cabber,

I am not sure how he was being unfair to the winemakers? Would you slay Mercury?

The wines, at least the Monty have taint. The Winery has taint, they do not dispute this. Laube detected, tested and reported that. His job as a wine critic is not to be chummy with winemakers, it's to report the facts as he sees them. It is a fact that Monty has TCA problems. Because some people can not detect the taint does not mean it's not there.

Perhaps the reference to Mercury is a poor one, but surely you're familiar of the story of the Emperor With No Clothes? Should we pretend the TCA does not exist and humor the winemakers as if they are kings? The winemakers should clean up their wineries and stop pretending it doesn't matter just because most people can't taste the cardboard/musty wine they are turning out.

I read the posts by Mr Loring, and if all winemakers showed his dedication BEFORE the fact, they wouldn't have to complain so much after the fact.

The fact is the wine has taint. I will not buy a wine with taint. I'm glad it was brought to my attention.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mrhappy:
The fact is the wine has taint. I will not buy a wine with taint.

---

You won't buy a wine with taint -- when you can actually taste the taint? or just because you know it has taint even though you can't actually taste it? It is very unlikely that you would be able to taste TCA at 1 ppt. Doesn't that make you a slave to the hyper-sensitive taste of Mr. Laube? Talk about the emperor having no clothes. "Yuck, i won't buy that, it has taint!" I think you proved my point.

Again, I am glad Laube pointed out the low level TCA problem at Monelena before it gets worse -- i.e. to a level where real people can actually taste it. I am sure they will take steps to get rid of the TCA. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm just saying it is wrong to trash the wine when virtually no one besides Laube and a chemical testing company can actually detect the problem.

quote:

---

Originally posted by benchland:
Considering Laube's sensitivity to flaws, I wonder how he missed the 01 Sherwin Family. I had this wine about 2 months ago and found it to be undrinkable. The VA had moved to EA and smelled like nail-polish remover. Does that qualify for 92 pts?

---

That's really interesting, I've had the wine several times from unblended barrel samples to finished product and never noticed and flaw.

Was two month ago the only time you tried the wine?

Pyang,

Yes. I understand that flawed bottles happen but unless the wine is open somewhere on somebody elses dime, I will not bother again. It was $225 on the list we purchased it from and took it home for further analysis. After tasting it with our winemaker and distributor owner I knew I wasn't crazy. Perhaps I'll give it another shot but I hope the next time it's blind so we can really see. BTW, let me know the next time you taste it and what your impressions are.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: benchland,

in reference to earlier comments the percentage of wines rated as below average being 12%+- (for cal cabs) is way off the mark where I am concerned.

Look at all the wines in your supermarket and discount stores that never get scored as the winemakers and labels do not want thier wines scored. I would est. 80% of wines in these places are "below average" and I would only buy them to serve to my in-laws for Thanksgiving.

Thus saving the small percentage of wines (I consider) drinkable for myself

I think the best part of a rating is looking back on your purchase and saying I'm glad I got it before the press. On the flip side, have passed on wines that did not score well and felt very good about investing in other areas. If you tasted the wine and were not impressed then what does a score mean anyway. This happened to me with the 99 Artesa Cab. I had it the winery twice and was never moved by it. The 92 point rating came out and I thought oh well. But when something like Paloma hit, I knew there was something special before the score. In the end, as long as your happy it doesn't really matter. Sometimes scores prevent you from enjoying a great wine because of the scarcity and the sheer value when you would have enjoyed it with friends anyway. If you like it buy it, if you don't then let someone else have it.

benchland,

What's your winery?

On another note about bottle flaw/variation. The 2001 Tor Rutherford Cab Clone 4 was a recenet prime example for me.

Out of a 750ml bottle purchased at K&L a few month ago, the wine was thin, light in color, can almost pass for a Pinot. At the Magnum Party couple weeks ago, out of a magnum, it was easily a crowd favorite out of four wines tasted blind, myself included.

I'll make a point to go visit Steve Sherwin after I get back from Taiwan.

Pyang,

I'll let you know after the next advocate is published.

Could be the phoenonemom be the lack of filtration in these wines? Always a concern of mine with newer producers.

Let me know when you plan to go visit Sherwin. One of the places I have never been.

We tasted the 2000, 2001 and 2002 (in bottle for 5 days) Sherwin in September. The 2001 was the standout. I bought 6 bottles based on what we tasted that day.

Hopefully, you had a bad bottle.