Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

Perfect Wines


dlc
 Share

Recommended Posts

Does this mean that throughout the life of the wine it is a "perfect " wine or can it be better or worse at different times.  I am not trying to rate the reviewer but I think we have all tasted "perfect" wines that were not perfect at the time.  Should the inherent qualities of that "perfect" wine always be evident.

Parker has changed his assessment of wines many times. One recent one was the rating of Dominus 91 as a 100 point wine in his latest book. It was 99 points before. So, for whatever reason, it wasn't perfect before, and now it is.

It hasn't changed in my eyes and just points out Craig's point about the difference being finer than can really be measured.

Edited by Beachfan (log)

beachfan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dlc I love this question. There those of us that have the experience to judge where a wine will end up even though it may not be approachable at the time of release. I am not one of them, though I keep practicing. There are many factors that change how well a wine will score, and these change throughout a wines life. Factors such as but not limited to; The food it is served with. You can put a "100 point " wine with the correct complementary food and it will taste delicious. Put that same wine at the same meal with a totally inappropriate food and the wine will taste bad. Think about how many times you go to dinner and drink just one bottle of wine with all the cources. It is hard to make that work wiyhout a lot af planning. As others have said the evolutionary cycle would also have an infuence on how the wine tastes. Wines will definately taste different during their lifetime and probably score different scores. The score for me is not as important as the taste, and that is why I try to buy in depth. That way I can taste the wines along their evolutionary road and still have some left when they taste great after the necessary time in the bottle. Then I drink them up with enthusiasm. By the way when I go to a restaurant I like to take wines at their peek, different ones for different food for the above reasons.

" Food and Wine Fanatic"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why are you turning this into a conversation about Robert Parker? Though he is a good way to illustrate what 100 points means, he really has nothing to do with the original question. It's a theoretical question about what a perfect score means because 100 seems to imply perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why are you turning this into a conversation about Robert Parker? Though he is a good way to illustrate what 100 points means, he really has nothing to do with the original question. It's a theoretical question about what a perfect score means because 100 seems to imply perfection.

Good point Steve - the 1,000,000th thread on why Parker sucks is boring.

By the way I don't think he sucks. He is the most reliable out there because you can learn his palate and then us it as a reference point. When he scores a wine high I know what it tastes like - it does not matter if I agree with him. If people follow him like cattle that's their fault.

Let's get this back on track as it was just getting interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parker's 100 point scale is precisely that - Parker's 100 point scale.  To imply that it's some sort of objective thing is, by definition, simply not true. 

If Viader does not produce a style of wine that appeals to you, all Parker's points still won't taste good. But to some extent Parker's scale does consider each wine within its own category: a midrange Tuscan such as Terrabianca as brilliant within its ranks, or Solanera.

On the other hand the efficacy of French classifications has often shocked me. How did they actually figure out what's right? How can 150 year old judgements still hold water on wine? Do they?

Drinking when we are not thirsty and making love at all seasons: That is all there is to distinguish us from the other Animals.

-Beaumarchais

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no question that Robert Parker has forgotten more about wine than I will ever know in my lifetime. And, indeed, I can find few faults, if any, with wines that score 95+ (or indeed 90+) on his ratings scale. Moreover, the fact that the French actually inducted him into the Legion of Honor speaks volumes of both his integrity and ability. That said, I cannot consistently distinguish (either in rating or in tasting rated wines) a 92 point wine from a 96 point wine, although presumably this distinction, at least, must be very clear to Parker. I rate wines on an excellent, very good, good, average, and poor scale. For me, that's about all I can handle.

Steve P -- I am confused about your description of the Parker rating system. How does he know what the "perfect expression" of Hermitage is, when the producers themselves have disagreed about this for centuries?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How does he know what the "perfect expression" of Hermitage is, when the producers themselves have disagreed about this for centuries?

That's it exactly. Perfection implies consensus - a standard that can be measured that all agree on. Part of the excitement of wine is that no such consensus exists and the debate part of the thrill. Parker and Coates may score wines in a similar range but do so from different approaches and with a different 'ideal' or picture of perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve P -- I am confused about your description of the Parker rating system. How does he know what the "perfect expression" of Hermitage is, when the producers themselves have disagreed about this for centuries?

Mogsob - Did I say "the" perfect expression or did I say "a perfect expression." I haven't taken the time to reread what I wrote. Anyway whatever I wrote I meant a perfect expression. And here is evidence to support that. 1990 Jaboulet Hermitage La Chapelle, 1990 Chave Hermitage Cuvee Cathelin, and 1991 Chapoutier Hermitage Le Pavillon, are wines that are made in entirely different styles. Yet Parker's criteria is broad based enough so that all of them get 100 point scores. Now I'm not trying to defend Parker, and those of you who read eRobertparker.com know I am not shy to mix it up with him and Pierre when I think they take the wrong approach, but you have to give the guy credit for what he does extremely well. And he happens to be the best person in the business in the 95-100 point category for wines in Bordeaux, the Rhone, Barolo, Super-Tuscan, California and Australia. And while the guy is not as effective in other regions (like Burgundy and the Loire,) it doesn't detract from anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bunch of high scoring wines last night.  The 1982 Pichon Lalande was awesome, in my top category.

OK - that might come close to perfect!

On the subject of near perfect wines last night. 1985 Krug in magnums, 1970 Palmer, & 1976 Y'Quem. We had these with roasted whole fois gras. This was really!!! close to perfection

Edited by dlc (log)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a bunch of high scoring wines last night.  The 1982 Pichon Lalande was awesome, in my top category.

OK - that might come close to perfect!

On the subject of near perfect wines last night. 1985 Krug in magnums, 1970 Palmer, & 1976 Y'Quem. We had these with roasted whole fois gras. This was really!!! close to perfedtion

Perfection overload.

OK - there you go. Three wines that could be argued to 100 point wines on their own, but because you had them together I bet you compared them and had a favorite. Thy can't all be perfect if you prefered one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...