Lots of discussion this morning about this issue.  People aren't huge Bordeaux buyers around here but it seems to me that there is some crying this morning about the scores - especially if you bought first growths.  They did not get slapped with 100 pts  as expected by some.  It also seems to me if you bought wines that you might want to drink someday you probably made out quite well.

 

I did not buy any 2005s.  Perhaps a mistake but they won't be ready until I'm a LOT older and I have many cases of the previous "vintage of the century".  

Haven't bought any 2005 Bdx, and don't plan to. So with no dog in this fight, here is my observation (which is really more of a suspicion).

 

I'm not a conspiracy threorist when it comes to Parker (or Laube), but I wonder if Parker isn't giving a not-so-subtle nudge of his influence to try to drop prices. In his text, he states that now that the wine is in bottle, the prices will go up. But I don't think there is anything in the scores to suggest that retailers can or should do this. The collective moan from the e-bobbers confirms that there will be no rush to buy many/most of the big boys if they haven't been bought already. So without the tidal wave of point chasers, prices shouldn't go up.

 

As for the "conspiracy" if you will, there is lots of discussion by Parker about the unfortunate up-tick in prices over the already ridiculous prices for the 2000 vintage. And he repeats this refrain in his discussion of the 2007 vintage.  Then he goes on to say that 2005 is the greatest vintage in his 30-year profession. But the scores don't reflect that. A whole bunch of 90-93 point wines is great for the public, but it is hard to raise the vintage up to the highest pedestal based on that.  So what does he do next? He slips in a line about how his scores are conservative. But as we all know, this opinion cannot and will not find its way on to wine shop websites or shelf-talkers. A 93 is a 93. 

 

So there is a part of me that feels that Parker:

 

1.) realizes his influence on pricing,

2.) realizes that prices have climbed above the point of reason, and

3.) intentionally scored the wines low with a wink and cue that they are really better than the scores

 

all in an effort to help drive prices down, or at least hold them steady.  He all but beseeches U.S. buyer to avoid the 2007 futures market and let the market adjust downward.

 

What I gleaned from his text, coupled with the scores is: "if I score most of the wines 98-100, the price climb will continue to the detriment of the wine buying public.  But if I score the wines 91-96 and hint to everyone that they are really better than that, the prices will hold steady, or even drop. Which accomplishes my goal as a wine Advocate".

 

And my other thought in perusing the issue coupled with the e-bob gripe session is, all these know-it-alls who poo-poo purchasers of $100 California start-ups that "only" score 93-95 points should rethink their posts now that they are proud owners of $250-$1,500 bottles of 93-96 point Bdx!

I bought a few '05 Bdx substantially below futures pricing (like Fleur Cardinale for $25) when Wine Commune was foolish enough to offer $1 no reserve auctions on futures some time back.

 

I hope I'm around to enjoy them when they are mature