I was taking a look at Wine Spectator's and Wine Advocate Vintage Charts and noticed some pretty significant differences between Laube and Parker in terms of their assessment of California cabernet over the past few years. While they generally agree on 1997, 1998 and 2001, there is significant disagreement on 1999 and 2002. In addition, while Laube gave a so-so 87 for 2000, Parker is definitely not fond of 2000.

Year Parker Laube
1997 94 98
1998 85 86
1999 88 96
2000 78 87
2001 96 95-100
2002 95 87-88

As to 1999 (and by implication 2002), whose overall assessment of California tends to match your perspective?

[This message was edited by WineW8 on Jan 26, 2004 at 12:04 PM.]

I had a talk with a wine merchant who has thirty years experience in California. He says that Mr Laube is more accurate than RP.

Although the few samples of 2002 I have had showed extremely well.

highdesertwine

And I've tasted 1999-2000. I say Parker is more accurate(I should really say "for my palate"). I know a wine merchant(not owner)whose been in the biz for 30+ years who has his head up his ass. Maybe we're talking about the same guy. Is he the same guy that says that Per Henrik is more accurate in the Rhone?

1998, 2000, & 2002 all have the same quality level? I agree on the 1998 & 2000. From the 2002 samples I've tasted, time will tell.

Nope, not the same guy. Masson is very good in Burgundy, yet everyone knows he struggles in the Rhone valley.

I think Parker underrated 1999.

But, based upon specific wine scores, I think he is much better than Laube.

a

"What contemptible scoundrel stole the cork from my lunch?" -- W.C. Fields

I think Parker was right on with those vintage ratings.

Laube over rates 99 and Parker under rates 00. Many 99 middle grade wines are pretty good, so I do like 99. My 00 experience is that they are not as deep and rich, but certainly the mainstays are at least decent. That being said, I am not in a rush to buy any more 00 because there are better choices available.

DBW