Disparity in Tasting Notes

I just heard about this, I thought it was really incredible:

2009 Cos d'Estournel reviews are up and I am amazed by the disparity between the Robert Parker note ("One of the greatest young wines I have tasted... in the world") vs. John Gilman ("One of the worst young wines I have ever had to taste"). As you can imagine, the scores are diametrically opposed as well.

I've seen some critics disagree but never like this. Wow.

Is this simply a question in styles or is one critic actually "wrong"?

In any case, a very interesting topic (at least to me!) and a very clear illustration of the necessity to understand the palates of any critic that you are using to purchase wine without being able to taste first for yourself.

[David M. Bueker]

Stylistic preferences. Unfortunately we can only know who is "right or wrong" in about 30 years, and that wil still be totally subjective.

As David says, all about style. Wine scoring is not objective, no matter what anyone says. John is a superb taster, but doesn't believe in "well it's a well made wine just not in a style I like, so I'll give it a 91" type commentary. He's an evangelist for the traditional style he prefers, and scores/comments accordingly. It's no surprise that Parker commented on the Cos in such a way, I believe Mark Golodetz didn't care for the Cos but predicted it would end up close to 100 by Parker (Mark occasionally reads here and can correct me if I misremembered).

If you agreed with Parker on wines like the 03 Pavie, and think say recent vintages of Poyferre and Pontet Canet are by far best they've ever made, I'd suggest using Parker as your guide. While I mostly subscribe to Gilman for Burgundy (and to a lesser extent Germany, Loire, Champagne, older CA, etc - lesser because of less need, not his skill) I tend to find that the Bordeaux he likes I like also. But I don't necessarily dislike ones he rips, as I am more tolerant of oak/modernity. That said, quite a few more moderate tasters found the Cos over the top, so that wouldn't be a buy for me at 1/5 of likely price. I mostly buy modern styled Bdx in the $20-30 range, saving my meager bucks reserved for classified wines for more traditional styles.

Less than 2 weeks before David finds out John can be as opinionated in person as in print!

1/5 of likely price.

Just curious as to what you'd guess that price would be.

No real knowledge, but I'd guess in $200-250 range due to possible 100. Last Cos I bought was the 2002 (after release) for $60 (modern, but in that not so ripe year it appealed). I think 03 and 05 go for $175-225 range.

John is a superb taster, but doesn't believe in "well it's a well made wine just not in a style I like, so I'll give it a 91" type commentary. He's an evangelist for the traditional style he prefers, and scores/comments accordingly.

I applaud that approach .

FWIW a rough translation of the review of Cos d'Estournel 09 in May's RVF is as follows -
Completely different, this 2009 is the most powerful, most massive and richest in the history of Cos. A monster of concentration reaching 14.5° alcohol which breathes out aromas reminiscent of Châteauneuf du Pape with notes of ultra concentrated black fruit.............18-19/20

It is clear from this why Parker likes it and why someone who wants a wine to taste of its place of origin hates it.

With the vintage year they experience in Bordeaux what type of wine would you like them to produce? I guess to produce a low alcohol more “traditional” wine in 09 would take a lot of “trickery”.

Salute

Victor, judging by the RVF TNs others managed to produce less massive and more elegant results in 09. For example Ducru-Beaucaiillou came in at 13.5% alcohol and is praised for its freshness, digestibility and Saint-Julien character as well as its power; 19-20/20. I think that Cos must have been seeking the effect described.

With the vintage year they experience in Bordeaux what type of wine would you like them to produce? I guess to produce a low alcohol more “traditional” wine in 09 would take a lot of “trickery”.

I don't think anyone is expecting a low alcohol luncheon claret. But there is a big difference between making a ripe tannic wine in such a year and using techniques that tend to accentuate power and ripeness. Many of the people (like Gilman) who didn't like the Cos praised the Montrose. Gilman certainly gave high scores to Latour, Lafite, Petrus, Magdelaine,Ducru, Canon, Figeac, and many more. One can admire a woman with large breasts and be turned off by a stripper with 42M implants ( I turned to Google/Wikipedia for this one)

So what is the best way to determine which wine judge should be my personal guide. How would I even go about determining my own wine style enough to match myself up to a wine experts style? I am working on some books, but those won't help me determine my style. I guess I need to start drinking different wines as often as possible and remember which ones I like best and why?

Do any of you all keep a wine journal of any sort to help you remember what your styles are and how they have changed over time (if that even happens)?

I guess I need to start drinking different wines as often as possible and remember which ones I like best and why?

Yes.

Do any of you all keep a wine journal of any sort to help you remember what your styles are and how they have changed over time (if that even happens)?

Yes.

But remember, it takes years. Enjoy the ride!

Walter,
personally I find it crucial to write down what I thought. For one thing I can review later, but just the act of writing it down helps cement my impressions. One can keep a private journal, post notes here, or use Cellartracker (and make your notes either public or private). Comparing your notes to others can be a learning experience, too. You'll get a much better idea where you fall on the preference scales, and then other's note will be more valuable to you.

As to the Cos, I just saw Neal Martin's notes. He gave 89-91, but he is not as ideological as John Gilman. Still, his notes mirror John's reservations more than resemble his boss's enthusiasm. A few quotes:
Stylistically, the Cos d'Estournel sets itself apart from the entire Left Bank, though I am uncertain whether this is a positive thing. // This is an extremely powerful nose that bears more relationship with the Douro than the Gironde.// yet one has to question whether stylistically, it has forsaken its identity as quintessential Saint Estephe?
He certainly recognizes the richness, etc (I didn't most whole note for copyright reasons, but visible at Farr Vintners among other places)

Although I haven't done a Cos vertical in a while (hopefully this year) I would not have counted them among the houses that have led the charge toward modernism. In fact these reports of the '09 are a troubling surprise to me. Among the last 3 vintages I tasted (2002, 2003, 2004) none of them struck me as "modern" for the vintage. I would previously have considered them steering a middle road, which I quite like.

One can admire a woman with large breasts and be turned off by a stripper with 42M implants ( I turned to Google/Wikipedia for this one)

Nice turn of phrase, Dale

I applaud (mostly) Parker's influence in cleaning up wine making techniques in Bordeaux, while delporing the homogenizing effect he has had on styles and the resulting reduction in the range oi approaches to claret. It has become the ONE WAY - please the critics (and Parker is the most influential) or be an outlier, probably on the way to bankruptcy.

On the whole, I would much rathet have continued to put up with the vagaries of hit and miss wine making, if it meant keeping the diversity we saw in the 70s and earlier! Guess I am just not one of those that thinks a great Bordeaux has to taste like an over concetrated Napa wine.

[David M. Bueker]

Guess I am just not one of those that thinks a great Bordeaux has to taste like an over concetrated Napa wine.

Same here, which is why I buy Leoville Barton and Sociando Mallet.

Bill,
if you look up "Maxi Mounds", it's not my fault. Gag.

Matt,
After our 2002 tasting, I bought the Cos. It was one of my favorites of the night (after the Latour) and I thought it maybe just a tad on the modern side of the middle. I think the somewhat stern character of the vintage went well with the style. I liked the 2004, but was very surprised how open it was. But I gather the 2009 is a whole 'nother beast

Dale-

Boy, those were the days. We could actually buy 3 first growths and drink them. Not really a good option any more, even in off vintages.

Hi Walter,
I agree with Rahsaan and Dale taking notes is crucial. IMHO one of the best wine books out there is “Drink This- Wine made simple” by Dara Moskowitz Grumdahl. (Some might know her as “Dear Dara”).
Her approach to wine is fairly simple she compares it to a “three legged stool”. One leg is all about the fruit, the other leg is about “terrior” (where it is grown and how it is grown), and the third leg represents how it was made. (We can debate whether or not man is actually part of “terrior” and here at WLDG we have had our share of debates from very knowledgeable people. But just think about this not only are the legs connected at the top of the stool (where one sits) but also connected closer to the floor for stability). As you get aquatinted with wines and your knowledge grows and expands you’ll figure out (for yourself) when one leg is to short or long (or missing all together).
In trying to discover ones own palate or ones own “wine style” the wine world is way to big and complex to dive in “head first”. The best way is to take the steps into the giant “wading pool”. Concentrate on one wine style or type (one grape variety at a time). WLDG’s “Wine Focus” is a great way to get started! For novices or beginners (who might not have enough experience with a type or style of wine, or do not have a “large database” of TN to look back upon) as Dara points out it is sometimes best to do it in “twos” so an “immediate” comparison could be made.

Salute

Making wine tasting notes is critical in another major way as well. Simply tasting a wine allows the sensory perceptions to enter into short-term memory and those impressions soon fade. The act of committing one's thoughts to paper actually "forces" one's reactions into long-term memory and thus part of an ever-building comparative repertoire.

As to finding the critic/s that can give us direction- not all that complex. On each occasion that you taste a wine make your notes and later compare them to those of the various critics. It will not take all that long to determine with whom you align. That alignment, by the way, can be either negative or positive so long as it is consistent. Once one has made those decisions it is then possibe on occasion to follow that critic's recommendations as to which wines to purchase/try.

Best
Rogov

Sorry it has taken me so long to get back on this subject, but I had a quick question on these notes I need to take.

When dealing with the descriptions (which I am currently pretty bad at) do you all have any good reference for helping me put words to what I am tasting? For instance, what does it mean for a wine to have a full body, medium body, or none?

Secondly, when taking the notes, do you all recommend a pocket-sized wine notebook so that I can carry it to a party with me? I am not familiar with some of the neat wine tools you all have mentioned exist on the website either. Could someone give me a more detailed description of how to get to these tools and use them? Or is there a tutorial I just haven't found yet?

-Walter

When dealing with the descriptions (which I am currently pretty bad at) do you all have any good reference for helping me put words to what I am tasting? For instance, what does it mean for a wine to have a full body, medium body, or none?

The only answer is to keep drinking! (Which isn't a bad answer, is it).

Those terms are all relative, so to make sense of them you need to keep drinking and pay attention to how different wines taste/feel. Of course it also helps to engage with other people to help you put the wines in perspective.

I'm sure any of the basic wine tasting books will give you a good introduction on how to approach the wine (smell, taste, finish) and how to analyze the components (balance between weight, acid, tannin, potentially sugar).

These modern wines are not going to take 30 years to sort out. More like 5.

I am another one who thinks that taking down tasting notes is essential, not just for being able to remember the wines but also to be able to compare notes on the same wine after drinking over a period of time (say, over three or so years, in order to see the development of the wine). I also think that tasting is best done systematically so that you go through all the elements of the wine first, and only then come to your conclusions about the wine. Too often in tasting notes, I see conclusions but no information about the wine to support how the conclusions were reached. Doing a systematic tasting approach, you also learn specifically what you like and don't like in a wine - ie what your personal taste is - and you have actual words for what it is you like and don't like, such as too high acid level or too harsh tannins, for example. It's easier then to direct yourself to wines that fit your personal taste. Anyway, here's the form from the WSET that I have found really helpful: http://www.wset.co.uk/documents/dipsat_wine09.pdf
cheers, Bonnie