I am a little baffled how WS picks top wines as if they know how the wines will taste in a decade. Is WS proposing that the consumer purchase 2016 Ch Pichon Longueville Baron and consume it now?
To me, this wine is a cellar selection to be held, but so are all the young second growth Bordeaux. To play devils advocate, I ask, “How does WS know 2016 Ch Pichon Longueville Baron wine will fair better than 2016 Ch Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande in a decade? My suspicion is that both wines will be excellent in time. Why is one on the top 10 list, and the other is not?
Leaving aside the quality of the specific reviewers, they hopefully have enough experience with Bordeaux of all ages — and of following enough vintages throughout their development — that an educated guess can be made. Also, *sometimes* there is a brief window of top flight Bordeaux being very primary but also open-knit before it shuts down for over a decade. This can give a reviewer a fair sense of the material.
For me, I can almost guarantee you that I would prefer the Baron to the Lalande — but that’s because I have a significant taste-profile preference for the Baron. The point is, while scores from vintage to vintage for a singular wine may be useful (this is a good vintage to buy Palmer, this is a bad vintage to buy Cos) these lists really aren’t meant to give much information to the already very educated wine drinkers, though it is conceivable — at least in theory — that they could help those with the funds to buy who are still in the infancy or adolescence of their fine wine experience.