Can anyone tell me why WS ("portlike, racy, sleek") gives Ch.Plince Pomerol 1998 some 92pts, and Mr.Robert Parker ("modest plum")sticks with 85 or so? That's a world of difference. I can purchase some extra bottles of this small chateau, but it depends on the quality. Does anyone have TNs on Plince 1998?

Look forward to hearing (and drinking) more of Plince! Thanks.

I know nothing of the '98 other than probably the same thing that you read in WS, but because of your last general commnent...

One of my 2 paltry (in number, not content, I hope) bottles of Bordeaux is an '82 Plince. I had not been able to find anything about it(*), so asked here several months ago & got some encouraging words.
*I was also pleased to read that WS called the '98 the best Plince since '82.
I've been saving it for the 20th anniversary of some friends, which happens to be later this month. Since they live a couple hundred miles away, I'm not sure when, but hope to open it with them soon. I don't generally post detailed notes, but will at least probably give a summary.

An avid port drinker myself, I would not consider the 98' Plince, 'portlike' at all. I've seen him write many a wine review using the adjective "portlike". Is suckling/Lube referring to ports blackish color? tannins? super-fruity? what? i drank on 12/01 and my only notes (sorry) were 'smooth, very nice'. certainly much higher than the 85 parker rating. A definate buy for 30$ if you can find it.
Calypso Red

Thanks, that was what I needed . I sometimes get confused when the difference between points given is so enormous (why????). Plince '98 is now on sale in our local supermarket for 25,99$, so today I will get some more. Maybe will open a bottle soon just to try. As Ch.Plince is a winery where the wines are or perfect, or just regular, you have to be careful. And 'portlike'? Concentration, thickness, super-fruity? Can a port be wine-ish?

'98 Plince is a very good and pleasant wine, I would say it's about outstanding (90 P.)