This thread seems to have run its course... and then some. Consider this last call, everyone. I'll be closing this thread to new posts soon unless a more constructive conversation manages to emerge.
Rob
Posts: 255 | Location: New York | Registered: Jun 13, 2006
Robert - any plans for JL to comment in the forums or in a blog in response to this thread on how his ratings and palate regarding Cali Cabs seem to have changed in many readers eyes?
I think that was at the heart of the whole thread - it would really clear up a lot of questions if JL strung a couple sentences together on the non-personal attack thoughts presented in the vein of the original topic.
Posts: 1405 | Location: Boston | Registered: Aug 14, 2006
I am happy to discuss my ratings and reviews. That's the whole point of interactive media and had planned to write my blog on that this morning as a starting point.
But I won't engage in dialogue on this board with people who won't sign their real names.
And I don't have time to answer quesitons that have already been answered. For instance, I have written about how I taste the fact that almost all of the wines I review are tasted twice, under blind conditions, by myself and one of my colleagues.
Rob has offered to let you know when the blog is up and since it's an open house anyone can join in the discussion.
JL
Posts: 15 | Location: Napa, CA | Registered: Dec 03, 2003
I wonder whether this thread will be locked before I hit the "Post Now" button.
When I saw that Jim Laube was the most recent poster here, I dove in and read the whole thread. I confess that what started out as a spirited debate fell into a downward spiral on pages 4 and 5.
But to the issue at hand -- the real question is whether you're a conspiracy theorist or not. While I have taken issue with Mr. Laube's impressions in the past, I can't bring myself to any longer consider the possibility that he's not being honest with us. I've never met Laube, but his rating WINE X twenty points lower over what he rated the wine three years ago is not even close to being sufficient to question the man's integrity.
And face it, guys, when you question his ratings system or the way he goes about arriving at his numbers, that's what you're really doing -- you're calling his integrity into question.
Take it for what it is -- one man's opinion of the wines he's drinking. He just happens to be a man with a great reputation with one of the world's top three or four wine publications. If he rates the wine too low for you, you ought to be thanking him for driving down the demand.
----------------------- Le vin français est inférieur Du vin français est surestimé Le vin français suce
Posts: 3000 | Location: ATL, GA | Registered: Jan 10, 2004
1.) I do not, and will not post under my actual name. My surname is far too uncommon to risk having people I do not know, and do not trust seek out my address and/or phone number to pester me with either commercial or threatening advances. One must wise up to the real world in which we live. Posting under an actual name is simply irresponsible. You have editorial privilege at this site. If you wish to look me up, please feel free. I am a subscriber to both this site and to the magazine. You have all the information that you need.
2.) I am not a conspiracist. I know that you taste blind, and I do not think for one second that advertising revenue plays into scoring. I am not questioning your honesty.
That said, I hope you find the time to reply. While I do read your blogs, for some reason my computer will not allow me to post in response to same. Otherwise, I would post this in the Blog Area. What I am questioning is not your process or ethics, but your frame of reference. The past two years' Cabernet issues have seen a wholesale shift in scoring. We are not talking about a couple of points here and there for a handful of wines. Rather, California Cabernet as a whole has been shifted downward, without a corresponding perception of decreased quality industry-wide. As I posted above, one need only pull out the November 15 issues from 1990, 1995, and 2001 to see how much lower scoring has become. A wine that was "just OK" in the past might have scored 86 points. It seems now that the same descriptors and the same lack of enthusiasm merit a score of 80 these days. The across-the-board bloodletting would have one who is new to this field believe that winemakers have lost their ability to make good wine, and that the 2002 and 2003 vintages are about the worst to come out of California in a good long while. One would have to be blind not to see the downward trend of scoring.
But that's OK. I have no problem with trying to nip grade inflation in the bud. But the new scoring has to be explained. Is an 82 today the equivalent of an 87 in 2001? Or do you really think wineries that routinely performed to the level of 88-92 point wines year in and year out have slipped to the level of 82 point wines? If so, why haven't Parker, Tanzer, Robinson, etc. seen the same decline? There is no rule mandating uniformity among the experts. But consistency would be nice. All experts (and amateurs alike) agreed that 1988, 1998 and 2000 were down years in CA. And I am willing to agree that 2003 is a vintage worth passing in large measure as well. But even in those off years we saw broad uniformity among professional palates, and did not see consistently high performing wines scoring in the high 70's the way we do today. Even you would have to concede that scores in the 70's are handed out much more freely now than in the past. My simple question is: What has changed? The wine, or the meaning of a score of 78? And what of a score of 90? I note in Mr. Suckling's latest blog that he scored the 2003 Colgin IX 96 points at your recent tasting. Mr. Parker scored it 95+. Your score was 90. If the answer is that henceforth, 90 points should be considered a profound wine, and that readers should not expect to see scores in excess of 92 anymore, then I can accept that. But it has to be so stated. On the other hand, if you simply thought that the Colgin was "pretty good" while your fellow critics found it to be profound, then I guess we are simply not understanding what you find lacking that they find present. Why is this important? Because it's all about palate calibration. While written descriptions are nice, the current issue of WS contains hundreds of scored wines that are not given full tasting notes. Your score is all we have.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: JimmyV,
Posts: 1644 | Location: CONNECTICUT | Registered: Oct 19, 2001
Originally posted by James Laube: I am happy to discuss my ratings and reviews. That's the whole point of interactive media and had planned to write my blog on that this morning as a starting point.
But I won't engage in dialogue on this board with people who won't sign their real names.
And I don't have time to answer quesitons that have already been answered. For instance, I have written about how I taste the fact that almost all of the wines I review are tasted twice, under blind conditions, by myself and one of my colleagues.
Rob has offered to let you know when the blog is up and since it's an open house anyone can join in the discussion.
JL
Thanks for posting here and writing a blog about the questions. I think most arent criticizing your tasting conditions (blind, etc) but rather they feel you "are on a mission" to lower Cali Cab prices - but havent actually come out publicly regarding it.
I'm all for lower Cali Cab prices - but it would be interesting to hear from yourself if you're conciously scoring Calis lower or if it's pure coincidence?
Peter
Posts: 1405 | Location: Boston | Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Originally posted by Golf&Pinot Nut: I wonder whether this thread will be locked before I hit the "Post Now" button.
When I saw that Jim Laube was the most recent poster here, I dove in and read the whole thread. I confess that what started out as a spirited debate fell into a downward spiral on pages 4 and 5.
But to the issue at hand -- the real question is whether you're a conspiracy theorist or not. While I have taken issue with Mr. Laube's impressions in the past, I can't bring myself to any longer consider the possibility that he's not being honest with us. I've never met Laube, but his rating WINE X twenty points lower over what he rated the wine three years ago is not even close to being sufficient to question the man's integrity.
And face it, guys, when you question his ratings system or the way he goes about arriving at his numbers, that's what you're really doing -- you're calling his integrity into question.
Take it for what it is -- one man's opinion of the wines he's drinking. He just happens to be a man with a great reputation with one of the world's top three or four wine publications. If he rates the wine too low for you, you ought to be thanking him for driving down the demand.
I think you missed some of the threads original intent, before the name-calling and integrity rants.
IMO, and what I am most interested in hearing from JL - is regarding the pricing of Cali Cabernet. Im sure JL can tell the difference between a Cali pinot and Cab, so the question isnt about whether it's done blindly...that is moot. And I "blindly" believe in their tasting methods. But I think the real item people would like an answer to is that when he's tasting Cali Cab, is he scoring them lower b/c he thinks the region is overpriced.
Posts: 1405 | Location: Boston | Registered: Aug 14, 2006
1.) I do not, and will not post under my actual name. My surname is far too uncommon to risk having people I do not know, and do not trust seek out my address and/or phone number to pester me with either commercial or threatening advances. One must wise up to the real world in which we live. Posting under an actual name is simply irresponsible. You have editorial privilege at this site. If you wish to look me up, please feel free. I am a subscriber to both this site and to the magazine. You have all the information that you need.
2.) I am not a conspiracist. I know that you taste blind, and I do not think for one second that advertising revenue plays into scoring. I am not questioning your honesty.
That said, I hope you find the time to reply. While I do read your blogs, for some reason my computer will not allow me to post in response to same. Otherwise, I would post this in the Blog Area. What I am questioning is not your process or ethics, but your frame of reference. The past two years' Cabernet issues have seen a wholesale shift in scoring. We are not talking about a couple of points here and there for a handful of wines. Rather, California Cabernet as a whole has been shifted downward, without a corresponding perception of decreased quality industry-wide. As I posted above, one need only pull out the November 15 issues from 1990, 1995, and 2001 to see how much lower scoring has become. A wine that was "just OK" in the past might have scored 86 points. It seems now that the same descriptors and the same lack of enthusiasm merit a score of 80 these days. The across-the-board bloodletting would have one who is new to this field believe that winemakers have lost their ability to make good wine, and that the 2002 and 2003 vintages are about the worst to come out of California in a good long while. One would have to be blind not to see the downward trend of scoring.
But that's OK. I have no problem with trying to nip grade inflation in the bud. But the new scoring has to be explained. Is an 82 today the equivalent of an 87 in 2001? Or do you really think wineries that routinely performed to the level of 88-92 point wines year in and year out have slipped to the level of 82 point wines? If so, why haven't Parker, Tanzer, Robinson, etc. seen the same decline? There is no rule mandating uniformity among the experts. But consistency would be nice. All experts (and amateurs alike) agreed that 1988, 1998 and 2000 were down years in CA. And I am willing to agree that 2003 is a vintage worth passing in large measure as well. But even in those off years we saw broad uniformity among professional palates, and did not see consistently high performing wines scoring in the high 70's the way we do today. Even you would have to concede that scores in the 70's are handed out much more freely now than in the past. My simple question is: What has changed? The wine, or the meaning of a score of 78? And what of a score of 90? I note in Mr. Suckling's latest blog that he scored the 2003 Colgin IX 96 points at your recent tasting. Mr. Parker scored it 95+. Your score was 90. If the answer is that henceforth, 90 points should be considered a profound wine, and that readers should not expect to see scores in excess of 92 anymore, then I can accept that. But it has to be so stated. On the other hand, if you simply thought that the Colgin was "pretty good" while your fellow critics found it to be profound, then I guess we are simply not understanding what you find lacking that they find present. Why is this important? Because it's all about palate calibration. While written descriptions are nice, the current issue of WS contains hundreds of scored wines that are not given full tasting notes. Your score is all we have.
Mr. Laube,
I post under my real name. If it is a real name you require, then I would like to reiterate JimmyV's very excellent post, as his questions accurately represent my own.
BTW, I have met JimmyV, and he's a true gentleman, real-name or not.
---------------------- Pinot Noir: It builds strong bones.
Posts: 4410 | Location: San Ramon, California | Registered: May 07, 2002
Originally posted by Robert Taylor: This thread seems to have run its course... and then some. Consider this last call, everyone. I'll be closing this thread to new posts soon unless a more constructive conversation manages to emerge.
Rob
Why not simply remove the acrimonious posts from the usual suspects. They're not exactly attractive to look at.
________________________ What kind of crackhouse are you running here?
The "real name" issue is a red herring, imo. I agree with nasty bits, that the nasty bits in this thread should be deleted. It's hard to fault Laube for not participating in this conversation given the garbage he'd have to wade through. The questions asked by the serious posters still deserve answers. I'm looking forward to them.
PH
Posts: 9625 | Location: Maryland, USA (DC suburbs) | Registered: Nov 22, 2003
