Dale Williams wrote:As John said, Parker has given plenty of 100s
WS and Tanzer as well
Not sure I have heard of a Burghound 100, but pretty sure he has given 99s. Suckling is no longer at WS, but still flings 99s and 100s. Not sure re Claude Kolm (know I;ve seen 98s). Checking CT I see a Gilman 99 for my 89 Constance, and I think he's given 99s to a Mugnier Musigny, some Coche Drury, etc. Decanter recently gave out several 20s. A WE 100 is as meaningful as a case of athletes foot.
But once you start using a scale (whether A-F, 50-100, 20 pt, or whatever) you're going to face some logical challenges. Jeff, so you find the "perfect Champagne", and you give it 98. If a 98 is your hard top, then you are just using a 98 pt scale, and giving a 98 is the exact same thing as a Parker or Suckling giving a 100.
Jeff B wrote:I guess my main point with choosing 98 as a top was just that I can't envision ever tasting a "perfect" champagne. I would always leave room on a scale for something potentially higher.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Patrick Martin and 6 guests