Ditton Wine Traders’ fine wine blog

Wine critics have the difficult task of scoring wines whilst using a fixed scale. Exceptional wines might and should score the very highest mark. But once that magical number has been granted, what happens to subsequent vintages/wines that are similar, equal or God forbit, better?  Deflation threatens if you hand out top marks too often, not to mention that this would lead to readers attaching less value to a top score.

Top marks are great if they are few and far between. Indeed, if used conservatively, they would strenghten the validity of the scale used and the uniqueness of the particular wine. I’m thinking of Mouton 1945, Cheval Blanc 1947, Yquem 1967, Mouton 1982, Haut Brion 1989 – immortal wines that all score the magical 100 points but seem to have a special status within that pedigree. A bit like "hors categorie" in the Tour de France. And then some. I mean, the Tourmalet, for all its splendor and grueling distance is just not the same as the Mont Ventoux, is it? Yet both have the same score.

I’m intrigued by what Robert Parker will do with the imminent dilemma of 2005, 2008 and 2009.

In case you think "why should I care about Robert Parker"? Quite simply, he’s the only wine critic that influences prices. Whether you like his palate or not is irrelevant – this man’s scores set prices and nobody else even comes close.

Bordeaux has been blessed by more than its fair share of excellent vintages in the last decade. The first one, 2000, is generally regarded as the vintage of a lifetime. Then came 2005, which reaped even higher acclaim. Conditions were nigh perfect, wine makers skills didn’t matter as much as in other vintages, so you can’t really go wrong with any Bordeaux 2005.

That’s what all reputable wine critics said at the time of release and still say. Robert Parker is not an exception. His description of 2005 was glowing and indeed confirms the stellar status of this vintage. However, his actual scores of the wines were quite conservative. He did say that his scores would likely be on the low side if reviewed in a few years time. Summarizing, Parker’s write-up doesn’t match his scores and at some point, the 2 have to get aligned. Either the write-up will become less raving or the scores will increase.

Fast forward to 2008. Contrary to other wine critics, Parker is extremely positive. Across the board, there are brilliant scores, including top marks (98-100) for Lafite Rothschild. His review of the vintage as a whole is extraordinary: very, very praising. At this point, one starts to wonder how this compares to the last fantastic vintage (2005). And when and how Parker will reconcile his write up and scores for the 2005 vintage.

Enter 2009. A vintage that is more promising than anybody can recall. More so than 1961, 1982, 2000, 2005 and 2008.

What? Yet another vintage of a lifetime? Well, if you believe the weather facts and the comments from the winemakers, it does indeed look to be as good and quite likely better than any of the above.

What intrigues me is the mathematical side of this. The point scoring. The basis for pricing more than anything else. Vintage 2000 is established: very high scores and dito prices. 2005 is a questionmark: sky high prices, truly fantastic write up but scores that don’t match. Vintage 2008 came out at very modest prices indeed, only to explode after Parker lavished such praise on it.

Here’s the point: if 2009 is better than 2008, how will Parker react? Mathematically, there’s very little room for him to give higher scores to 2009 than to 2008. Plus, he would be in danger of devaluing his scoring if it is yet again sky high.

To make it even more interesting, vintages get re-rated. Usually, Parker re-rates released vintages in February. He scores the new, en primeur vintage in April- May. So before releasing scores for 2009, Parker will publish revisited scores for 2005 and 2008. I expect him to raise the scores for 2005. After all, all other critics rave about it and so does Parker except in his actual scores. Vintage 2008 should retain it stellar scores because if it didn’t, Parker would have to make a U-turn and jeopardize his credibility.

If I’m right with above assessment, and if 2009 turns out to be as good as everybody thinks it is, we have an interesting situation. You can’t improve on 100 points. Or indeed 98-100 points. You could I guess give it a similar score and then revisited it next year. Or you could downgrade 2005 – adjusting for new found excellence – as well as 2008. Either way, it’s not clear cut and any adjustment of these very high profile vintages will give rise to huge speculation and would possibly spark a gradual waning of Mr Parker’s influence. The issue - IMHO –  is this: as a critic, how do you deal with 3 vintages of a lifetime  – in one decade – without jeopardising the credibility of your scoring system?

Why is this relevant? Apart from the very essence of scoring, it’s hugely relevant because Robert Parker and nobody else sets prices. If Parker thinks 2009 is better than 2005/2008, prices will go through the roof. If he downgrades 2008, those wines will go down. But then, improving on 2008 scores will be very difficult indeed.

Apart from Parker’s scores, I think 2009 will see prices close to 2005 release prices. If Parker somehow manages to score it better than 2005 and 2008, it will sell out big time, regardless of the high price. If not, it will cement the position and prices of 2008 (and 2005 to a lesser extent) and the 2009 campaign might struggle. The only reason being that there are too many stellar vintages in too short a time.

Whatever happens, 2009 will be more expensive than 2008, due to the hype and more favourable economic conditions. How much so will depend on Parker.

I for one am very curious to see how say 2009 Lafite Rothschild will compare to a 2008 Lafite (98-100).