From the dreaded Wine Spectator -

The Wine: 1992 Ch. Le Pin Pomerol

The sco 77

The judgement: "Light, herbal and fading. This should never have been
bottled."

The Price: US$ 411.00

I think that says it all...

<Ronin> wrote in message ...
> From the dreaded Wine Spectator -
> The Wine: 1992 Ch. Le Pin Pomerol
> The sco 77
> The judgement: "Light, herbal and fading. This should never have been
> bottled."
> The Price: US$ 411.00 I think that says it all...
>
>
Are you saying this wine received a WS rating of just 77 points?
Some vendors are still listing this wine at $1400/bottle.

On 2008-04-02 07:34:24 -0700, "Professor" > said:

> <Ronin> wrote in message ...
>> From the dreaded Wine Spectator -
>> The Wine: 1992 Ch. Le Pin Pomerol
>> The sco 77
>> The judgement: "Light, herbal and fading. This should never have been
>> bottled."
>> The Price: US$ 411.00 I think that says it all...
>>
>>
> Are you saying this wine received a WS rating of just 77 points?
> Some vendors are still listing this wine at $1400/bottle.

Yes - a WS rating of only 77 points, and a WS judgement of 'shouldn't
have been bottled'

On 2008-04-02 07:34:24 -0700, "Professor" > said:

> <Ronin> wrote in message ...
>> From the dreaded Wine Spectator -
>> The Wine: 1992 Ch. Le Pin Pomerol
>> The sco 77
>> The judgement: "Light, herbal and fading. This should never have been
>> bottled."
>> The Price: US$ 411.00 I think that says it all...
>>
>>
> Are you saying this wine received a WS rating of just 77 points?
> Some vendors are still listing this wine at $1400/bottle.

WS - April 30, 2008; page 167

One observation - just to be a contrarian ...

we (the curmudgeons who post on internet wine forums and rant about the
Wine Dictator) can't have it both ways; declaring the WS to be
mis-informed and self-serving, while at the same time using them as a
reference for the unworthiness of any given wine.

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.

I know - unlikely - but heck, it really is kinda two-faced of anyone on
this forum to hold up a WS rating as evidence of a wine's unworthiness,
when we refuse to accept their vouchsafing any wine's worthiness, isn't
it?




On 2008-04-02 05:52:41 -0700, Ronin said:

> From the dreaded Wine Spectator -
>
> The Wine: 1992 Ch. Le Pin Pomerol
>
> The sco 77
>
> The judgement: "Light, herbal and fading. This should never have been
> bottled."
>
> The Price: US$ 411.00
>
> I think that says it all...

On 2008-04-02 10:19:06 -0700, AxisOfBeagles > said:

> One observation - just to be a contrarian ...
>
> we (the curmudgeons who post on internet wine forums and rant about the
> Wine Dictator) can't have it both ways; declaring the WS to be
> mis-informed and self-serving, while at the same time using them as a
> reference for the unworthiness of any given wine.
>
> 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.
>
> I know - unlikely - but heck, it really is kinda two-faced of anyone on
> this forum to hold up a WS rating as evidence of a wine's unworthiness,
> when we refuse to accept their vouchsafing any wine's worthiness, isn't
> it?

Well, I don't take their word as LAW, but I also don't think they are
23 points off on any one wine, either. This vertical they are
reporting on has 26 vintages, with a 100, a 99, 16 others judged in the
90's and the rest in the 80's except for the 91 given a 79 score. My
point, I guess, is that if they say that it shouldn't have been
bottled, I would trust that enough not to pay over $400 for a bottle.

The suspicions confirmed is that the price is a function of label,
rather than content. I think UC (another dreaded entity :-) would love
this...

Jim

On Apr 2, 1:19�pm, AxisOfBeagles > wrote:
> One observation - just to be a contrarian ...
>
> we (the curmudgeons who post on internet wine forums and rant about the
> Wine Dictator) can't have it both ways; declaring the WS to be
> mis-informed and self-serving, while at the same time using them as a
> reference for the unworthiness of any given wine.
>
> 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.
>
> I know - unlikely - but heck, it really is kinda two-faced of anyone on
> this forum to hold up a WS rating as evidence of a wine's unworthiness,
> when we refuse to accept their vouchsafing any wine's worthiness, isn't
> it?
>
> On 2008-04-02 05:52:41 -0700, Ronin said:
>
>
>
> > From the dreaded Wine Spectator -
>
> > The Wine: �1992 Ch. Le Pin Pomerol
>
> > The sco 77
>
> > The judgement: �"Light, herbal and fading. �This should never have been
> > bottled."
>
> > The Price: �US$ 411.00
>
> > I think that says it all...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Excellent point. We can't discount their scores, then use for an
example when it pleases us.
I think the WS score on 2001 Montelena was 68 points, that one is
considered whacky by most people. Just like many people consider
Parker's 99 for a Carnival of Love whacky.

Also, that $1400 price is from 20/20, not a store with realistic
prices.

In any case, Le Pin is all about scarcity and prestige. Better
vintages can go for $4K and up. Prices are always many times more than
many similarly scored wines.

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