AxisOfBeagles wrote:

> Just to play devil's advocate (along the lines of the usual
> characterizations of WS) - maybe the wine is fine, but refused to pay
> homage to Suckling or whomever. Result - a shocking rating intended to
> punish the infidel winery.

On a less conspiratorial note, perhaps the wine just doesn't fit
Suckling's preferred taste profile, which actually wouldn't surprise me
a bit. Given JS's preference for the more "Californicated" Bdx, a '92
might have been too lean for his palate, but just right for mine. Of
course, I've long since dismissed JS as having an unreliable palate for
a critic, so trying to parse his scores with any eye to logic or
consistency is a fool's game IMO.

Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com