Binski
South Bay
Grape Fermenter
Posts:457
 | | 03/05/2006 3:42 AM |
| I am in agreement that for beginners, WS is great. I was one of them many years back. I have since not renewed to WS for the fact that Laube's tasting notes on California wines are awefull! My take on Laube is that he likes over-oaked Chard's and tannic reds that are unappealing.
Harvey Steiman, IMO is the best taster of the crew. His notes are good and the wines are also.
Parker is the best when it comes to collecting and selling. His notes are great and also are his drink time tables.
Tanzer almost never rates wines as high as Parker does, and when he does, It's really good. Tanzer's notes are more understandable to the beginner and serious collector. | |
"Why Keep Score if you are not going to play by the rules?" | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:11169
| | 03/05/2006 4:57 AM |
| | Must disagree with you on Steiman. I think he's borderline incompetent on Pinot Noirs. | | | |
|
Dave
Wine Thief
Posts:2807
| | 03/05/2006 12:19 PM |
| | Tanzer rates wines like Parker used to in the 1980's. There has been enormous point inflation from Parker. | | | |
|
JimmyV
Central Connecticut
Wine Lover
Posts:4982
| | 03/06/2006 4:00 AM |
| | You know, no one seems to mind Laube when he writes glowing articles about Kosta Browne, gracing those wines with mid-90's scores. Or when he gives Sloan 99 points. People seem far too hypocritical in their criticism of him. | |
Beta testing a new signature. | |
|
David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15701
| | 03/08/2006 2:08 AM |
| Quote:
When the WS issue on the 97 California Cabs came out, I took the day off and drove to Napa and bought a ton of wines. I also went to stores and bought as many of Laube's highly rated wines as I could.
Five years later, I can look back and say that if I were to do it over again, I would not buy most of the wines that I bought based on Laube's recommendations. I would say that 1/2 of the wines turned out close to what was expected, but there are better wines for the price. Then there are about 1/2 that I regretted buying and I sold off most of those using the WS rating as a reference. I probably broke even on those.
I used to think that Laube overrated wines that show well early, but he is so erratic that his ratings are worthless IMHO.
Been there! Done that!
I droped my WS print subscription. I do use the on-line mostly out of curiousity. I read their weekly updates to see if there is something I might want to TRY before buying. As far as having blind faith in the WS ratings; forget itl
I mostly trust Jones' notes because I have been with him many times and tasted together. I do have him somewhat figured out .
I like Greg Walters' Pinot report a lot even though his scores are inflated. You just have to put the scores in context.
Tanzer is interesting but doesn't taste a lot of stuff I am curious about.
And Parker... what can I say. 50% of the time he is right on. The only problem is I don't know which 50% to trust. | | | |
|
David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15701
| | 03/08/2006 2:09 AM |
| Quote:
You know, no one seems to mind Laube when he writes glowing articles about Kosta Browne, gracing those wines with mid-90's scores. Or when he gives Sloan 99 points. People seem far too hypocritical in their criticism of him.
Even a broken watch is right twice every day. | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Master of Wine
Posts:11169
| | 03/08/2006 3:31 AM |
| Actually, on the day Daylight Savings Time begins, it might only be right once. | | | |
|
JimmyV
Central Connecticut
Wine Lover
Posts:4982
| | 03/08/2006 2:21 PM |
| | Fellas: My point is that if I had the time and inclination, (which I do not), I could present to you a thesis that shows that Laube has given scores that we would largely agree with to the vast majority of wines that get praised on this board routinely. We only seem to remember the times where we think he missed the boat. Just as examples, his scores of: Radio Coteau, August West, Siduri and Pride are all ones that would get no argument from the users here, and are (I think) uniformly equal to or higher than Parker's scores for the same wines. I could go on and on. If you do the research and map out your findings, you will see that I speak the truth. We tend to only remember the times when he does something bizzare ( e.g., 2001 Ch. Montelena), and then project that to the point where we think that all his scores are useless. It's just not so. | |
Beta testing a new signature. | |
|
Binski
South Bay
Grape Fermenter
Posts:457
| | 03/09/2006 6:38 AM |
| I think so, but you name only 4 different producers.
It would be very hard to have everyone on this site just remember just 10 wines that Laube has given a good score to (that were good, and you have tried them, and we all have different palates, other than Kosta Brown??? and Viader) that we could all agree upon, but we may agree upon 20 that Parker has given a high score (that was good, and we have different palates, and I have seen no Kosta Brown notes in WA, and Viader was all high 80's) to that we would agree upon. The list goes on and on about the wines Laube gives high scores to and Parker gives high scores to, that we run out and buy.
That's what makes wine so great! You like this and I like that. What I like is going to be totally different that what you like and so on.
My take on the whole situation is that Laube looks for flaws (his own opion) PERFECT example is the 2001 Montelena Estate (which is AWESOME by the way, 68 Laube points, you got to be kidding me). Two different critics, with two differnet palates tasting the same wine. Someone HAS to have a different opinion.
IMO, Parker and Tanzer scores are much more consistant, day in and day out than Laube's scores. | |
"Why Keep Score if you are not going to play by the rules?" | |
|
JimmyV
Central Connecticut
Wine Lover
Posts:4982
| | 03/09/2006 1:58 PM |
| Quote:
I think so, but you name only 4 different producers.
I am not at all clear as to what "I think so" refers to. As to the comment about naming only 4 producers (5 actually, as I mentioned K-B in my earlier post), I stated that I have neither the time nor the inclination to do the research necessary to prove the point, and cited only a few examples as a reference point. The fact that I only cited 5 producers should in no way be taken to suggest that those are the only ones I could come up with. And I happen to agree with Laube's mid to high 80's score of Viader far more than Parker's low-90's, and I think if you check the tasting notes for the '99 and '01 releases, you will see that this board largely agrees with Laube and not with Parker.
I'm not trying to start a campaign to beatify Laube, or elevate his work beyond that of Parker's. My premise has been, and remains, that a few whacko scores (or scores with which we uniformly disagree) should not color the fact that the vast majority of the time his scores are mere percentage points away from those on this board. We have every reason to question the abberational scores. But to dispose of the man's entire body of work because of them is silly. | |
Beta testing a new signature. | |
|
Winetex
Austin, Texas
Master of Wine
Posts:10373
| | 03/09/2006 3:04 PM |
| | Speaking of Laube - I've been a detractor but I thought his comments on the Grape Radio show were very interesting and sharp. He does have a problem with consistency but one of the things he said he's now considering in his scoring is "drinking enjoyment" or something close to that. Maybe that's a change in his philosophy so it might explain some of the inconsistency in his scoring. | | | |
|
Edward Bowers
Palm Beach Gardens
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2072
| | 03/10/2006 9:41 PM |
| | BTW when do we shift this year? | | | |
|
Winetex
Austin, Texas
Master of Wine
Posts:10373
| | 03/11/2006 5:43 PM |
| yesterday | | | |
|
ChangeMe
Grape Sorter
Posts:218
| | 03/26/2006 6:16 PM |
| The moment I decided to drop my subscription to WS (I still use the website) was when Laube downgraded basicallyevery single 2001 Napa Cab. Originally, the '01 vintage for Napa was proclaimed maybe the best of all time by WS. The barrel scores were extremely high, but when the final scores came out, 98% of the wines were downgraded below the range of barrel scores.
I mean, why call a wine 95-100 or 92-24 from barrel when the final score is 91 or 88 or something? If I recall correctly, only the Shafer HSS was rated above the barrel scores. Was is a mistake when tasting originally? I can understand if a few wines each year get upgraded or downgraded, but every damn wine from an entire vintage? That's BS; either someone had no sclue when tasting from barrel, or someone screwed up when tasting after bottling, or some had an axe to grind or decided to play a game. In this case, it was the same person in all 3 instances, so the conclusion that I draw is that he's full of crap. | | | |
|
ojeffso
warren, new jersey
Wine Lover
Posts:4877
| | 03/26/2006 6:33 PM |
| | laube blamed many of his downgrades on tca and brett levels that he seems only able to dtect. | | | |
|
David Niederauer
Los Gatos, CA
Master Sommelier
Posts:15701
| | 03/26/2006 11:22 PM |
| Quote:
laube blamed many of his downgrades on tca and brett levels that he seems only able to dtect.
Well... he's a sensative guy.
The brettdectector. | | | |
|
saut
Grape Fermenter
Posts:442
| | 03/27/2006 3:40 AM |
| I was at the Wine Spectator hosted California Wine Experience in Chicago a week or two after the infamous issue came out, and it was the talk of the town! Marvin Shaken was there, prancing like a rooster amid several vintners who probably had dark thoughts about doing in the publication. BV was so embarassed they were pouring the '01 "under the table". What a shame.
I personally like the '01s, and bought heavily into the vintage in CA (well, for me that is about 10 mixed cases) and you all are welcome to try them over the next 20 years at offlines...
(By the way, Hundred Acre 01 was my wine of the night, sorry I could not ever find any...)
Personally, I'm tired of all the "vintage of the century" crap. I've been hearing this for 25 years and I think the only one they have been right about is maybe the 1982 Bordeaux. These blogs are the only place I trust to get a valid objective opinion on a wine's merits... | | | |
|
GATC
Barrel Sampler
Posts:2420
| | 04/08/2006 12:16 AM |
| | JimmyV, your loyalty to Laube is admirable, but if you bought a lot of wines based on what he wrote (like I did for 97 or what others did for 01), then you feel betrayed. He praises a wine in the beginning and you buy it, then we trashes it. The guy is psycho and he gets paid to do what he does. | | | |
|