Originally posted by vintage: Jist a quick thought about Cali Cabs. Their primary market is the vast majority of American wine drinkers that think they know, but not really. They buy the names they know and like from year to year, names like Silver Oak, which I happen to like, but also things like Opus One, Mondavi Coastal, KJ, and others. Kinda like name dropping for the unknowing. They don't take the time to get really involved in the wine thing. Therefore, they are, for the most part, not vintage savvy. So the mediocre vintages do virtually as well as the good ones because most of the audience does not know the difference.
This would explain why Calif pretty much gets away with price increases irregardless of vintage quality.
Am I on track or full of crap? Any other ideas? joe
Although I agree with the general principles, It's a rather condescending attitude towards Americans. I believe that Americans know a lot more about European wines than vice versa.
If you think the average Italian or Frenchman knows more about the WORLD of wine, you're mistaken. They are much more provincial about their wine, probably because they do not have(or want to spend) the extra money or the availablity of other wine regions. They MAY know a bit more about vintage, because the vintage swings are more pronounced, therefore making it more important. But, they also resign themselves to "It's what we're drinkin' today", no matter how good or bad it is.
Jist a quick thought about Cali Cabs. Their primary market is the vast majority of American wine drinkers that think they know, but not really. They buy the names they know and like from year to year, names like Silver Oak, which I happen to like, but also things like Opus One, Mondavi Coastal, KJ, and others. Kinda like name droping for the unknowing. They don't take the time to get really involved in the wine thing. Therefore, they are, for the most part, not vintage savvy. So the mediocre vintages do virtually as well as the good ones because most of the audience does not know the difference.
Some people live with food and wine, others live for it. I would say at least 85% of this board fits into the latter category. Do you really expect that many people to take that kind of interest in wine. If they enjoy Opus One, Mondavi Coastal, KJ, year in and year out, its simple. They just enjoy it.
I do not believe his description of the SLWC 2002 Fay is accurate. I did not find the finish "dry and leathery," I did not detect "green been stalk" flavors, and I did not find it under-ripe In fact, I found the wine lush and driven by berry and currant notes... and the finish, more than anything else, is unremarkable--the wine does not finish strong, but in no way is it leathery... that is why I find this review so puzzling.
I mostly agree with his characterization of the '02 Cask 23, however. It is not as strong an effort as previous vintages. I can't say I found it "muddled," just not as vibrant as past vintages. "Muted" is probably the better word.
FieldingYost ----- Welcome to the WS Forums & Hail to the Victors, Valiant!
Really, I think SL has fallen into somewhat of a mediocrity, lately; at least 1998 thru 2001! I haven't tasted the 2002's, but I think they are in the middle of the road at present, & muted is a good descriptor!
I find my tastes to be parallel to Molesworth. perhaps it is an East Coast thing, but I like what he likes. I also agree with Suckling's scores most ofteh, but I cannot afford most of his bigger rated wines.
Alcohol...a perfect drug, but a terrible food
Posts: 766 | Location: Philadelphia, PA | Registered: Nov 15, 2001
I will stand by Laube until I taste these exact wines. One thing that is for certain is that these wines, by and large, do not taste up their price points in most vintages.
Posts: 437 | Location: "Under a Western Sky" | Registered: Feb 06, 2003
Originally posted by ratso: I also agree with Suckling's scores most ofteh, but I cannot afford most of his bigger rated wines.
What's your budget? Don't answer that it's nobodys business. But look at the latest issue, there are plenty of mid 90's wines for well under $100, and quite a few in the low 90's can be had for about $20. Now if you are talking about first growths, well no one can afford them. The comparison between the price to value(if you define value as score) of Italy vs California in that issue is interesting to say the least. Does JS grade much easier then JL, or are Cali wine prices way out of whack? My opinion, some of both but mostly too many overpriced California wines.
Remember to always aim high, that way you won't get any on your shoes.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by latour67: FieldingYost ----- Welcome to the WS Forums & Hail to the Victors, Valiant!
Thanks!
I never tasted any pre-1998 SLWC in its youth, but I have tried '85, '91 & '92 Cask 23 in the last couple years and I have to say I agree. Having said that, the '01 Cask 23 is the wine that made me a wine fanatic. (And as it's my first love, I am incapable of objective evaluation of that vintage.)
Pardon my intrusion, but I have been consistently unimpressed by Laube. I believe it was he who said in an article about old Inglenook/Daniel ('40's vintages) that you "need to know" how to taste them and gave them high ratings. Excuse me? Not that many of us have that opportunity, but to snob it up and suggest that he "knows" how to taste them? Either they're there or they're not.
Me? I am the last person to rate on 100 point scale. I like it, love it, sometimes have to tolerate it, or once in a while have a religious experience. What steers me toward those wines I drink are friends, the kind merchant or a review (and, of course, my father for the occasional freebie 89/90 Bordeaux)
But Laube? He may know more than me. He has certainly tasted more than me. But I would never trust a word he says. I may not be a sommelier, but I have tasted (and truly enjoyed) too many wines he's tanked.
Hey, Marv? Why don't you sit him out for a year and see whether he's missed. Bet you a box of Cubans he's not.
Originally posted by cdr11: I like Laube. In fact, I'd like to drink a few beers with the guy some day.
Me too. I just don't want any wine advice.
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6952 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
This is too fun. At least we are democratic in expressing our rights to agree or disagree. If I were conducting a political poll of Laube acceptance, he would certainly have his supporters firmly in the minority. All critics are selectively useful to us consumers. What they say is never god, but it's experienced advice. I jump on top of a lot of his California pinot recommendations because the style that he lauds is the style that makes me weak in the knees... But I hear what you are all saying w/ regards to the inconsistency and somewhat controversial reviews he's recently given Cali-Cab. I've partly wondered whether or not there was an alterior motive, or 'statement' he was trying to proclaim w/ some of his commentaries on Montelena and the '03 vintage in general. The big guns of the last issue (Harlan and company) had 'classic' tasting notes w/ ratings that barely rose above 90...which doesn't make me 'shocked' but a bit curious I suppose. He served me right on the Hess Chardonnay (which rocked for 14 bucks) and Domaine Alfred's entire portfolio...so I act in a cautious fashion w/ his advice, as I do w/ Parker, Tanzer or Suckling. Worse case scenario, people are a bit more discouraged when it comes to spending 100's of dollars for California Cab...perhaps we need to be brought back to earth in that department a bit.
Largely lost in this discussion is the fact that while people may have differing opinions on specific wines, since WS chooses to employ a 100 point system, it should really do so honestly and consistently. There is no crime in Laube rating the Montelena much lower than Parker. But 72 points suggests a wine that is undrinkably bad, should be spit out, and poured down the drain. Irrespective of how much you disagree with Parker, can you honestly say that this description fits the Montelena. And I'm sorry, but I simply cannot divorce Parker's (or Tanzer's) score from the equation. Can a wine that Parker pegged at 96 points really be so bad as to be "spit out and pour down the drain" bad? The conclusion can only be that 72 points, at least to Laube, means that the wine does not fit his particular style, (more on that later), or that 72 points is his attempt at making a statement and he is trying to shift the paradigm of California winemaking.
As to the "not to his style" possibility, this is simply intellectually dishonest. It would be different if Laube had retired and WS hired a new critic to review CA Cabs. It could be easily explained that the new critic simply has a different approach to Cabernet. But Laube is the same guy who reviewed every CA Cab since at least the mid-80's. News flash. Montelena has simply not changed its style so dramatically such that the same person who routinely scored these wines at 92-95 points from 1984 to 1999 could (or should) all of a sudden announce: "You kow what? I no longer like this style of wine. While it is not empirically different than past vintages, I am going to drop it by 20 some-odd points because I have all of a sudden decided that I don't like this stuff any more." Hence the intellectual dishonesty. If he really feels this way (and he has every right to), he should simply ask to be reassigned. If I developed a seafood allergy, I wouldn't continue to review sushi restaurants.
As for the conclusion that he is making a statement and trying to shift the winemaking of CA, well, doling out 72 point scores is simply irresponsible. Yes he is entitled to his opinion. And yes, he should call it as he sees it. But one cannot ignore that his magazine is read and followed by hundreds of thousands. Careers can be made or lost based on his review. If a wine is flawed, or utterly undrinkable, then, yes, tell us. But I just don't see Montelena releasing a wine that any knowledgable wine drinker is going to spit out once it passes his lips. And yes. I have tasted the 2001 as well as the 2002. All I can say is, I didn't get 96 points out of either. But I didn't spit them out. 87-89 points at worst. So is he rating the wine at 72 points because he is trying to make the profound statement that Montelena is slipping? If so, doesn't 87 points say the same thing. Let's not lose sight of the fact that 72 points is about as bad as any wine has ever been rated at any price point in even the worst vintages. Are the 2001 and 2002 Montelenas the worst wines that Laube has ever tasted? Worse than any 1988, 1998 or 2000 Cab? I guarantee that the answer is "no". So if they aren't, then can't we agree that while one is "entitled to one's opinion", one must also live by the rules? You can't mete out 72-82 point scores so cavalierly when qualitatively, these wines are not worse than all the wines reviewed in years past. Either that or WS will have to re-think the meaning of the various scoring brackets that it now uses, because 69 and 72 point wines were pretty darn hard to come by in the past. Even for wine in a box.
Just go to your attic and pull out an old WS issue from November 15 from 15, 10 or 5 years ago. Take a look at how the scoring has changed. As much as we would like to say that Laube is entitled to his view, there can be no disputing the fact that something dramatic has changed of late. Don't you find it a bit odd that no other wine critic sees it, and no one on this board sees it either? CA Cabs simply have not degraded that much in the past two releases. WS, Laube, or both owe us an explanation. If Laube wants to come out and say that he was too kind in the past and has decided to be a harder grader, I will accept that. But if he wants to say that the 2002 vintage is simply qualitiatively inferior to 1998 and 2000 across the board, and that 2003 deserves more 70-83 point scores than any vintage in history, then it needs to be vetted as to why no other "educated palate" and none of his readers seem to agree. But saying that we should "ignore" Laube, or that he is "just doing his job" doesn't cut it with me.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimmyV,
Posts: 1644 | Location: CONNECTICUT | Registered: Oct 19, 2001
I believe that Americans know a lot more about European wines than vice versa
Without question!
And your point? The reason behind that is, very little of our wines are available in Europe.
Most likely due to lack of demand. I know first-hand of four occasions in the past 8 years where CA "cult" wines sent to Europe were grey-marketed back to the US because they didn't sell. Mostly Harlan Estate, Shafer Hillside, and Pride Reserve, but also some Bryant, Colgin, and even Marcassin chard. We're not talking a few bottles here, each of the four shipments was at least a pallet!
Of interest is that this hasn't occurred, to my knowledge anyway, in the past two years. Maybe the folks in Europe are learning how to flip. Or maybe the CA wineries wised up and now ship a lot less wine to Europe...
I don't know that I would respond if I were Jim, but do any of you find it interesting that there has been no word on this topic from the man of hour himself.
Posts: 376 | Location: Up the creek w/out the paddle (aka Boston) | Registered: Dec 22, 2005
JimmyV is onto something, I think. Anybody: does he do strictly blind tastings these days, or does he always know what's in the glass? Does he accept (or demand) any freebies?
From my point, I would much prefer to listen to the forum's opinions. At least I know you all pay for your wine, pick your favorites and defend them with the zeal they deserve. I may disagree with you, I may not be able to afford your pick, but you all have my respect for your integrity.
Originally posted by zblang: I don't know that I would respond if I were Jim, but do any of you find it interesting that there has been no word on this topic from the man of hour himself.
13 posts from Mr. Laube since December 3, 2003. The forums aren't his kind of place apparently.
quote:
Originally posted by ggjjgg: Anybody: does he do strictly blind tastings these days, or does he always know what's in the glass? Does he accept (or demand) any freebies?
WS's and Laube's tasting methodology are consistent and widely publicized here and in the magazine. The freebee question is insulting, agree with him or not.
PH
Posts: 9625 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003
I believe that Americans know a lot more about European wines than vice versa
Without question!
And your point? The reason behind that is, very little of our wines are available in Europe.
Most likely due to lack of demand. I know first-hand of four occasions in the past 8 years where CA "cult" wines sent to Europe were grey-marketed back to the US because they didn't sell. Mostly Harlan Estate, Shafer Hillside, and Pride Reserve, but also some Bryant, Colgin, and even Marcassin chard. We're not talking a few bottles here, each of the four shipments was at least a pallet!
Of interest is that this hasn't occurred, to my knowledge anyway, in the past two years. Maybe the folks in Europe are learning how to flip. Or maybe the CA wineries wised up and now ship a lot less wine to Europe...
It is not solely a lack of demand. The wines are not available. And when the harder to get wines do arrive, they are priced even higher on the secondary market than they are here. They are at that point, cost prohibitive.
So, because they do not have the chane to taste them often enough, and the supply is very limited, the wines have not been able to develop a market.
I go to Europe twice a year and always bring wines with me. Some have gotten rave reviews, others have not. Not much difference than it is over here.
JV, So what does a flawed wine deserve for a score? And I don’t mean just an off bottle. Once it’s reached a threshold that you notice and distracts from the taste of the wine and your enjoyment, at premium wine prices, I couldn’t care less if it’s a 50 point wine or an 80 point wine. I’m still pouring it down the drain. Just because you can’t taste a flaw and have scored it mid-to-high 80's (although, it does sound to me that you are detecting something) does not mean that Laube can’t taste the flaw.
As for deviating from the scores RMP or Tanzer, I couldn’t care less. I want the reviewer to score the wine honestly and if that’s how Laube scored, so be it. He has stated that even the assistants helping him tasted the flaws. I have tasted every vintage of Monty Estate back to ‘97 (except ‘98) and they have all been flawed wines.
And what do you make of a winemaker who has admitted he can’t taste TCA taint below about 4.5 ppt? If this is a “house style” you prefer or classic old world funk that you like, then there is no reason to debate this issue any further. The Monty estates were also found to be tainted with tetrachloroanisole and pentachloroanisole, which are associated with chemically treated wood. The combination of all of these may well be what tipped the scales for Laube, but others can not taste.
___________________________________________________ It's good to try them young too and then let them age - James Suckling Infanticide can be very satisfying - Robert Parker I drink mine young to avoid disappointments - James Laube
Posts: 5063 | Location: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jun 03, 2004
Now that's funny. Laube turns to his assistant and says, can you taste this flaw?
Of course you know the answer. Why yes James, I taste what you do. Using that to prove an unproveable point is pure hooey.
I too have tasted all the vintages of Montelena you claim to and completely disagree that they are "all" flawed. Frankly you and Laube seem to be the only ones who do. Being the board apologist for James Laube must be getting old.
Even if you are right, and my opinion is that you are not, please explain why Laube gave what you claim were flawed wines scores in the 90's.
You can't. And neither can he.
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6952 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
Originally posted by Gigond Ass: Now that's funny. Laube turns to his assistant and says, can you taste this flaw?
Of course you know the answer. Why yes James, I taste what you do. Using that to prove an unproveable point is pure hooey.
I too have tasted all the vintages of Montelena you claim to and completely disagree that they are "all" flawed. Frankly you and Laube seem to be the only ones who do. Being the board apologist for James Laube must be getting old.
Even if you are right, and my opinion is that you are not, please explain why Laube gave what you claim were flawed wines scores in the 90's.
You can't. And neither can he.
Projecting again GA. I have no idea how the events occurred and neither do you. I don’t have to use them as a crutch, the admittance of the winery is more than enough “hooey” for any rational individual. And there are plenty of people who have tasted the flaws - just check out the recent “Blind Tasting north of Dallas” in the Tasting Notes section to see more of the flawed nature of Monty Estate. Linky
I don’t apologize for Laube, I just attack those who’s palates are too neanderthal to taste the obvious and those who let their investments blind their judgment. Which one are you?
Laube has admitted to struggling to finding good bottles of previous vintages of Montelena to score them. I’m just glad he stopped assuming the wines were made with good intentions as you and others have failed to do. Since you enjoy flawed wines, indulge yourself in the newfound availability of them. And since the impact of TCA increases with time in the bottle, I look forward to your tasting notes in 10 years.
___________________________________________________ It's good to try them young too and then let them age - James Suckling Infanticide can be very satisfying - Robert Parker I drink mine young to avoid disappointments - James Laube
Posts: 5063 | Location: Atlanta, GA | Registered: Jun 03, 2004
Originally posted by Gigond Ass: Now that's funny. Laube turns to his assistant and says, can you taste this flaw?
Of course you know the answer. Why yes James, I taste what you do. Using that to prove an unproveable point is pure hooey.
I too have tasted all the vintages of Montelena you claim to and completely disagree that they are "all" flawed. Frankly you and Laube seem to be the only ones who do. Being the board apologist for James Laube must be getting old.
Even if you are right, and my opinion is that you are not, please explain why Laube gave what you claim were flawed wines scores in the 90's.
You can't. And neither can he.
Projecting again GA. I have no idea how the events occurred and neither do you. I don’t have to use them as a crutch, the admittance of the winery is more than enough “hooey” for any rational individual. And there are plenty of people who have tasted the flaws - just check out the recent “Blind Tasting north of Dallas” in the Tasting Notes section to see more of the flawed nature of Monty Estate. Linky
I don’t apologize for Laube, I just attack those who’s palates are too neanderthal to taste the obvious and those who let their investments blind their judgment. Which one are you?
Laube has admitted to struggling to finding good bottles of previous vintages of Montelena to score them. I’m just glad he stopped assuming the wines were made with good intentions as you and others have failed to do. Since you enjoy flawed wines, indulge yourself in the newfound availability of them. And since the impact of TCA increases with time in the bottle, I look forward to your tasting notes in 10 years.
Actually I own less than six bottles of Montelena total. So investment has nothing to do with it. Montelena just isn't my style of wine.
However, you still haven't answered the real question..... Why did Laube routinely score them in the 90's if they are all flawed?
As for my palate being "neandertal", I would be willing to bet that I've had more world class wines than you have. Of course, I don't find the need to post tasting notes on them all.
I don't doubt that Laube tastes something he doesn't like with MANY california cabernets. I just think that every Laube rating should come with a disclaimer.
As for your palate being able to taste it, I have no frame of reference, but I'll listen to Parker and Tanzer instead.
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6952 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
