2003 Taylor and Robert Parker

[John Owlett]

Hi everyone,

I've been a bit out of the swim recently, but I think this topic is new.

It seems that Robert Parker has revised his rating for 2003 Taylor upwards from 96/100 to 100/100. (There are more details, for subscribers, at

http://www.erobertparker.com/members/gazette/hg438.asp )

It's been nearly two years since my family and I did a series of comparative tastings of 2003 ports, but, at that time, there were three ports that I preferred to Taylor: Fonseca (my favourite), Dow, and Vesuvio (which needed the longest decanting time by far).

What say those of you who have tried 2003 Taylor more recently? Has it matured remarkably - in your judgment as it has in Robert Parker's? Or am I just a fruit tart who would prefer the Fonseca anyway?

I bought a case of 2003 Fonseca from Justerini's and laid it down in the cellar for when we are 75. I now wish I had bought a case of 2003 Taylor as well. Now that 2003 Taylor is a Parker-hundred-point wine, its price is likely to rocket.

Later,

Dr Owl

----------------------------
John Owlett, Southampton, UK

[Frederick Blais]

John, I'm happy to see that score for Taylor and I fully think that it merits it.

I've tasted this baby in February and my rating was 19/20+ as I think it will reach, or has the potential, to reach perfection with time.

For me this wine has all the quality of the 94 plus more freshness and backbone. I really wish I had the money to buy more!

[Andy Velebil]

That article sparked a rather long thread on his forum about that score, which is actually an unofficial score, and not included anywhere but that one article. When i get more time tonight or tomorrow I'll post my thoughts on this.

[Derek T.]

I just don't get how anyone can award a perfect score to such an immature wine. Yes, I agree, the Taylor 2003 is a stunning wine, but how can anyone declare it to be the perfect VP when it hasn't proved itself over time. It just doesn't make sense to me, but then niether does the 100 point scoring system

[Roy Hersh]

You need to have the facts. First of all, Parker himself says that his Hedonist Gazette scores are usually with a decadent night of wines and lots of food. So we know that skews things. Secondly, these are more like his impressions, kind of what I put on the blog on the homepage usually, rather than detailed evaluations. Also we know that he tasted this while sitting (literally) on The Great Wall of China. So don't get all caught up by the 100 points he gave the wine. Pierre Rovani gave the Taylor 2003, 98+ points, when he rated all of the 2003 VPs for the Wine Advocate. I think that there were many issues with that report to begin with, but why bring up old wounds.

So, on a brighter note, what do you guys score that wine. I will stick with my cask sample assessment even though I have had the 2003T many times in the past 9 months. Scary how many times actually. Anyway, for me it is typically in the 95-97 point range. So split the diff and call it 96 with a + for the ability to age and improve for the long haul. That is my assessment and not THAT far off from "their" scores, ultimately. Either way, it is a very sound VP but so very young and by that ... it makes the 1994 seem like an old codger.

[Andy Velebil]

Here was my reply to another thread on this. I'll just copy/paste it here, and keep in mind some of what I've said was in relation to others posts.

Forgive me but that is B**S***. So no one cares when Rovani gives it 98 two or three years ago, but now his (now ex) boss unofficially gives it 100 and everyone is running to the phone. No offense to Parker, and I will get flamed for this, but Parker is not known for his Port palate amoung Port circles. Matter of fact, a good majority of people I know who are major Port drinkers have told me Parker is one of the last people they look to for VP reviews. He has a great palate in other areas, and I look to him for his reviews there, but not in Port. And if I'm not mistaken Parker has even stated he drinks very little Vintage Port.

Another thing: How many of you have even tried it? Actually, let me ask you this, how many of you drink more than 2-3 bottles of VP's from your cellar a year? So why the rush now. He has a wine at the end of a long dinner from which, if im not mistaken, he says or implies he was already tired from drinking. Then gives a 100 point review. Didn't he recenlty give a Bordeaux another 100 points at a dinner where his original score was around 92. Hmm, a big difference for the same wine....kinda makes you wonder. Remember, there is major difference tasting a wine for a published review and having wines at a dinner where you are actually DRINKING them.

I will agree with Roy, I've had this VP several times since its release and while a very very good bottle, it is not a 100 pointer in my mind. My scores have all been 95-97 points.

Any wine scores that come after a long night of drinking and/or eating I always take with a grain of salt. Things tend to taste a wee bit better when one has a full belly and is intoxicated.

[Frederick Blais]

Spot on the money about Parker, ratings, Port and marks buyers there Andy.