For The Love Of Port

http://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2015/0 ... sponsible/

Your thoughts on this article and Parker's point of view here?

I think he is pretty spot on when he says the difference between the top few numbers isn't really objective quality, but emotion. Once a wine hits about 95 and above or so for me, I'm judging more on "magic" than anything else, as to get to that kind of score you're really pretty flawless all the way around. I'd argue it a step farther that emotion makes a swing of a few points regardless of the actual score, be it low medium or high. That's part of the beauty of blind tasting. If a label evokes good feelings or expectation from you, you can avoid that bias.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalkz. U

I agree with Brad. In fact as you saw in my Guest Corner article in the last newsletter, I consider 94-96 to be "mechanical perfection" which is to say that the winemaker made the best possible wine that he or she could have made. 97-99 requires that the result be greater than the sum of the parts that the winemaker put in place - the "magic" that Brad is looking for.

I labeled 100 "perfect" on my scale, but as explained that's not exactly correct. 100 means it was a revelation and that it goes beyond magic in a glass, but it does not mean that it can never be matched or exceeded. But it does likely mean that it will only happen once for any given wine, because after that first revelation I know what to expect.

If I read this article correctly, Parker seems to be saying that I should be giving out 100s to all of those 94-96s that I currently give out. I disagree in the sense that I don't expect the winemaker to create magic in the glass, but when it exists it should be acknowledged. Getting beyond 94-96 takes more than just winemaking skill... it takes a lot of luck because nature, storage conditions, and even the location where you taste the wine can all come into play. Winemaking isn't purely a science - there's also an art to it, and art can be interpreted differently at different times and in different places.

It makes sense to me that "100" doesn't necessarily mean perfection, only the highest score one can give. People who use the 20 point scale will give 20 points and not mean perfection either.

I agree with Brad but IMO Parker is way to loose with those 100's, to the point that they're nearly meaningless.

Outside of Madeira, where I listen to you guys & Roy, the only reviewer I tend to give weight to regularly are Burghound/Meadows as I feel some affinity for his palate/scoring.

Matt K wrote:I agree with Brad but IMO Parker is way to loose with those 100's, to the point that they're nearly meaningless.

Outside of Madeira, where I listen to you guys & Roy, the only reviewer I tend to give weight to regularly are Burghound/Meadows as I feel some affinity for his palate/scoring.

From Parkers perspective I would have to agree. I really never put that much thought into what is a 100 point realistically. To me, the emotion would have to be pretty big, but it need not be now. No reason why all the top '70 vintages shouldn't be 100 points, right?

I can't recall ever rating a port 100 points, but after reading this article, there were several that should've.

Moses Botbol wrote:

Matt K wrote:I agree with Brad but IMO Parker is way to loose with those 100's, to the point that they're nearly meaningless.

Outside of Madeira, where I listen to you guys & Roy, the only reviewer I tend to give weight to regularly are Burghound/Meadows as I feel some affinity for his palate/scoring.

From Parkers perspective I would have to agree. I really never put that much thought into what is a 100 point realistically. To me, the emotion would have to be pretty big, but it need not be now. No reason why all the top '70 vintages shouldn't be 100 points, right?

I can't recall ever rating a port 100 points, but after reading this article, there were several that should've.

While I think there is a lot of super high scores being tossed around, some without merit, it is inevitable. Advancements in wine making will without doubt cause the quality to increase, leading to higher scores. There is also way more upper end wine being produced from regions that, in the past, were never in the game. Add in all this and you've got a lot more wines scoring higher points. Some who get all worked up over the increased amount of higher scores in the past couple of decades often fail to take this into account.

As for the 100 points, I agree with some others. Once you exceed the 97-ish range it's more about very minuet things that sets the next couple of points apart. Some of those things are the emotions it brings forth.

+1.

I don't give them out without merit or on emotion and rarely at that. Maybe 10-12 in total in 30 years. If a wine warrants that, then by all means it should receive that coveted score. Perfection no. But mind-blowing ... absolutely. I have friends from FTLOP who will never give out 100 points though, with excuses like: "I am saving that for what this 99 point wine will be like in 20 years." I get what they're saying, but find this a bit disingenuous. If you tell me it is the best Tawny or VP you have ever tasted in your life and then give it 99 ... I am forced to agree with Bob Parker.