Wine is so much fun...

I took a bottle of 2001 Le Ormes de Pez to a restaurant fearing, or so I kidded myself, that if I didn’t drink it pretty soon it might be over the hill. After one taste, I knew that my wife, Lynn, was going to kill me for drinking that sole bottle when she was out of town. Because I could not lie to her about how good it was – to me (therefore, us – since our tastes run in tandem after 45 years together).

Robert Parker said it was in late maturity, picking 2009 as the plateaus end, and -“Earth, herb, cranberry, and cherry characteristics are present in this lightweight 2001. Medium-bodied, round, and elegant, it is a pleasant although uninspiring effort.”

I guess he does not exactly diss it, or even damn it with faint praise, because he did say it was elegant. But I found it stupendous. Layer after layer of deep, dark terroir tones mixed with glorious perfumes, and the most elegant Left Bank Cab I could imagine – just threading its way through the tertiary flavors. And it was fresh and lively, not even close to the end, in my opinion. I enjoyed it about as much as I could enjoy any bottle.

I knew I was being disingenuous in my excuse for taking it with me, i.e., the above plateau warning, and notice that it wouldn’t win WOTN, or whatever the acronym is for the best wine of the night. You can see that I do not attend tastings.

Lynn, upon her return, asked me why I took the one-off bottle of that wine, so that she could not have any. I told her what Parker said, and she got even more upset: “That means it will be great, and you knew it!” she exclaimed.

She’s right. Almost every wine that Parker scores 86 points, with earth in his description, means it will knock our socks off. 85 or 87, we can’t necessarily count on. He is reliable as death and taxes with 86 and earth.

It’s funny how taste can vary. That’s why I don’t bother to post any kinds of tasting notes unless they have some other story attached to them. It must have been obvious how much the wine affected me, because a waitress (not even mine) came over and asked if she could taste it. Her lips puckered and she looked at me fighting an expression that one might give a bloke who handed a girl a gift-wrapped dead rat. Then she acknowledged that I would want her to be honest, right? I was impressed. “Bitter.” Then the owner, watching the activity at my table, asked if she could try it. Exactly the opposite effect: Her eyes flashed like saucers with delightful surprise. I poured her a glass, which she took back to her station. She kept turning to me and smacking her lips to share another bout of amazement. She later said it was the best Cabernet she had ever tasted, without me having told her what it was. (Not a big deal, except this was a little mountain cafe.)

You can’t carry around a Cézanne. Wine is great! (BTW, I ordered three more bottles.)

(BTW, I ordered three more bottles.)

That should be enough that you won't spend too much time in the doghouse over the solo experience.

With all due respect, I find Mr. Parker's assessments of a wine's trajectory over time to be utterly baffling.

[Jenise]

She’s right. Almost every wine that Parker scores 86 points, with earth in his description, means it will knock our socks off. 85 or 87, we can’t necessarily count on. He is reliable as death and taxes with 86 and earth.

And yet, a point up or down can be merit or lack of for color. That said, I like Parker 88's.

I've said this before, but I find wines scoring in RMP 85-89 range more to my liking than most of his 90-95 pointers. I can't calibrate with certainty on anything over 95 points due to limited tasting experience and affordability (for me) issues. I do distinctly recall a 100 Pt. 2000 Ch.Pavie someone generously opened in 2006 or so, that I, and many others in the group, found highly objectionable and contrived.

BP

I've said this before, but I find wines scoring in RMP 85-89 range more to my liking than most of his 90-95 pointers.

I was being a little facetious when I remarked that I don't like his 85's or 87's. I'm sure I would like many of them. It just seems that I have loved a number of his 86's.

I think I have liked his 90 plusers, too, but not in the same way. They were great, technically, with powerful concentrations, long finishes, etc., but a bit sterile - or just different. He thought the '90 Angelus was very good, and so did I. It's just that I don't reminisce about those highly rated wines. The ones like I just described are the keepers of my soul.

And yet, a point up or down can be merit or lack of for color. That said, I like Parker 88's.

You are saying that the color being up or down can pull it out of range regardless of taste. I get it. But then it might affect me too the same way. I mentioned in another response that I was sort of kidding about the single point differentiations. It just so happens it seems like we have really enjoyed a number of his 86 pointers. I don't think I have tried many of his 88's.

After one taste, I knew that my wife, Lynn, was going to kill me for drinking that sole bottle when she was out of town. Because I could not lie to her about how good it was – to me (therefore, us – since our tastes run in tandem after 45 years together).

Man, have I been there and done that, with abuse to show for it. My first thought when opening a bottle of wine when my wife is not there is "would Marcia like this wine" and that goes double for old Bordeaux.
Walt

[David M. Bueker]

With all due respect, I find Mr. Parker's assessments of a wine's trajectory over time to be utterly baffling.

That goes for most critics/commentators (probably all). Let's face it - none of us really know what will happen to a bottle of wine. All we have to go on are past vintages & every year is different. There's different weather, different yields, different ambient yeast poulations (as applicable) and countless other factors that will inevitably conspire to make fools of us all.

But that's half the fun.

With all due respect, I find Mr. Parker's assessments of a wine's trajectory over time to be utterly baffling.

That goes for most critics/commentators (probably all). Let's face it - none of us really know what will happen to a bottle of wine. All we have to go on are past vintages & every year is different. There's different weather, different yields, different ambient yeast poulations (as applicable) and countless other factors that will inevitably conspire to make fools of us all.

But that's half the fun.

I agree for the most part, David (and Steve), but I think that most experienced tasters can make fairly good guesses about how much time a wine is going to need before it shows well. The two issues I have with people's "drinking windows" are, firstly, the precision of those numbers (most guesses aren't much better than +/- 5 years IMO) and, secondly, the end date. Where I really differ from Parker, et al. is in finding so much appeal in wines that are older than their latest maturity date. Of course, another factor is cellar temperature. Parker I am sure is basing his estimates on his 55° cellar, so how does one adjust those estimates to accomodate one's own cellar temperature? Ah, well, it's part and parcel with those 1 pt differences in the 100-pt scale, innit?

Mark Lipton

[David M. Bueker]

Mark,

When you speak of "fairly good guesses" and then give a latitude of 10 total years we're talking about a contradiction in terms don't you think?

I used to play the "Drink XXXX-XXXX" game with my cellar spreadsheet until I discovered that it was total bunk no matter how well I thought I knew the wine. It's now a bottle by bottle guessing game. Nearly every time I open a bottle I realize I am too early and the party has not yet started (I think I have lost 2 or 3 bottles over the wrong side of the hill).

Nearly every time I open a bottle I realize I am too early and the party has not yet started (I think I have lost 2 or 3 bottles over the wrong side of the hill).

Come to think of it, I have never opened a bottle of anything and thought "Boy I wish I would have opened that 2 years ago". It's usually quite the opposite.

I have a couple of ports with an official drinking window of "now through 2040" and one that is "best after 2025". I plan to continue to err on the side of early consumption. I fear that the beta error maybe death... my own.

With all due respect, I find Mr. Parker's assessments of a wine's trajectory over time to be utterly baffling.

That goes for most critics/commentators (probably all). Let's face it - none of us really know what will happen to a bottle of wine. All we have to go on are past vintages & every year is different. There's different weather, different yields, different ambient yeast poulations (as applicable) and countless other factors that will inevitably conspire to make fools of us all.

But that's half the fun.

I began making predictions about the evolution of wines over time shortly after i got into the business, in 1972. They were almost entirely intuitive, and, (without meaning to sound self -aggrandizing) surprisingly accurate. I don't expect the same results from everyone (or anyone), but the ones I've seen in Mr. Parker's publication seem almost arbitrary.