vintages rated 'Extraordinary' (.90,.96,.98), 2 vintages 'Outstanding' (.89,.95), and 3 'average' (.91,.92,.93)
Margaux - Average 85.1 with only 2 'Outstanding' (.90,.00) and 3 'Average' (.91,.92,.93)
Graves - Average 86.9 with 1 'Extraordinary'(.00), 2 'Outstanding' (.90,.98) and 2 'Average' (.91,.92)
Pomerol and St. Emilion are rated practically the same with similar numbers although the .91 vintage is rated 58 and 59 respectively. According to the legend, anything less than 59 points is 'Appalling'.
Let's see what's going on in California.
Cabernet Sauvignon - Average 90.7 with 1 'Extraordinary' (.01), 9 'Outstanding' (.90,.91,.92,.93,.94,.95,.96,.97,.02), and only 1 'Average' (.00).
For the record, vintages named 'Average' have scores from 70-79. If you saw a shelf talker at Costco that said "77 points - Wine Advocate", you would run like hell in the opposite direction.
It's somewhat curious that Parker goes through the trouble to break out each appellation in Bordeaux yet lumps all Cabernet Sauvignon produced across the state of California together. Obviously, this seriously flaws the ratings. Or call it 'hedging the bet' a little bit. And is it reasonable that from 1990 through 1997 the wasn't a single 'off' year? That is, a year when the wine produced was not the vintage of the decade, century, milleneum, all time? I suspect that there probably was and this is a good thing. In fact, it is absolutely necessary.
If the wine critics said that every vintage was a 'sell the farm' vintage, they would very quickly lose any credibility they had. This is why coming off the 2001's and 2002's, the .03's from Germany aren't (and won't) get the press they deserve. And more importantly, what are people expected to drink while they're waiting 20-30 years for these wines mature? The answer is the 'off' vintage. And in Bordeaux, this often means a little less damage to the wallet, although not as much as I might like to see. On the contrary, prices in California don't ever seem to reflect the quality of vintage. Case in point: 1998.
More so than anything else, this chart shows a preference which is absolutely fine as long as it is treated as such. It turns out I prefer not eat Brussels sprouts. For that matter, there hasn't been a vintage of these damned things yet that I would award 70 points. However, there are many people that would disagree.
And so I ask those of you reading this, what did you think of the .97's from the Margaux (Parker-82)? What about .96 from Tuscany (Parker-78)? Did you buy any of them, and if so, which houses?
Not every wine I consume has to be 95 points or better. I would like those wines to be few and far between so as to truly appreciate how good they really are. And not every vintage is all or nothing. An attitude like this would lead one to countless disappointments. I'll let you in on a secret, the fine folks in Piedmont aren't throwing back Barolo every night. No, they drink normal wines just like the rest of us, regardless of what they were rated.
While I don't generally talk to myself, I do trust my own palate. And I am constantly amazed by how many people don't seem to do the same. This is not a rant against Parker and Spectator and the like, although in a way it is. Why is it that their word is law? Why is it that people blindly take opinion for fact? And why is it that France, particularly Bordeaux, is held to a different standard? The following is a summary of Parker's 'Vintage Chart' at erobertparker.com.
From 1989 to 2002:
First off, Bordeaux
Pauillac - Average 87.6 with 3 vintages rated 'Extraordinary' (.90,.96,.98), 2 vintages 'Outstanding' (.89,.95), and 3 'average' (.91,.92,.93)
Margaux - Average 85.1 with only 2 'Outstanding' (.90,.00) and 3 'Average' (.91,.92,.93)
Graves - Average 86.9 with 1 'Extraordinary'(.00), 2 'Outstanding' (.90,.98) and 2 'Average' (.91,.92)
Pomerol and St. Emilion are rated practically the same with similar numbers although the .91 vintage is rated 58 and 59 respectively. According to the legend, anything less than 59 points is 'Appalling'.
Let's see what's going on in California.
Cabernet Sauvignon - Average 90.7 with 1 'Extraordinary' (.01), 9 'Outstanding' (.90,.91,.92,.93,.94,.95,.96,.97,.02), and only 1 'Average' (.00).
For the record, vintages named 'Average' have scores from 70-79. If you saw a shelf talker at Costco that said "77 points - Wine Advocate", you would run like hell in the opposite direction.
It's somewhat curious that Parker goes through the trouble to break out each appellation in Bordeaux yet lumps all Cabernet Sauvignon produced across the state of California together. Obviously, this seriously flaws the ratings. Or call it 'hedging the bet' a little bit. And is it reasonable that from 1990 through 1997 the wasn't a single 'off' year? That is, a year when the wine produced was not the vintage of the decade, century, milleneum, all time? I suspect that there probably was and this is a good thing. In fact, it is absolutely necessary.
If the wine critics said that every vintage was a 'sell the farm' vintage, they would very quickly lose any credibility they had. This is why coming off the 2001's and 2002's, the .03's from Germany aren't (and won't) get the press they deserve. And more importantly, what are people expected to drink while they're waiting 20-30 years for these wines mature? The answer is the 'off' vintage. And in Bordeaux, this often means a little less damage to the wallet, although not as much as I might like to see. On the contrary, prices in California don't ever seem to reflect the quality of vintage. Case in point: 1998.
More so than anything else, this chart shows a preference which is absolutely fine as long as it is treated as such. It turns out I prefer not eat Brussels sprouts. For that matter, there hasn't been a vintage of these damned things yet that I would award 70 points. However, there are many people that would disagree.
And so I ask those of you reading this, what did you think of the .97's from the Margaux (Parker-82)? What about .96 from Tuscany (Parker-78)? Did you buy any of them, and if so, which houses?
Not every wine I consume has to be 95 points or better. I would like those wines to be few and far between so as to truly appreciate how good they really are. And not every vintage is all or nothing. An attitude like this would lead one to countless disappointments. I'll let you in on a secret, the fine folks in Piedmont aren't throwing back Barolo every night. No, they drink normal wines just like the rest of us, regardless of what they were rated.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home