Nigel- Very nice analysis. Thank you very much.

Can you provide Bob's scores on the following?:

Ch Margaux
Leoville Barton
Haut Brion
Monbrison
Pavillon Rouge
Malescot
Haut Bailly
Villhardy
Lascombes
Brane Cantenac
Palmer

I have read through this string but am finding it very hard to figure out where guys are guessing and where they are actual scores.

Thanks!

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
For those that find points helpful in judging wines and comparing vintages here is a quick analysis of all the same 256 red Bordeaux that RP rated in bottle for the 2000 and 2005 vintages in the Spring of 2003 and 2008 [the report this thread is discussing] i.e. a direct like for like comparison between the two vintages.

The averages of the 256 red wines common to both vintages, scored at the same time after bottling, is 91.4 for 2005 and 91.0 for 2000.

The ratios of 2005/2000 wines scoring 100, 99, 98, 97, 96 and 95 were 2/8, 2/1, 12/6, 4/2, 13/15, 23/14 for the 256 red wines.

So 98-100 was at 16 to 15 in favour of 2005 and 95-100 was 56 to 46 and allowing for the tannic and age-worthy nature of the 2005 vintage [and the resultant? conservatism of the rating], the slight shift at the 100 level remains more than compensated for at the other levels from 98-100 and 95-100 and does not undermine the premier overall rating of the vintage as a whole.

In 2005 there were 200/256 red wines scoring less than 95 points at an average of 90.0 and in 2000 there were 210/256 red wines scoring less than 95 points at an average of 89.7.

Excluding the dry white wines [not incuded above either] the biggest gainers between the vintages were Larcis Ducasse [+11], Clos Fourtet, Fleur Cardinale [both +8], La Gaffeliere, Cos d’Estournel [both +6], Malescot St Exupery, La Fleur Morange, Haut Bailly, Lascombes, Le Gay and Pierre de Lune [all +5] where these increases took them all into the 95-100 range.

Some other notable successes: Ausone was the only wine to hit 100 in both vintages and others like L’Eglise Clinet, Troplong Mondot and Pontet Canet all +4 to 100, 99 and 96 respectively and Pape Clement, Pavie Macquin, Ducru Beaucaillou and Gracia scored +3 to 98, 98, 97, 96 and Angelus and Clos St. Martin both +2 to 98.

The biggest losers [leaving out Petrus, Lafite, Lafleur and Cheval Blanc which all remained in the 95-100 club despite losing between 4 and 5 points] were Pichon Comtesse [-11], Gruaud Larose, Le Pin [ both -5], Lynch Bages [-4] all of whom dropped out of the 95-100 range except Gruaud Larose [89 v 94].

marcb7,

I am in agreement with the effect of lower scores on the market from a wine drinker's perspective and I also fall into the same category as yourself. But my point relates to notes and that a critic must taste wines and give notes as accurately as possible, irrespective of how the market will react. Otherwise, they cease to be objective. My point is that if the date a wine is evaluates makes a difference in the score, then it is an important element that must be taken into account.

quote:

Originally posted by Mimik:
marcb7,

I am in agreement with the effect of lower scores on the market from a wine drinker's perspective and I also fall into the same category as yourself. But my point relates to notes and that a critic must taste wines and give notes as accurately as possible, irrespective of how the market will react. Otherwise, they cease to be objective. My point is that if the date a wine is evaluates makes a difference in the score, then it is an important element that must be taken into account.

Preaching to the choir Mimik, I totally see your point and agree with you that Parkers scores may be low for a reason. I mean't no offense by my statement. I think you are right on with what that reason is, regardless of experience. I was more or less staing my position. If you are correct in your assumption, when these wines are re-evaluted we may see a jump in price, hence the reason I am trying to pick up a few more "value" wines.

Mimik, I really don’t think the timing matters as much as people think. Each wine is on its own time frame. I have been to a couple of 05 tasting’s and while some have been singing, others completely backward and shut down. Plus, a lot of young Bordeaux is just dumb from the get go, Leo Barton comes to mind in that respect. I think a lot of people on EBob are ready to jump off a bridge because they went huge on something that got a, gasp!, 96. To Parkers credit, he did give warnings that he thought the left bank might end up being a bit to tannic, and the right bank was the clear favorite from the beginning.

At the end of the day, a lot of great juice was made in 2005 and I’m looking forward to opening some special bottles in the next 10-50 years.

Nice comparison Nigel.
I am wondering if one can compare tastings from 2003 and 2008 though. The importance of those points is increasing from year to year, they have an immense economic impact. The pressure on the tasters is certainly increasing as well. (Dont misunderstand me, i'm not saying they are unobjective in any way) The way wines are rated might not be 100pct the same than 5 years ago.
What does it mean a wine has been rated 90 points in 2000 and 90 points in 2005, are you sure it is exactly the same ?

quote:

To Parkers credit, he did give warnings that he thought the left bank might end up being a bit to tannic, and the right bank was the clear favorite from the beginning.

This is exactly why scores are lower on the 1st growths. 2005 is VERY tannic. On BOTH right and left bank, but more so on the left because of the Cab. Sauv.. I would say the rt. is better balanced, but I wouldn't forget there is a reason why Petrus scored 96 (and it's nearly 100% Merlot). Likewise, warnings of "reservation" on wines like the '05 Peby Faugeres having "very high levels of tannins".

The one thing I took away from the UGC tasting in SF earlier this year was that 2005 will take at least 20-25 years to START coming around on the top wines. 2000 was not like this on release, and many of the wines showed well early, and still show well. Granted, the vintage has plenty of tannin, and should age very well....it just wasn't monstrous tannin. While I think 2005 will be a longer lived year, I don't necessarily think it will be better....or the "BEST" year in the past 30 years. BEST, is certainly hard to argue, and worth a bit of caution when anyone else wants to purport this. Every year has good and bad, including the BEST ones. I think the publications we subscribe to, and the masterful skills of the Bordelais have done a remarkable job in hyping this vintage. And...they needed to with the respective increases in prices they decided to charge. Let's not forget the level of market manipulation that goes on here.

I think Parker is doing his constituency (that wants to cellar and drink these wines) a great service. I too am leary of dropping VERY big $$ on wine that needs 25-50 years JUST to to come around (many of us may not be alive!), and on some of these wines, the tannin levels are so monstrous, they may turn out to be like the '86 Mouton.....a 100 pt. wine that God only knows when or if this wine will ever live up to it's reputation. There is good reason for caution. Some of these properties probably got stuck in a "too much of a good thing" scenario, and made wines with so much tannin, and so much extract that they may never come into balance. And, I think Parker is being cautious of these kind of wines.

Let's also not forget there is a TON of great 96-100 pt. Bordeaux out there from other great years like '82, '86, '89, '90, '95, '96, '98, '00, '03. I'd much rather spend half the $$ on a wine from one of these vintages. There comes a pt. when it's awfully difficult to argue that 2005 Ausone is better than 2000 Ausone, etc., etc. I think people get too caught up in the hype, and forget about the great wines that have already been made and are available out on the market place for less $$ and less trouble.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
Let's also not forget there is a TON of great 96-100 pt. Bordeaux out there from other great years like '82, '86, '89, '90, '95, '96, '98, '00, '03.

THIS is precisely why scores are so important. I understand that professional critics like Suckling and Parker are rating a wine on it's potential, not necessarily how it's drinking at the time. So, for a comparison standpoint, I have to step back and try to figure out if that 100-point 2003 is really going to be better than that 96-point 2005. Or, is Parker mistaken, and the 2005 is really going to be better than the 2003?

This may not make a hill of beans difference to the average Joe, but if we were to compare a 1961 to a 1982 today, there could be a huge difference between the two. That's one reason we listen to the Pro's, so they can give their expert opinion as to which wines will be great. Otherwise, we might as well throw darts.....as Parker jokingly (hopefully) stated.

quote:

I understand that professional critics like Suckling and Parker are rating a wine on it's potential, not necessarily how it's drinking at the time. So, for a comparison standpoint, I have to step back and try to figure out if that 100-point 2003 is really going to be better than that 96-point 2005. Or, is Parker mistaken, and the 2005 is really going to be better than the 2003?

There is no right answer! Everyone will have their own opinion....always.

And, this is where the typical wine connesieur gets soooooo narrowed in on SCORES and what ONE critic has to say about a wine, that they forget who is ultimately going to open it, and drink it.

THEMSELVES!

Parker, Suckling, Tanzer, etc. can all spew scores and reviews until we're all blue in the face. Ultimately, it's up to YOU/US as the wine consumer to figure out which one we like best. Every vintage and every wine, including from the same producer, can be, and is very different from those of the years before. '86 Margaux will not be like '83, will not be like, '90, '95, and '96. These are all very good/great Margaux wines. Yes they have plenty of similarities, and all of them are Margaux, and all scored very well with critics and consumers who have tried them. But, they are all very different wines. In the end...we must decide which one suits our palates fancy more than another. And, there is no right answer.

For me....It doesn't matter to me how much Parker likes the '83 or '86 Margaux....I don't like them as much as I like the '95 and '96. So...that's where I will spend MY money.

People spend so much time hoping/praying that the critics will validate their choices for them. "If only I can find the one wine that Parker, Tanzer, Suckling, Meadows, Molesworth, Robinson, Coates, all say is the wine of the vintage." Then I KNOW it will be good. Well...get out there and taste! That's the only way anyone will know what wine they want to buy for themselves and serve to their guests on their dinner table!

Now, granted, many of these wines have become so outrageously priced that you can't taste them before buying. And, in that case, I would argue that one has no real business buying wine of this price. If you can't afford to try it, you can't afford to buy it. And, I too live by this rule.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
... Ultimately, it's up to YOU/US as the wine consumer to figure out which one we like best...If you can't afford to try it, you can't afford to buy it. And, I too live by this rule.

People bought those wines as futures, so you can't blame them for not tasting the wines.
I wouldn't buy wines without tasting, but then look at the prices of those Bordeaux 2005: much higher than the primeur prices now.

I'm not blaming anyone. That is the inherent risk of buying futures. It is a gamble.

Only...it used to be a gamble that was typically worth it. The point of futures was to reward the customer for buying 2-3 years in advance via vastly lower pricing. IMHO...the 2005 futures campaign was not worth it. Prices were too high (especially now that the scores didn't deliver, in some cases). I bought ZERO wines on futures. This is the first time I sat out. Not because I wasn't interested in the vintage, but because it was no longer worth it to hold my money for 2-3 years, not be able to try the wines, and not read any of the reviews before purchasing. Top that off with plenty of back vintages for far less money and equal or better quality. People who bought, bought into the hype. Some got good deals the 1st week of the campaign when prices were low, but they jumped up dramatically after that (As the Bordelais price-fixed the hype by simulating low supply...even Parker was disgusted with this).

What I'm getting at is the here and now. Responding to Foghorn's post of "Who is right"? Is the 2003 Margaux better than 2005 or is it the 2005 that is better than 2003? The only way for anyone to know is to try it. I can assure you they'll be very different expressions of Margaux, and both will probably be excellent.

quote:

Originally posted by MoselleLuxemburg:
Nice comparison Nigel.
I am wondering if one can compare tastings from 2003 and 2008 though. The importance of those points is increasing from year to year, they have an immense economic impact. The pressure on the tasters is certainly increasing as well. (Dont misunderstand me, i'm not saying they are unobjective in any way) The way wines are rated might not be 100pct the same than 5 years ago.
What does it mean a wine has been rated 90 points in 2000 and 90 points in 2005, are you sure it is exactly the same ?

Thank you MoselleLuxemburg [I should have put that in when I posted]

Well only that all the scores came from Robert Parker and for Bordeaux at least I don't think his palate has changed much in 5 years.

Certainly he claims his methodology hasn't.

Am I sure it is exactly the same?
I am never sure about scoring wines and don't do it myself but find it a useful way of considering and comparing the 'first pass' views of the 6-8 critics I read before analysing their tasting notes.

Furthermore I am progressively more and more convinced in the variation that takes place from the bottle and the location as well as how the taster is feeling etc etc. Which is why I look at as many views as possible including those of blind panels like the Grand Jury Europeen.
For example I find it interesting that a blind Decanter panel recently gave Chateau Pedesclaux a rating of around 95 whereas Robert Parker gave it 82 in the same time frame - and various people who also claim to have drunk it have similarly polarised views.
My main point in putting together my simple analysis was that the comparison would be best on a like for like basis in two comparable years. The same wines and the same critic and clearly RP believes 2005 is a bigger year than 2000 although 2000 was the next best thing across the board.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Nigel Groundwater,

Apologies. Double post

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
And, this is where the typical wine connesieur gets soooooo narrowed in on SCORES and what ONE critic has to say about a wine, that they forget who is ultimately going to open it, and drink it.

THEMSELVES!

People spend so much time hoping/praying that the critics will validate their choices for them. "If only I can find the one wine that Parker, Tanzer, Suckling, Meadows, Molesworth, Robinson, Coates, all say is the wine of the vintage." Then I KNOW it will be good. Well...get out there and taste!

Good posting DRAB. Right on!

Well this thread really pooped out faster than the one on the squires forum. As for deciding on which of my LCBO orders to keep/cancel, I am thinking now that I might have to wait until I see Tanzer's final scores...

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I'm not blaming anyone. That is the inherent risk of buying futures. It is a gamble.

Only...it used to be a gamble that was typically worth it. The point of futures was to reward the customer for buying 2-3 years in advance via vastly lower pricing. IMHO.

What I'm getting at is the here and now. The only way for anyone to know is to try it.

DRAB: Well said here, and throughout the thread!

I had some down time waiting for my car to get serviced so I read through a lot of the ebob thread on Parkers scores. Man some people are upset and I just don’t see why. Scores look pretty good to me. And it’s funny that there has been a lot of complaining about score inflation over the last 5 years, but people over there are complaining that something got a 96 when it should have been 100!! Pretty silly considering most have not tasted the wines to see what score it actually deserves.

Exactly what I was thinking. I can't tell the difference between 4 points one way or another. Regardless, I like what I like. I bought 2005 futures and am happy that James and Sir Robert thought highly of my purchases, but since I intend to drink most if not all of my futures, it really doesn't matter.

quote:

Originally posted by GlennK:
I had some down time waiting for my car to get serviced so I read through a lot of the ebob thread on Parkers scores. Man some people are upset and I just don’t see why. Scores look pretty good to me. And it’s funny that there has been a lot of complaining about score inflation over the last 5 years, but people over there are complaining that something got a 96 when it should have been 100!! Pretty silly considering most have not tasted the wines to see what score it actually deserves.

quote:

Originally posted by Foghorn Leghorn:

quote:

Originally posted by wineismylife:

quote:

Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
I fell a bit like I'm watching TMZ to get the latest Britney Spears update.

That makes two of us.

You guys actually watch TMZ?

Well no, but it made the joke work.

As I browsed through the hard copy of the Advocate, I noticed something else. And this happens a lot. Parker's webscores never include the + or ? that he adds to the "in print" scores. In many cases, like the '05 Latour, the web shows 96 pts., while the printed scores show 96+ pts. IMHO, this is key. 20 years from now, there could be quite a few more 100 pt'ers (if he's around to re-rate them). And, in doing these notations, he's satisfied consumers with caution to some of these wines, and given them the benefit of the doubt that one day they will hopefully live up to being made in one of the greatest vintages ever.

DRAB,

Fantastic thoughts on the subject. I did buy some futures, about three mixed cases, nothing over $80/per. According to the scores, I made some great choices. I'm relatively young, came into a bit of mad money, so popped for a retirement treat. As the scores are pretty decent, I can always flip what I have for a profit if I desire. No worries here.

One thing I did find out in the Vegas Grand Tour tasting, to me, young First Growth is, well, just not very good.

I'd feel a bit sick to my stomach if I were sitting on a bunch of $1500 bottles that will taste like battery acid for the next 15 years.

Drab - any + or - sign on LMHB? I only get online. Thanks in advance.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I'm not blaming anyone. That is the inherent risk of buying futures. It is a gamble.

Only...it used to be a gamble that was typically worth it. The point of futures was to reward the customer for buying 2-3 years in advance via vastly lower pricing. IMHO...the 2005 futures campaign was not worth it. Prices were too high (especially now that the scores didn't deliver, in some cases).

I must disagree with you here. If you'd like to argue that the wines aren't worth the high prices overall I'm ok with that. But if you're going to now try to find Leoville Barton or Malescot St Exupery (as 2 examples) please tell me where you'll get them for less $ (or even the same) than what I paid on futures ($80 and $55 respectively)?

(the Costco exception comes into play here, and we'll see what shows up there this year, but it's very hit-or-miss there and specific wines can't be counted on)

I can give you my list of futures for 05 if you'd like (about 9 cases) and I challenge you to find any of them for the same or less than what I paid, or even within 20% of what I paid. I don't regret a single one and each came out with final scores in the expected range.

What they'll taste like to me is another issue, I'll get around to them eventually. That's not the point of this argument. I'm trying to say that once again well-chosen futures were a good investment in 2005 bdx.

Grossie....You missed the line...

quote:

Some got good deals the 1st week of the campaign when prices were low, but they jumped up dramatically after that (As the Bordelais price-fixed the hype by simulating low supply...even Parker was disgusted with this).

And, granted....it's hard to generalize. Prices and availability differ all over the country. I'm not saying there weren't good deals out there, I'm mostly trying to convey that the margin has narrowed quite significantly, to where I've stopped playing the futures game. And, some of the mid tier wines that don't get so much hype were decent bets for futures. I'm shocked at what the 2006 Futures have been sitting at!

What also kills me is that, using part of your example, the 2003 Leoville Barton can be found for equal or less than the 2005. And, it has better scores accross the board. I've had both, and IMHO, the 2003 is a FAR better wine. I'm not a huge Leoville Barton fan, but the 2003 is the best wine I've ever had from them. The 2005 is excruciatingly tannic. I hope you're no more than 30 years old!

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I've had both, and IMHO, the 2003 is a FAR better wine.

That determination will be made 20 years hence, not by tasting infant closed wines made to age for decades.

DRAB, you’ve made really great points throughout this thread, but I will have to disagree that the margin on futures has narrowed significantly. Like Grossie, I saved significantly on my 05’s buying futures, and I didn’t buy all of them the first week they were offered. And the point that back vintages are out there at less $$ is well taken, and one I considered when making my 05 purchases. But I think that really only holds true for the firsts and seconds that came out with jolting price increases for their 05 campaign. And if you can find some 03 Barton for less than $80 that Grossie paid for his 2005, please let me know where.