quote:

Originally posted by cali wine:
Space- have you seen any rating on the O3 Etude ?

I have a tour set up next week and expect to taste it.

CW

Laube did a barrel tasting and gave it between 85-88:

Appealing on a modest scale, with ripe plum, black cherry and tropical fruit and spicy, espresso-tinged oak, but it turns hollow and simple from midpalate on. Score range: 85-88

Taste for yourself - Ill be the first to admit it's no 2002 - but it's a 90pt+ wine IMHO.

quote:

I judge wines with my palate, not any critics.

Absolutly correct!

An honest critic expects nothing less and I can take it or leave it.

The good thing is if we don't agree with their judgement, than we can express our opinion right here.

I agree with Litro,

quote:

I live vicariously through you guys (and ladies) and JL when it comes to Cali-cabs. Who can I trust?

I have very little opportunity to taste before I buy for myself. The majority of the wines tasted in WS are not available where I live. I get to California rarely and to France, Italy, Australia, South America, never. I have to learn from JL and the rest of the WS critics as well as many others who are threads in the tapestry.

----------

When you and a critic's palate are at odds, it's time to find another critic. Of course, I could say the same to the Laube Bashers.

quote:

Originally posted by EagleGrafix:

quote:

I judge wines with my palate, not any critics.

Absolutely correct!

I have to learn from JL and the rest of the WS critics as well as many others who are threads in the tapestry.

So which is it? You enjoy wines based on your own judgements, but you buy wines that the critics tell you to buy.

Couple of things I don't understand about Laube's Montelena score:

1. His barrel score was 92-94. Bottle score 72. 20 point difference?

2. If he believes the wine is flawed somehow, (in a sense, that IS what he's saying with a 72 score) why doesn't he just say so?

You would think he'd taste again if he got a flawed bottle

quote:

Originally posted by spacewrangler:
You would think he'd taste again if he got a flawed bottle

He did taste again, he thinks that all of Montelena's wine was flawed by TCA.

The Dominus comment is mainly about the 81 points they got for the '03 with a cost of $109. Lots of high prices with low scores. I don't care about the scores so much as I found it interesting that once again Montelena is at the bottom of the list and when they got a nice score from the barrel.

I just thought it was an interesting topic for this forum.

quote:

Originally posted by bigskygriz:
The Dominus comment is mainly about the 81 points they got for the '03 with a cost of $109. Lots of high prices with low scores. I don't care about the scores so much as I found it interesting that once again Montelena is at the bottom of the list and when they got a nice score from the barrel.

I just thought it was an interesting topic for this forum.

Thanks! I missed the 81 point score on the '03 Dominus. Will I be buying it? You bet I will!!!

quote:

Originally posted by The Prof:
I haven't tasted the wines in question, so I won't comment on the scores except to say that he's willing write what he thinks even knowing the reaction he may get. His scores might be completely wrong for your palate, but he doesn't take the easy way out by slapping an 87 on a big name wine he doesn't like to avoid these reactions. On the other hand, when he puts up big scores for new wines like Kosta Browne that get us to sign up for the mailer before there's a 3 year wait-list, "praise Laube" threads rarely show up. The reaction to the low scores reminds me of the joke about the difference between an idiot and a maniac: an idiot is anyone driving slower than you feel like driving at the moment, and a maniac is anyone driving faster than you feel like driving at the moment.

Prof,

Great post and well said!

Thanks...

I bought a six pack each of david ramey jerico ranch and diamond mountain cabs for $80 and $65 each. I'd give the jerico a 93 and the diamond a 92, both 2003 outstanding cabs.

quote:

Originally posted by Mezzo Litro:

quote:

Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
I pay absolutely no attention to any score Laube gives any cab.

GA, if I lived in the US and specifically in California, where I could try Cali-cabs all day long, then I would be of the same mind as you. But since it's very difficult to get great Cali-cabs in Toronto, and even more difficult to find those cult cabs, I defer to the experts to describe to me what I would be getting should I ever have the opportunity to purchase one of those Cali-cabs.

So, to me, its very disconcerting to hear many of my fellow forumites complaining about JL, when I personally turn to him for information. One may say "trust your own palate...don't worry about what the expert says", but how can I when I don't get the opportunity to even try the wine. Again, I live vicariously through you guys (and ladies) and JL when it comes to Cali-cabs. Who can I trust?

I look to Tanzer and Parker for California Cab.

I'm not trying to bash James Laube. I'm certain he calls it as he sees it. I'm just not looking through the same glasses as he is.

Personally, I heartily enjoy a boat-load of wines that Laube dislikes, including Montelana and Dominus. But I am glad that he scores California wines differently than Parker. It's about time that the wine world wakes up and realizes that if all three of the major critical review sources (Tanzer, Parker, and the WineSpectator team) are all giving similar scores, then it is superfluous to have more than one critic. No one cares if Ebert gives a movie strong thumbs up and Siskel (or Roper) gives it a big thumbs down. We enjoyed hearing the debates, and that is really how we got an idea what the movie was about. If they both gave similar assesments on each movie, the show would be boring, and would lose credibility. So why should the world of wine critics be any different? Who says they should all be assigning similar scores? I look forward to the day when there are a dozen major critics with markedly different palates, and every wine consumer can gravitate to the critic he/she aligns best with. Currently we have a situation where all the major critics mind as well be identical twins, except for Laube and his Cali Cab scores the last few years.

quote:

Who says they should all be assigning similar scores? I look forward to the day when there are a dozen major critics with markedly different palates, and every wine consumer can gravitate to the critic he/she aligns best with. Currently we have a situation where all the major critics mind as well be identical twins, except for Laube and his Cali Cab scores the last few years.

Agreed.

Time to look past the scores. Rather than looking at the numbers and making the purchasing decision based on such, take the time to read the actual descriptors of the wine.

If you drink wine, you probably know what type of wine you like and the flavor profile you are looking for. Read the notes, look for whatever you like in a wine. Chances are that's a more accurate direction to go in rather than just a score.

Score is much more subjective than taste descriptors, no matter who's palate you follow more, Parker, Tanzer or Laube.

quote:

Originally posted by Numenor:

quote:

Who says they should all be assigning similar scores? I look forward to the day when there are a dozen major critics with markedly different palates, and every wine consumer can gravitate to the critic he/she aligns best with. Currently we have a situation where all the major critics mind as well be identical twins, except for Laube and his Cali Cab scores the last few years.

Agreed.

Funnily enough that's pretty well what happens down under. James Halliday is obviously the biggest fish in the pond but there are enough other well regarded critics around to stop any one critic having the disproportionate impact that you see in America.

quote:

Originally posted by pyang:
Time to look past the scores. Rather than looking at the numbers and making the purchasing decision based on such, take the time to read the actual descriptors of the wine.

If the scores don't make sense, why would the descriptors? If I said "This wine is too oaky for me. I LOVED it! 69 points", what would that tell you?

quote:

Wine Joe-Who says they should all be assigning similar scores?

Why should they all be different? If all but one of the critics love the 2000 Latour, is the lone critic a contrarian or an idiot? What if half loved it & half hated it and then the other half loved 2000 Lafite(a similar wine, not like Pavie) & the first half hated it?

I like consensus. If there is no consesus, there is no consistency.

How can Laube give a better score to Smoking Loon than Dominus? Unless he has reverted back to being a novice("Dominus is too sour, but Smoking Loon is smooth & nice to drink")

quote:

Originally posted by seanr7:
He did taste again, he thinks that all of Montelena's wine was flawed by TCA.

I received the 10/31/06 edition of WS in the mail yesterday. On page 150 is Laube’s review of the Montelena. What in his narrative is telling you that he thinks this wine was tainted by TCA? Is it the “iodine & lead” descriptors? Are these typical descriptors of corked wine? I’m not trying to be a smart a$$ because I honestly don’t know. Personally, and thankfully, I am not sensitive to TCA. I’m sure I’ve had corked wines in the past and not realized it. I think at the very least that Laube should give a little more argument that supports his score of a $95 bottle of wine. If this were a bottle of jug wine with a similar score I would not expect as much in the means of a supporting argument.

On another note, I found Laube’s column in the same issue rather interesting. The title of the column is California’s Missed Opportunity. James basically states that there are not many good values coming out of California these days. While I feel that there are many wines that are overpriced in California, I have no problem finding wines produced there that I like and feel are good values. Given this column and Laube’s recent cab scores, it almost seems like he “has it in” for the California wine producers.

quote:

Originally posted by bigskygriz:
The Dominus comment is mainly about the 81 points they got for the '03 with a cost of $109.

Where is that review of the dominus - I can't find it anywhere. Was it in the print version of WS and not online yet?

quote:

Originally posted by Alta Skier:
I think at the very least that Laube should give a little more argument that supports his score of a $95 bottle of wine. If this were a bottle of jug wine with a similar score I would not expect as much in the means of a supporting argument.

Why? Everybody was complaining in the Tasted Twice thred that big names were getting preferental treatment, now people seem to be on the other side. If JL thinks the wine scored low that's what it should get, no explaination needed. It's his opinion, take it as you will. Just because they chose to sell their wine at a high price point does not make it worth it. It may be worth it to you, but remember most price points are marketing not quality related. Are most $50+ bottles better then those under $10, of course. That being said there are still plenty of way over priced wines out there, especially in California, and I don't think they deserve any special treatment just because of price.

check out his barrel note on the 01 and the 02!!
01-89-91pts
02-92-94pts

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bez780,

Well said, VT2IT.

Yes, I’m shocked and amazed that JL would tell us the truth about his views on these wines. The gall of that man for telling us what he thinks and not what I expect. Heresy I say!

quote:

Originally posted by The Prof:
The reaction to the low scores reminds me of the joke about the difference between an idiot and a maniac: an idiot is anyone driving slower than you feel like driving at the moment, and a maniac is anyone driving faster than you feel like driving at the moment.

This is one of the most true and accurate things I have ever read on these boards. With scores we are all looking for congruence with our own tastes and opinion of a particular wine.

I think if more poeple did double blind tastings of some of the cabs in question (montelena, dominus, etc) they woudl very surprised to see what they scored the big wines.