Community Tasting Note
-
SWHighlander wrote: 89 points
July 10, 2023 - Decanted a magnum for 3 hours. This wine has some mild clearing and magenta notes around the edges of the glass. Good fruit on the nose and front of the palate, but finish is quite tart. This wine as part of a blind tasting of 7 high-end bordeaux blends from Bordeaux and California, ranging from 7-22 years old. The tart finish was not enjoyable to me, one of my least favorites. Maybe it will improve with time. Certainly the professional tasters are all in love with it. Currently I wouldn't drink it if it was free.
4 people found this helpful 13,863 views
11 Comments
-
thesternowl commented:
7/12/23, 6:57 AM - "I wouldn't drink it if it was free"...absolutely savage.
-
Portland Seth commented:
7/12/23, 7:28 AM - In my experience P-C is nearly undrinkable out of the bottle and requires a minimum of 6 hours decant, but the transformation is remarkable.
-
SchlaepDog commented:
7/12/23, 7:56 AM - You gave it 89 points. You really would not drink an 89 point wine for free?
-
Hendmo commented:
7/12/23, 8:54 AM - The 03’s are only just ready for drinking, hopefully this is just a stage and it comes around!
-
SWHighlander commented:
7/12/23, 10:20 AM - Thanks for the comments. I've got a couple more bottles of the 2016, so I'll let them sit longer and definitely do a longer decant. I was at a blind tasting and not in control of the bottles or decant times...
@SchlaepDog: As for my score of 89 versus "would not drink it for free" -- yes, I stand by that. The whole 100 point score is obviously ridiculous and really most people just use a little more than 10 points of that whole range. I rate wines using that same dumb system for consistency with others. In general, I don't really enjoy drinking wines below what most professionals call a 92. There are some boring wines or maybe even plonk that can be quaffable when you just don't care that much what you're drinking and maybe they would be rated 87-88. I rate the P-C a bit higher than that for its complexity, positive notes and likely ability to improve, but that doesn't mean I like it better right now than an 87 point chilled, forgettable grocery store rosé. -
LiteItOnFire commented:
7/12/23, 11:01 AM - Yeah the Magnum didn’t help as ‘16 vintage is built to last. The 750s will drink a lot better but they would need a few more years to come together. The ‘09 is Fantastic now.
Regarding rating. I am with you on the stupid scale and not willing to drink wine that’s not to my liking. I move the number to 87 as a standing poor rating. -
kitkat4 commented:
7/12/23, 7:36 PM - I just rated a wine 80 points. For me, usually 89 is the low end of what I would want to drink, recognizing the scale as 86-89 as very good. I have no interest in drinking wines that are 'good'.
-
TXRDW commented:
7/13/23, 7:14 AM - I was at Pontet Canet for a tour last month and the 2016 was specifically mentioned as a wine to not open prior to the 10 year mark. Hopefully by the time you try your next bottle you will find it more enjoyable. Best of luck!
-
wine247365 commented:
3/31/24, 5:12 PM - @SWHighlander…ranking a score 89 doesn’t make sense under Eric’s recommended point system if you believe a wine is not worth drinking for free. An 89 is very inconsistent with how other CT users, not professionals, would rate such a wine. Please remember to refer to it when putting a numerical value in the CT tasting notes section.
From the add a Tasting Note section…
Wine Rating Scale
CellarTracker uses a 50-100 point scale for rating wines.
Score Grade Meaning
98-100 A+ Extraordinary
94-97 A Outstanding
90-93 A- Excellent
86-89 B+ Very Good
80-85 B Good
70-79 C Below/Average
50-69 D Avoid -
SWHighlander commented:
3/31/24, 6:32 PM - @wine247365:
First, few if any CTers are using Eric's scoring system suggestion. It's not just Eric's creation anyway, it's what most major wine writers and critics would say their scores mean as well. But we all know they actually don't mean that. Eric says an average wine should be rated a 75-79, and by definition of the word "average", scores on CT for all wines should be in the average range, and we all know that doesn't happen. There are very few scores below 80 (or even 85) on CT. Same with professional scores. My scores are fairly consistent with professional tasters. You, yourself, are welcome to throw out a bunch of scores in the 70s on CT if you want to do it that way, but personally I think it will mislead CTers and not help them.
Second, even if I agreed with "Eric's" system, my TN is not incompatible with my score. Eric's scoring says nothing about how much the taster enjoyed the wine. Enjoyment is different from a score. (There are movies that I can respect as great filmmaking but don't enjoy watching them, and I can love a sappy, predictable rom-com or a SharkNado IV even while not thinking they deserve an Oscar.) By Eric's scoring system, I can rate a wine 89 which he says means "very good" but that doesn't mean I like it enough to want to drink it when I have other options. -
wine247365 commented:
4/5/24, 2:35 PM - Eric built the site, Eric posted his qualitative categories with numerical ratings, so that is what anyone who uses his site should attempt to adhere to and not completely disregard it, even if one was a professional taster. If everyone did that, the numbers would be completely meaningless. That's hubris at it's worst!
RE your comment that all CT wines should average in the 70-79 range, I disagree completely. I suspect most using Eric's site spend more than average money on each bottle, hence total CT scores should average higher than the 70-79 numerical range. Remember the stat of about 90%-95% of wines being consumed within 24 hours and costing less than $15. If those wines were logged into CT then perhaps your comment would be true, but the broad population of wine drinkers in no way mirrors those regularly using CT to manage their collections.
Yea, it's self-evident that anyone could rank a wine 89 and not want to drink it if one had other options and by that I presume you mean other wines you view as better (and to which you'd give a higher numerical rating).
Doesn't seem credulous that one could score a wine at the top of the VG range and then say you wouldn't drink it if it was free.