c-hunt@tesla.UUCP (Charles Hunt) (02/24/86)
I agree with the previous writer that Robert Parker is NOT necessarily the final word on good Bordeaux. For example, he consistently favors the very expensive first growths (costing minimum $35) and rarely has nice things to say about fifth growths (costing mimimum $6). But Michael Broadbent, writer of "the Vintage Wine Book" and famous British palette, for years has lauded individual "lesser wines" above the ancient "greats". Cases in point: in 1953 and 1970, Broadbent had higher ratings for Ch. Cantemerle and Ch. Pontet Canet (both cheap 5th cru) than several 1st and 2nd's which, at this point in time, cost an order of magnitude more. Good sources for "less" jaded opinions on French jugs: The Wine Spectator (if you omit Terry Robards' column, which is sheer snobbish drivel); The Inter- national Wine Review; The Wine Advocate. Books: Hugh Johnson's Pocket Guide to Wines; Time/Life Good Cook Series: Wine; Signet Encyclopedia of Wine (E. Frank Henriques); The Vintage Wine Book. My experiences--> Cheap but good: Ch. Marbuzet, Ch. La Tour de By, Ch. Greysac, Ch. Fourcas Hosten, Ch. Smith Haut Lafitte, Ch. Carbonnieux, Ch. Baron Segur. $10 or so, but great: Ch. Prieure Lichine, Ch. LaLagune, Ch. du Tertre, Ch. Bouscaut, Ch. Meyney, Ch. DeSales, Ch. Duhart Milon Rothschild, Ch. D'Angludet, Ch. Cantemerle, Ch. Ormes de Pez, Ch. Cantenac Brown, Ch. Clos du Jacobins... In order of preference, look for vintages: '78, '82, '83, '79, '81, all good. Cheers! =Charles E. Hunt=
tomp@amiga.UUCP (Tom Pohorsky) (02/26/86)
In article <942@tesla.UUCP> c-hunt@tesla.UUCP (Charles Hunt) writes: >I agree with the previous writer that Robert Parker is NOT necessarily the >final word on good Bordeaux. I'll second that and more. He's not necessarily even a good word, and admits the his early, eager praise of the '83 red Burgundies (that helped push the prices too high, as he did for '82 Bordeaux) was off base, and that it's a mixed vintage at best. After trying about 50 of these, I find more alcohol and bunch rot than quality. I hear alot lately: "Geez, you should never pre- dict red Burg's from just barrel tasting." Hindsight is 50/50, or something like that. >But Michael Broadbent, writer Again, agreed. MB has his sh*t well together. His "Vintage Wine Book" has been the by far the best single wine reference book I've seen. >Good sources for "less" jaded opinions on French jugs: The Wine Spectator (if Disagreed. My impression is that it's self-serving wine industry hype. >My experiences--> Cheap but good: Ch. Marbuzet, Ch. La Tour de By, Ch. Greysac, >Ch. Fourcas Hosten, Ch. Smith Haut Lafitte, Ch. Carbonnieux, Ch. Baron Segur. throw in Potensac and La Gurgue. >$10 or so, but great: Ch. Prieure Lichine, Ch. LaLagune, Ch. du Tertre, Ch. >Bouscaut, Ch. Meyney, Ch. DeSales, Ch. Duhart Milon Rothschild, Ch. D'Angludet, >Ch. Cantemerle, Ch. Ormes de Pez, Ch. Cantenac Brown, Ch. Clos du Jacobins... ... and always a bargain at $20 or so: Leoville Las Cases, Pichon Lalande. >In order of preference, look for vintages: '78, '82, '83, '79, '81, all good. Especially among less expensive wines, I've enjoyed '81's as much as any of the others, most '79's a bit less. > >Cheers! =Charles E. Hunt= bottoms up, tomp.
spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) (02/28/86)
Charles Hunt's list of cheaper Bordeaux is excellent and contains many of my favorites!! I would like to add a few -- Ch. Larose Trintadoun, Ch. Le Crock, and Ch. Potensac. I also agree that Robert Parker is a little too oriented towards the expensive and well known wines. I personally think it would be impossible that someone could taste hundreds of Bordeaux and still be able to appreciate the little obscure gems. Also, those who are privilieged enough to taste at the Chateaux before release are obviously not tasting blind, and therefore influenced by irrelevant factors. Even in later blind tastings the wines can be identified and subjective factors come into play. Before he flaked out and quit publishing, I found Robert Finigan's tasting notes very useful. His negative commentary on some major Bordeaux let to his not being allowed to taste at certain Chateaux on subsequent occasions. I don't think Parker ever risked himself in this fashion. But again, any reviewers tastes will differ from your own. steve
jerem@tekgvs.UUCP (Jere Marrs) (03/04/86)
In article <12100@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> spp@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephen P Pope) writes:
Bear in mind that the Wine Advocate is written expressly for those
_investing_ in wines. It's quite possible that wines not meeting outstanding
organoleptic standards might become excellent barter in the future.
Robert Parker is concerned primarily with the trading potential
of wines and not its drinking qualities.
It's interesting to note that the only California wine that the
Advocate will even consider is the Private Reserve Cabernet of Beaulieu
Vineyards of Rutherford, California. It certainly, in a given year, will
not have the best Cabernet, but it's track record (key words) over the
many decades since Georges de LaTour have given it a distinctive trading
and investing value.
Jere M. Marrs
Tektronix, Inc.
Beaverton, Oregon
{western civilization}!tektronix!tekgvs!jeremc-hunt@tesla.UUCP (Charles Hunt) (03/06/86)
I forgot about Larose Trintadon (Haut Medoc). I agree that it's an excellent Bordeaux for a modest price (the '78 is unreal... if you can find it). This chateau is owned by the firm which runs Marques de Caceres in the Rioja- Alta of Spain. The similarities in style (despite the differing grape varieties) is not coincidence. For a fun experience (when you have somebody over for dinner), try a side-by-side comparison of the 1981 Marques-de-Caceres Red with a '79 or '81 Larose-Trintadon. It makes it quite evident what a real bargain the Rioja is at only about 5 bucks per jug. Cheers! =Charles Hunt=