| Max Hauser |
Interesting and eloquent notes, thanks for posting.
"Nils Gustaf Lindgren" in news:h2q3c.51827$mU6.212615@newsb.telia.net...
>
> At this point in the proceedings, the MC, who had hitherto discussed the
> merits of the various wines, especially pointing out the seminal Paris,
1976
> tasting, where a Stag´s Leap Cab was considered better than any of the
> French entrants (including various first growths)
It might be still, if you re-tried today those 1973 Bordeaux against that
Stag's Leap, if it had any durability. I am sure people here remember the
1973 Bordeaux and how weak they were. Cos d'Estournel for example dribbled
out of wholesalers for years in the US at something like $6 retail. (To be
fair, in general Bordeuax usually stayed on the market much longer in those
days, into the early 1980s I believe-- it was usual to see good 1970
Bordeaux on retail shelves in 1980 for example). Might have been
interesting, though, to compare in 1976 stronger years Bord. vs Ca. -- 1970
Bordeaux and 1970 California Cab ?
A vast difference between, say, 1976 and today, separate from winemaking
changes, and relatively unexamined in the US at least publicly, is the
absence in those days of widely accepted ultrasimplified rating systems and
large bodies of wine enthusiasts buying Bordeaux exactly as thereby
ordered -- "zu befehl" I believe is the German idiom ("bevel" in Dutch
possibly?) -- and applauding this situation even as they protest the high
prices that result. I know that readers of this newsgroup are savvy and
diverse but below, in case any have not seen it, is one of the few US wine
articles I've found that researches this situation and puts it into
perspective (Haeger 1998; I found this more penetrating, for example, than
the longer article in the _Atlantic Monthly_ circa 2000). It is online and
concise. (I would welcome suggestions of other relevant articles, by email
if you prefer.)
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m1...796/print.jhtml
|
|
|
| Dale Williams |
Max,
I agree with most of the article. Parker's tastes don't always agree with mine
in Bordeaux. I have to laugh when I hear folks say "I only buy 90 & above
wines."
But let's don't forget that the previous system wasn't exactly perfect. My
serious wine geekiness only started a dozen years ago. But I've heard enough
stories from older wine-friends of dismal 2nd-growths that wine stores assured
them were "quite fine" to not want to live in the age of less information.
To me, decisions buying wine are based on:
Reading pro reviews(though I no longer subscribe to WA or WS)- while Parker's
scores by themselves are generally useless to me, his descriptions are usually
somewhat accurate, we just like/look for different things.
Info I gather here and on other fora - this is useful background stuff. And
once you get used to another person's tastes and "calibrate" (there's that
inaccurate word again) it can give you a good clue.
Respected retailers- if someone at Rochambeau (where I've bought for years)
says "Dale, you have to try this Lalande" I buy w/o question.
Tastings- there's no better guide to your palate than....your palate.
thanks for the link!
Dale
Dale Williams
Drop "damnspam" to reply
|
|
|
| Mark Lipton |
Max Hauser wrote:
> Interesting and eloquent notes, thanks for posting.
>
> "Nils Gustaf Lindgren" in news:h2q3c.51827$mU6.212615@newsb.telia.net...
> >
> > At this point in the proceedings, the MC, who had hitherto discussed the
> > merits of the various wines, especially pointing out the seminal Paris,
> 1976
> > tasting, where a Stag´s Leap Cab was considered better than any of the
> > French entrants (including various first growths)
>
> It might be still, if you re-tried today those 1973 Bordeaux against that
> Stag's Leap, if it had any durability. I am sure people here remember the
> 1973 Bordeaux and how weak they were. Cos d'Estournel for example dribbled
> out of wholesalers for years in the US at something like $6 retail. (To be
> fair, in general Bordeuax usually stayed on the market much longer in those
> days, into the early 1980s I believe-- it was usual to see good 1970
> Bordeaux on retail shelves in 1980 for example). Might have been
> interesting, though, to compare in 1976 stronger years Bord. vs Ca. -- 1970
> Bordeaux and 1970 California Cab ?
>
Max,
In fact, most of the Bordeaux at the tasting were from the 1970 vintage.
What is often lost in the hoopla concerning the first place for SLV was that
places 2-4 went to '70 Montrose, '70 Mouton and '70 Haut-Brion -- no slouches
there! Alas, the '70 Latour was not among them, or the result might have
been a bit different. It's also worth noting that, apart from the SLV, no
other 1973 CalCab was present. The rest were drawn from the much weaker
years of 1970-1972, except for the 1969 Freemark Abbey. Another fact often
lost in the hype is that the '70 Montrose and the '73 SLV effectively finished
in a dead heat: their aggregate scores (41.0 and 41.5) are statistically
indistinguishable, and that the top five wines ('73 SLV, the '70 B'dx and the
'71 Ridge Monte Bello) were qualtitatively far superior to the other wines in
the tasting. Here's a good statistical breakdown of the results:
http://www.quandt.com/tasting.html
I agree with you that the wine press of that era was markedly different from
that of today. As I was just discovering wine at that time, I recall quite
well much of the knee-jerk reaction that passed for wine journalism of the
era, especially the blanket statements being made regarding the new vintage of
'75 in Bordeaux. While I am not a blind follower of Parker, or any other
reviewer, I appreciate what those publications have brought to the world of
wine criticism.
Mark Lipton
|
|
|
| Tom S |
"Mark Lipton" <lipton@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:404F31B7.9472D794@purdue.edu...
> It's also worth noting that, apart from the SLV, no
> other 1973 CalCab was present. The rest were drawn from the much weaker
> years of 1970-1972, except for the 1969 Freemark Abbey.
Where did you ever get the idea that 1970 was a _weak_ year in California,
Mark? Even Louis Martini made exceptional Cabernets that year, and the top
wineries produced wines that were absolutely *stunning*!
IIRC, there was an April frost in Napa after bud break that annihilated a
third or so of the crop. The fruit that survived, however, was textbook
perfect, and ripened magnificently in a warm Autumn.
Having tasted all the 1970 first growth Bordeaux, I am quite confident that
the 6th place Heitz "Martha's Vineyard" (which I've tasted recently) would
stomp all _over_ them today.
It really isn't a fair fight; 1970 was a very good year in Bordeaux, but it
was an _outstanding+_ year in California.
Tom S
|
|
|
| Max Hauser |
"Mark Lipton" in news:404F31B7.9472D794@purdue.edu...
>
> Max,
> In fact, most of the Bordeaux at the tasting were from the 1970
vintage.
> What is often lost in the hoopla concerning the first place for SLV ...
My remarks reflected my memory, wrong it seems, that the 1976 Spurrier
tasting in Paris compared 1973 Bordeaux against 1973 Stag's Leap from
California, so please keep that in mind. I could not research the details
of the Spurrier tasting before posting (I was too busy, you see, lecturing
cherie on the sins of "armchair expertise" on newsgroups :-). Mea MAXima
culpa!
Note anyway the following comment by Bob Thompson, writing from the US in
the 1984 UC/Sotheby book (ISBN 0520050851 US, 0856671851 British).
"The Paris tasting staged by Stephen Spurrier in 1976 offers a different
measure of novelty as a virtue, real or perceived. It was not so much that
somebody staged an international tasting, or that expert tasters placed some
California [Cabernets] and Chardonnays on an equal footing with some of
their French counterparts. That had been happening for several years. The
Spurrier tasting became important because _Time_ reported it. When
Gault-Millau staged their much more informative Wine Olympiad a few years
later [remember that? --M], the news magazines had already spent their
interest in the comparative tasting story. The Gault-Millau results went
ignored by all but special interest wine publications [Finigan's newsletter
for one -- MH] and a few newspapers."
> I agree with you that the wine press of that era was markedly different
from
> that of today. ...
I must stress if it was not clear earlier that my posting on this thread
referred only to the now-popular _numerical_ element in wine criticism, and
its effects. Parker, though he decisively popularized it, is one of those
who comments thoughtfully on its effects in the Haeger 1998 article I linked
to. I did not refer (though people have in the past often confused these
points) to the general issue of wine critics with newsletters. That
industry long predated Parker in the US (though you might not know it, to
hear from some people who've read no one else and therefore have a perfect
perspective). In fact the Thompson chapter I quoted above was comparing US
wine newsletters as of 1984 (Parker is not mentioned, partly because the
emphasis in the chapter is on California wines but also because he was only
becoming known then, amid a crowded field of predecessors, none of whom,
however, emphasized two-digit numbers as Parker did.)
|
|
|
| Mark Lipton |
Tom S wrote:
> "Mark Lipton" <lipton@purdue.edu> wrote in message
> news:404F31B7.9472D794@purdue.edu...
> > It's also worth noting that, apart from the SLV, no
> > other 1973 CalCab was present. The rest were drawn from the much weaker
> > years of 1970-1972, except for the 1969 Freemark Abbey.
>
> Where did you ever get the idea that 1970 was a _weak_ year in California,
> Mark? Even Louis Martini made exceptional Cabernets that year, and the top
> wineries produced wines that were absolutely *stunning*!
Well, Tom, I readily confess to little firsthand knowledge of the vintage, but
I'd offer that in comparison to the years '68-'69 and '73-'74, '70 was indeed
weaker (please note that this is a relative comparison only). To me, those
other years define the most successful vintages of the 1965-1980 period. Do
you think that '70 is on a par with those other years, Tom?
>
>
> IIRC, there was an April frost in Napa after bud break that annihilated a
> third or so of the crop. The fruit that survived, however, was textbook
> perfect, and ripened magnificently in a warm Autumn.
>
> Having tasted all the 1970 first growth Bordeaux, I am quite confident that
> the 6th place Heitz "Martha's Vineyard" (which I've tasted recently) would
> stomp all _over_ them today.
Even the '70 Latour? It's quite an outstanding wine.
>
>
> It really isn't a fair fight; 1970 was a very good year in Bordeaux, but it
> was an _outstanding+_ year in California.
OK. I'll bow to your superior knowledge here, Tom.
Mark Lipton
|
|
|
| Tom S |
"Mark Lipton" <lipton@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:40509F66.DED2860F@purdue.edu...
> Well, Tom, I readily confess to little firsthand knowledge of the vintage,
but
> I'd offer that in comparison to the years '68-'69 and '73-'74, '70 was
indeed
> weaker (please note that this is a relative comparison only). To me,
those
> other years define the most successful vintages of the 1965-1980 period.
Do
> you think that '70 is on a par with those other years, Tom?
In my experience, 1968 was the best of those - closely followed by 1970. We
won't discuss 1971 or 1972 (they mostly sucked!), but the remainder should
probably be ranked 1969, 1974 and 1973 - or possibly 1974, 1969 and 1973 -
in that order. At the time, there was a lot of fanfare re the 1974s, but
IMO they didn't come close to measuring up to the 1970s.
As an addendum, I'd like to mention that some of the drought year wines
(1976 and 1977) were both exceptional and reasonably priced. The 1976 BV
GdL was one of the best Cabs of the decade for them - only overshadowed by
their 1970. 1978 and 1979 were decent vintages, but not on par with 1974.
1975 was nearly as poor as 1972.
> > Having tasted all the 1970 first growth Bordeaux, I am quite confident
that
> > the 6th place Heitz "Martha's Vineyard" (which I've tasted recently)
would
> > stomp all _over_ them today.
>
> Even the '70 Latour? It's quite an outstanding wine.
Yep, even the Latour. Have you ever tasted the Heitz? The 1970 was
stunning. As good as it was, however, the 1968 Martha's Vineyard remains
the best red wine I've _ever_ tasted. It nearly _killed_ me to spend
$40/btl for it in ~1976, but in retrospect I wish I'd bought _cases_!
Tom S
|
|
|
|
