2005 - Parker's biggest losers & gainers

[Blanquito]

A few comparisons from RMP's 2005 rates (or, how to waste time on a Tuesday afternoon)...

Biggest Losers - Wines Downgraded in 2015 vs 2008
Messile-Aubert (Montagne St Emilion) -10 pts
Lascombes - 7 pts
Clos St Julien -6 pts
Quinault l'Enclos -6 pts
Bellegrave -5 pts
Larmande -5 pts
Grand-Pontet -4 pts
Lagrange -4 pts
Clos la Madeleine -4 pts
Langoa Barton -4 pts
Grand-Puy-Lacoste -3 pts
Sanctus du la Bienfaisance -3 pts
La Prade -3 pts
Pavillon Rouge du Margaux -3 pts
Les Grands Marechaux -3 pts
Nenin -3 pts
Gigault -3 pts
Belle Vue -3 pts

[Blanquito]

Biggest Winners - Wines Upgraded in 2015 vs 2008
Lafleur +5 pts
Peby Faugeres +5 pts
Cheval Blanc +4 pts
Clinet +4 pts
Faugeres +4 pts
De Fieuzal +4 pts
Latour a Pomerol +4 pts
Bahans-Haut-Brion +4 pts
Clos du Clocher +4 pts
La Fleur de Bouard +4 pts
Haut Marbuzet +4 pts
La Mission Haut Brion +3 pts
Hosanna +3 pts
Smith-Haut-Lafitte +3 pts
Trotanoy +3 pts
Certan de May +3 pts
Clos Dubreuil +3 pts
Domaine de Chevalier +3 pts
La Tour Figeac +3 pts
Vrai Canon Bouche +3 pts
Beychevelle +3 pts
La Dominique +3 pts
La Providence +3 pts
Magdelaine +3 pts
Reignac +3 pts
Haut Carles +3 pts
La Fleur d'Arthus +3 pts
La Louviere +3 pts
Peyfaures Dame de Coeur +3 pts
Pichon Lalande +3 pts
Thieuley +3 pts

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

What is his point? If he tries them again in six months will the scores be the same?

[DavidG]

Presumably he's very consistent and repeatable. I suppose that might be true. I can't fathom making a to-do over a 2-3 point difference, even for the same observer tasting the same wine on 2 different occasions. He would probably say that his point is that anyone with two wines in front of them tasted side by side, would be able to pick which one they liked better. That too is likely true, but mostly irrelevant to me. I don't use points unless I'm asked to rate a batch of wines all being tasted at one sitting. But that's a critic's job, I guess.

There are a few wines that produce truly otherworldly experiences. And they aren't predictable.

Then there are a lot of wines that are excellent/outstanding but not in the above category. They might comprise a range of 5 or more points on someone's 100-point scale, but I put them all in the "really great" bucket and would be excited to drink any of them.

Then there's another lot of wines that are very good-excellent that might span a range of 10 or more points. They go in my happy to drink bucket.

Below that there are wines I'll drink when there's nothing better, and then below them wines where drinking nothing is better.

[AlexR]

Five points up or down is really a big jump.

And what about the people who bought the wines years ago based on his ranking?

Alex R.

[Roel]

Only bought SHL from the list (but I didn't know anything about RP's scores at the time). So it went up from 95 +3 = 98? Really hard to imagine imho..

[Blanquito]

I really don't have a "score" above 95 in my ratings, it's all 96 and up. But maybe it's because I don't drink enough 100 pt wine to tell these incredible wines apart!

[Roel]

My highest score ever is 99 points. Because I always fear that something out there may even be better...

[DavidG]

Five points up or down is really a big jump.

And what about the people who bought the wines years ago based on his ranking?

Alex R.

Live by the sword, die by the sword. Win some, lose some. Anyone who thinks this is an exact science is not being realistic.

Parker has been pretty consistent on most wines if you think about it, but there are going to be ups and downs and just plain misses at times. Anyone buying on critic evals or points, especially if they are buying en primeur based on barrel tastings, has got to expect some surprises. Even if you buy on in-the-bottle reports, it's still not an exact science. It's more like predicting the weather than the next lunar eclipse.

I would love to be able to taste every year like Jeff Leve or Izak Litwar and be able to make heads or tails out of what I'm tasting at such an early stage, but I lack the ability, the time and the money to do so. I suppose I could make the time and the money available. Not sure there's a fix for my lack of ability to understand barrel samples. Maybe practice would help. But as much as I love my Bordeaux, that's not where my priorities lie.

I would also love to be able to taste at my leisure months or years after release and have the wines available with guaranteed perfect provenance, but that too is a pipe dream. Many buy at auction and are quite happy with their results. My routine is different: I usually buy en primeur or after bottling but before the wines arrive based on the advice of people like Parker and Leve and Litwar. I've had a lot more hits than misses, but I've had my share of dogs.

[robertgoulet]

Scoring wine is a bit silly...how to u apply a fixed score to an unfixed substance? ? Though, yes many to apply a small sliding scale...but if u apply a sliding scale and if your a pro why is no critic applying a score that looks like this 92-88?..nope, that's why no one is truly a pro...though yes, some give a score with the number and a ( - ) but I have never (could be wrong)seen someone so confident to give a declining sliding scale ...thats how difficult scoring wine is I guess...therefore, another reason scoring wine is silly....c'mon, imagine seeing this.....2005 Lascombes 95-88..lol
Looks like quite a few bottles decline in scoring fairly quickly, but I am not sure any critic can identify wines that will do truly this...imo just an educated guess...Yes, I understand scores r an important part of the business model, but.....

[Blanquito]

Scores are silly on some level, useful on another.

In my scoring universe, there is a really big difference in a 94 pt vs a 90 pt wine, both when I rate them and when I'm drinking ones rated by Parker. So, Alex is right on that level- Parker had a wine that he thought he loved (or would love) and 10 years later instead found he merely liked.

[robertgoulet]

I am still rambling.....Maybe I am crazy but a pro should be able to spot an early drinker that will decline overtime...just look at those jammy, high alcohol..low acid shiraz wines....do they improve? RARELY, imo...I would love to see someone with the cojones to score a wine like this.... 91now-87 in 5-7 years...that would be some crazy $h1+...look plenty of wines do decline but this is rarely pointed out? Is this an injustice? Isn't it just a small % of wines that improve with age?...I am just talking crazy??? Does this make any sense?? Should I call my shrink and up my meds?...lol

Yes, I can see how scores r important. ..especially, if your Parker and tasting a crap load of wine...u need a reference point. I do not drink enough wine to where I have to do this...I know which wines I like better compared to the next... I do not think I would need a score to help sort that out for future reference...so in the grand scheme of things, yes we need scores...I will from time to time score a wine, but then that brings up another problem...if I am to score, my scoring is different from one critic to the next....since it appears obvious that determining if a wine will improve or decline overtime is challenging then maybe the 10 points parker uses for this part of his scale is too much...maybe make that only 5 points....and color? Really??? Does this need 5 points? I might just go 3 on this..for me I am just more concerned with the aroma balance and taste...I am not even sure Parker has a balance criteria...or what about acid? This is important...I am a huge acid fan...should points be assigned specifically for this? Maybe the BWE should create their own scoring system moving forward...I honestly think we should...hell I might even start scoring again!!! Lol... Anyway, I have been critical of Parkers scoring model for numerous reasons..that's just a couple critiques, but I must stop now and cease further commentary for I am not only boring the entire forum but myself as well!! Just a bunch of jibberish and nonsense...keep moving nothing to see here

[Tom In DC]

Unless one is a necrophiliac, wouldn't every wine's "robertgoulet sliding scale" (patent pending) end in "-0" (or "-50" if you give the first 50 points for simply being a liquid with some alcohol)?

I think reviewers cover the decline part of the scale with comments like "drink now-20xx", indicating they don't think the wine will be as good after 20xx. I've seen "drink now if ever" for wines that are clearly over the hill. Which reminds me of a Monty Python bit along the lines of "This is a bottle with a message in, and the message is 'beware'. This is not a wine for drinking, this is a wine for laying down and avoiding."

[DavidG]

To go back to Patrick's point about a wine dropping from 94 to 90 points...

The eRP website says this about the rating scale:

90 - 95:
An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character. In short, these are terrific wines.

So I would assume an RP 90 is a wine that he more than "merely liked." If that's not how the public sees it, that tells us that the rating system is, to put it gently, not an entirely effective communication tool.

Nevertheless, I do use ratings as one of several factors that guide my purchases. And I suspect that a change of that magnitude (4 points) from Parker is likely to reflect a real and noticeable difference. More likely than a 2 or 3 point shift, which I think can be noise, especially if we're talking about a single tasting comparing bottles opened years apart. That's different than having 2 wines side by side and saying one is just a couple of points better than the other.

Am I unhappy when a wine I bought gets demoted by Parker? Maybe. It worries me a bit but I look to what's been said by other people whose palates I know for other opinions. And ultimately I'm the one who decides, when I open the bottle myself, whether it's better, worse or the same as I expected when I bought it. Same deal if it gets promoted, with the occasional exception of a wine that gets anointed with a three-digit score and zooms into a 4-digit price range. Those bottles may end up sold, so I'll never really know for sure unless I hold one back.

[robertgoulet]

Unless one is a necrophiliac, wouldn't every wine's "robertgoulet sliding scale" (patent pending) end in "-0" (or "-50" if you give the first 50 points for simply being a liquid with some alcohol)?

I think reviewers cover the decline part of the scale with comments like "drink now-20xx", indicating they don't think the wine will be as good after 20xx. I've seen "drink now if ever" for wines that are clearly over the hill. Which reminds me of a Monty Python bit along the lines of "This is a bottle with a message in, and the message is 'beware'. This is not a wine for drinking, this is a wine for laying down and avoiding."

Patent pending....lol

Only If I could have seen the future then I could of applied this sliding scale to Caymus after tasting it 6 yrs ago (93-50)
Imagine if I could have seen that...hahaha, actually it's not that far from the truth

[greatbxfreak]

I've always considered 2005 as a greatest vintage since 2000. I bought a lot of this vintage.

I do for the most agree on the ratings, some wines deserved maybe lower ones, some deserved higher.

I wonder why in the earth Bob hasn't tasted 2005 Tertre Roteboeuf. I know he and Francois Mitjavile aren't friends at the moment, but why not buying a bottle to include in the tasting of 2005s. This is phenomenal wine, tasted on the 30th May and the nose of this wine is alone worth 100p. It's masterpiece and I would not be sure at the moment if 2010 TR is better!

I retasted several 2005s during primeur 3 months ago - Lafleur 100p, Domaine de Chevalier 94p, Leoville Poyferre 95+p, Montrose 97p (made by previous winemaking staff), Corbin Michotte 95p and Cantelauze 94p.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Here's a quiz for you. Some of you probably know the answers. If you don't, no research, please guess. According to the world's most widely-followed wine critic, from 1970 to 2013, how many "below average" vintages have there been in:

1) St. Julien-Paulliac-St.Estephe (as a unit)?

2) Graves?

and

3) How many "average" vintages have there been in Pomerol?

[DavidG]

I'll play, but I didn't really follow Bordeaux in the '70s, so I'll guess from 1980 to 2013:

The only one I'm absolutely sure about is 2013 since it was recent: average for N. Medoc, barely above average for Graves. The rest is a semi-educated guess based on memory.

St Julien/Pauillac/St Estephe (Thos "fine Northern Medocs" on which BWE was founded!)
Average: 1991, 1992, 1993, 2013
Below Average: 1980, 1984

I'll guess the same years for Graves but since Parker loves Graves I'll say none are below average:
Average: 1980, 1984, 1991, 1992, 1993
Below Average: none

So since 1994, ALL vintages in Graves and all but one in the N. Medoc have been like the children in Lake Wobegon: above average. Which I suppose raises the question of "what's average?" Based on performance in the 60s and 70s, it looks like all recent vintages have been above average. That's probably true when you consider the advances in hygiene and selection that started kicking in in the '80s. So should the average change? Should the bar be reset?

[dstgolf]

David,

From our recent visit I can`t see how 2013 can be anything but below average. Many chateaux declassified their wines, severely altered their blends or produced some pretty awful tasting wines from the few we tasted. Sorry Stefan but the 2013 Cab Sauv version of la Lagune was horible.

[DavidG]

I don't doubt you, Danny, and I don't mean to insult the BD or the rest of our Bordeaux explorateurs, but when Hound wrote "according to the world's most widely-followed wine critic," I assumed he meant Parker. And having read Parker's review of the vintage shortly after the BWE group posted its impressions, his ratings were easily recalled.

But that again raises the quetion, "what is average?" And just how bad does a vintage have to be to rate below average in Parker's book? I think he calls them like he sees them. Looking at his individual 2013 ratings, it looks like he only rated about 50 wines, and only a few managed to score in the low 90s. Pontet Canet at 90-92 and Pichon Baron at 90-93 were among them. Did you taste the 2013s at those estates, and were they worthy of an excellent score? Parker gave the 2013 vintage as a whole a 78 for the N. Medoc, with a "caution."

[stefan]

I dunno what The Bob says, but what I say about the northern Medoc is:

Poor: 1972, 1973, 1974, 1977, 1984, 1991, 2013.

Decidedly below average but drinkable: 1980, 1981, 1987, 1992, 1994, 1997.

Danny, I will not buy the specially labelled 2013 La Lagune. It might turn into a drinkable wine, but it will never become a La Lagune. I did not like any of the 2013 wines that we tasted in Bordeaux. Usually I am hesitant about making a call on young Bordeaux, but 2013 is an exception.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Mr. P did not rate '72-'74. The answers, as some of you may have expected are:

1) None. Out of 40 years ranked from 1970 to 2013, he ranked none as below average. He ranked six as average. That leaves a remarkable epoch of 34 above average (specifically "above average to excellent," "outstanding," and "extraordinary") vintages over 43 years. Pas mal.

2) None. Five average vintages. The rest all above average.

3) One. Two vintages were below average, with one meriting (by a nose) an "appalling" score.

What conclusions can we draw from this? Let me suggest one for discussion. Certainly some of us can remember a time, or at least have sampled wines from that time, when Bordeaux suffered from a general lack of quality. It may have been due to an era of extended inclement weather or poor winemaking or both. Parker may have normed to that era. As I understand it, though he gained notoriety with his call on the 1982 vintage, he was working before that and was massively impressed by what he considered the generally inferior quality of Bordeaux in this era. I think it was motivational for him, if I recall some interviews with him correctly. In any case the improvement witnessed in quality (as judged by him) correlates very highly with his presence on the scene and undoubted influence in style preference. Of course correlation does not imply causation, nevertheless there is this amazing coincidence that since Parker has been on the scene, the quality of the wine in Bordeaux, as judged by him, has been of a remarkably high level. You may say, nah, it can't be all down to him. In one sense you are probably right. In another, you are dead wrong: he gave out the scores.

Other thoughts?

[Nicklasss]

I think the biggest losers are the one losing their time with ratings. Readding the Numbers, analyzing in all kind of ways (young wines rated 95 vs old wines rated 95, ratings vs vintages, ...). Image is strong, and everybody is happy to say
I drank that 98 P points, but the reality is that double blind tasting is what is the most humble and fair.

And I'm not accusing Mr P, but if he (or some of his family, or friends) bought many cases of some 2005 at a fair price 10 years ago, it is easy to grade these wines + 3 to 5 points and sell them back in a few weeks/mouths.

There could be so many things behind the ratings...

And I'm ok with the development of our own BWE ratings.

Nic

[DavidG]

I think your analysis is spot on, Hound.

Parker probably "calibrated" his Bordeaux quality meter on the vintages of the 70s. By comparison, things have been better since then. And as you say, he was the one giving out the scores.

[JimHow]

I thought the 2005 SHL was over the top when I had it upon release.