Robert Parker's Best values under $25

A few days ago I ordered (off EBAY) the subject book. Got it for $5 and shipping was free. At that price, it is a bargain, and a treasure. There are a lot of wines in the book that are in my market, (and a lot that are not) and I will likely try a lot of them that are. One thing that REALLY, REALLY stands out is the way that Dr. Jay Miller uses the phrase (words and/or descriptor) spice box. Does anyone here really understand the descriptor? I do not, as it seems to me that spice box would depend on what spices are in the box. Has anyone else noticed this?

[David M. Bueker]

Given that I ignore 99% of what Jay Miller says I have not taken direct note of that, but specific aroma/flavors must always be taken with a grain of salt. But I might hazard a guess that the wines he uses that term for have seen more than their fair share of wood (think spicy oak). And yes, I agree that a specific spice box will likely smell differently from another if the spices are different.

Given that I ignore 99% of what Jay Miller says I have not taken direct note of that, but specific aroma/flavors must always be taken with a grain of salt. But I might hazard a guess that the wines he uses that term for have seen more than their fair share of wood (think spicy oak). And yes, I agree that a specific spice box will likely smell differently from another if the spices are different.

WOW David, it is satisfying that you agree with my thinking. Like wallpaper, spice box covers over a lot of faults. I suppose that Jay's palate is much like RMP's else he probably wouldn't be there. After saying that, I have to then wonder about David S...we know that DS's palate is a far cry from what RMP ranks so high.

Like many commonly used winetasting terms (mineral anyone?) it can seem a little out of place - especially if over-used. Still it's not one that offends me at all and I think David's explanation matches well with how I'd read it.

regards

Ian

Like many commonly used winetasting terms (mineral anyone?) it can seem a little out of place - especially if over-used. Still it's not one that offends me at all and I think David's explanation matches well with how I'd read it.

regards

Ian

Ian, I haven't made a count of the times the descriptor was used within the first 30 or so pages, but I would think it was about once per page (or more), then I would think a different descriptor, or a more definitive descriptor, could be posted or used. Since this is a book, I will continue to think that the author is deficient in descriptors, And, I will discount his tasting notes and description(s).

[David M. Bueker]

Bob,

David Schildknecht mostly reviews a significantly different type of wine from RMP and JSM. He does cross stylistic paths with them in some parts of the Languedoc from time to time. The same goes (mostly) for Antonio Galloni.

Bob,

David Schildknecht mostly reviews a significantly different type of wine from RMP and JSM. He does cross stylistic paths with them in some parts of the Languedoc from time to time. The same goes (mostly) for Antonio Galloni.

David,

I suspect that David Schildknect has a rep almost as big at RMP, and for we geeks, a better palate. So, it stands to reason that his writings are more fitting for people like most here on the WLDG. I do not know Antonio Galloni at all.

[David M. Bueker]

I suspect that David Schildknect has a rep almost as big at RMP,

Not even close. RMP is so far into the rep stratosphere as to need supplemental oxygen - despite recent mis-steps

and for we geeks, a better palate.

That I will agree with

I do not know Antonio Galloni at all.

You need to.

Given that I ignore 99% of what Jay Miller says

Thanks for that David, I was going to write almost the same thing! Actually, I use his tasting notes to highlight wines to avoid as I inevitably don't like anything that he does...so I do find value in his reviews.