RBF
I prefer to think of it as savings for rainy wine days.
BirD

Anyone mind posting a list of RP scores for 09?

Send me an email, and I'll send you a list. I don't want to post them all online.

...

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

quote:

Originally posted by Wine Canuck:
Anyone mind posting a list of RP scores for 09?

They are available on the LCBO web site. Go to Vintages.com --> Collections --> Bordeaux Futures 2009. This will bring up a pdf form with all the wines offered on futures andit lists all scores

Simple!

on the wine, are the final in bottle scores available? They were just released March 1st...

OTW, I think you're referring to the barrel scores, but the bottle scores just recently came out and that's what I'm looking for.

Email sent, thanks aml.

You are correct - these are the earlier barrel-tasting scores. Can't help you with the latest scores because I don't subscribe to RP.

my focus was on:
- montrose (jackpot)
- pontet canet (jackpot)
- gazin
- batailley
- gruaud larose
- poujeaux
- armailhac
- la lagune
- seguin
- senejac
- latour figeac
- and a lot of hauts de pontet

I'm really happy with parker points

What RP's main point about 2009 as the best vintage he has ever tasted has been clearly overlooked in the WA as well as VM's reason for buying.

The vintage is an across the board success from the petit chateaux, where remarkably affordable and available wines will flood the market, to the select few 1er cru level estate 100 pointers everyone boasts they've bought.

Further, the broader earlier appeal of many of these wines means they can be atypically drunk early with pleasure, yet still be cellarworthy.

Between major improvements in grape growing, fermentation, and wine making, and the optimal weather, the only downside is pricing on the upper end, even though less so with futures.

I dont have parkers points but I do have some quotes from him and James Suckling.

Parker goes "After spending nearly two weeks there at the end of January, this is unquestionably the greatest Bordeaux vintage I have ever tasted."

Suckling says " I tasted about 300 wines in blind tastings in Bordeaux in January from this venerable vintage, and I was elated. I couldn’t think of a vintage of young red Bordeaux that I tasted in the last 30 years that was so wonderfully fruity, so fabulously structured, and so vibrantly fresh. It is this remarkable combination of ripe fruit, powerful tannins, and relatively high acidity that makes the 2009 Bordeaux so exceptional."

Parker also says "Of course, 2010 is not yet in bottle, and it is going to be another fascinating vintage. However, it will not have the early charm, appeal and opulence that the 2009s already possess."

2009 sounds like my kind of vintage. The best of new and old world.

Searching WA and trying to get a handle to find some good QPR's. Aiming for about 24 bottles, and don't want to break the bank. Will include a few high ends in there just for the experience

quote:

Originally posted by Uncle John:
Suckling says " I tasted about 300 wines in blind tastings in Bordeaux in January from this venerable vintage, and I was elated. I couldn’t think of a vintage of young red Bordeaux that I tasted in the last 30 years that was so wonderfully fruity, so fabulously structured, and so vibrantly fresh. It is this remarkable combination of ripe fruit, powerful tannins, and relatively high acidity that makes the 2009 Bordeaux so exceptional."

I'm sure I can dust off my WS 2000 and 2005 Bordeaux reports and see the above quote almost verbatim. Just replace the vintage. The difference is that you almost have to give 100 points to some wines now so you can try to be relevant, which otherwise, you would have given 95 or 94 scores.

I haven't tried a lot of cheaper 09's but the ones I did try at the UGC certainly didn't seem to exemplify the across-the-board success that I believe 2005 showed.

quote:

Originally posted by Machine:
I haven't tried a lot of cheaper 09's but the ones I did try at the UGC certainly didn't seem to exemplify the across-the-board success that I believe 2005 showed.

2005 was much better for Pomerol and St. Emilion, IMO. Also, 2005 was lower in alcohol and better structured, again, IMO. Times have changed, this isn't 1982 all over again. The wine buying public is much more educated and more experienced than then. 2009 IS significantly different than 2005, despite what the professional "critics" are saying. IMO.

I went to go check on some prices of 2009 wines that I had wanted to purchse, but was waiting for some personal/work things to clear up. I was particularly looking at Batailley. I had it noted as $38.50 per bottle (locally at Binny's) about a month ago, and now W-S shows the lowest as $55. Ouch.

Wow, and SHL was $98, now it is $220-$350!!! Damn, wish I had bought some a month ago, but didn't think it was worth it at $98.

Just added some Fleur Cardinale to my list of purchases. Final scores from everyone are out on it and Parker upgraded it to 94. Price hasn't risen yet so it looks like a good deal.

Current list of purchases:

2009 Château La Croix de Queynac (VM88-89) @ $8
2009 Château Villars Fronsac (WA89+) @ $15
2009 Château Côte Montpezat Cuvée Compostelle Côtes de Castillon (WS91-94) @ $16
2009 Château Faizeau Sélection Vieilles Vignes Montagne-St. Émilion (WA90-92, WS87-90) @ $17
2009 Château Clerc Milon (WS93, WA92, JS95, VM 92-94) @ $54
2009 Château Fleur Cardinale St. Émilion (WA94, WS93, JS93) @ $35

VM

quote:

Originally posted by Wine Sparty:
Wow, and SHL was $98, now it is $220-$350!!! Damn, wish I had bought some a month ago, but didn't think it was worth it at $98.

To flip, or to drink...if the latter, I'm not sure I follow.

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

quote:

Originally posted by Wine Sparty:
Wow, and SHL was $98, now it is $220-$350!!! Damn, wish I had bought some a month ago, but didn't think it was worth it at $98.

Yeah, that price is crazy. I bought 06 for $36.

quote:

Originally posted by Vino Me:
Just added some Fleur Cardinale to my list of purchases. Final scores from everyone are out on it and Parker upgraded it to 94. Price hasn't risen yet so it looks like a good deal.

Current list of purchases:

2009 Château La Croix de Queynac (VM88-89) @ $8
2009 Château Villars Fronsac (WA89+) @ $15
2009 Château Côte Montpezat Cuvée Compostelle Côtes de Castillon (WS91-94) @ $16
2009 Château Faizeau Sélection Vieilles Vignes Montagne-St. Émilion (WA90-92, WS87-90) @ $17
2009 Château Clerc Milon (WS93, WA92, JS95, VM 92-94) @ $54
2009 Château Fleur Cardinale St. Émilion (WA94, WS93, JS93) @ $35

VM

For someone that has been drinking wine for so long you still seem to be very score driven (relative to price) when it comes to purchases. I’m not saying that is a negative as you should go with whatever works for you. Just an interesting observation as it seems most people move away from that over time. I started buying on scores like most people and I was burned often. Now I’m buying based on my own tastes and recommendations from individuals I trust. Very rarely burned now.

The score from experts I trust is certainly one factor I consider in buying wines I have not tried. It is not the most important factor on my list.

VM

I think when you are looking for value plays at $8-$16, looking to critics is a good idea. There is a sea of these wines out there, and I personally don't have the time or the budget to taste through them all. By having a decent score, I know that at least one person who drinks a lot of good wine saw something in a particular bottle.

quote:

Originally posted by Vino Me:
The score from experts I trust is certainly one factor I consider in buying wines I have not tried. It is not the most important factor on my list.

VM

The other is how he can remarket these at a profit to his foolish friends in VA

Dr.T- You'll probably win one of these from me in the baseball league a few years from now.

VM

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Vino Me,

Lynch-Bages
Pontet-Canet
Cantenac-Brown
Rauzan-Segla
Clerc-Milon
d'Armailhac

Other than the Cantenac Brown, kept verticals going.