Ut oh, Parker's at it again....

[alec]

Now that he's opened his yap it's time to watch the prices soar. This is the first time I've seen his ratings on the 2003 Vintage. Here are the reviews I found for the ports stocked at La Cave Warehouse, an overpriced distributor. Ignore the ridiculous prices:

Taylor Fladgate 2003 Vintage Port SALE $99.95/bot
$570.00 per six pk
"The 2003 Taylor Fladgate Vintage Port improved each time I raised it to my nose or mouth. It displays a black color and a salty, graphite-laced nose packed with sweet black fruits that is reminiscent of a stellar vintage of Château Latour..." 98 Points, Robert Parker

Fonseca 2003 Vintage Port SALE $99.95/bot
$570.00 per six pk
"Sporting an opaque, black-colored robe with dark purple trim, the 2003 Fonseca Vintage Port exhibits a nose of profound depth. Its sweet black mass of dark fruit and spice aromas leads to a character of immense depth, richness, and weight. Full-bodied, viscous, and almost impenetrable, this dense, backward port is powerful and exceptionally long on the finish. Possibly the most masculine Fonseca I've ever encountered, it coats the taster's palate with licorice, jammy black fruits, and notes of chocolate that last for over a minute." 96+ points, Robert Parker

Warre 2003 Vintage Port SALE $79.95/bot
$430.00 per six pk

Black pepper, ceiling wax, spices, and toast are found in the nose of the potentially exceptional 2003 Warre Vintage Port. A concentrated, backward effort, its youthful, classically ungenerous, masculine character reveals black pepper laced dark fruits. Silky-textured in its immensely endowed mid-palate, this top-flight effort displays an admirably long, tannin-filled finish. It will require serious cellaring. Projected maturity: 2030-2050. 93 Points, Robert Parker

Dow 2003 Vintage Port SALE $83.95/bot
$453.60 per six pk
The complex aromatics of the opaque, black-colored 2003 Dow Vintage Port display chocolate, dried oak, black cherries, blackberries, copious spices, and a myriad flowers. This fresh, backward wine offers a medium to full-bodied, deeply concentrated core of spice-laced dark fruits. Softly-textured and seductive in the mid-palate, it boasts abundant layers of candied Damson plums, blueberries, black cherries, molasses, and hints of chocolate before revealing its firm structure. Extremely youthful and primary, this exceptional effort demands patience. Projected maturity: 2025-2045+. 94 Points, Robert Parker

Graham 2003 Vintage Port SALE $94.95/bot
$513.00 per six pk
Violets, roses, spices, and candied dark fruits emanate from the glass of the murky black/purple colored 2003 Graham Vintage Port. After four days of air, this wine’s aromatics sweetened further, displaying jammy blackberry and blueberry scents. Bold, full-bodied, and expansive, the Graham benefited the most from extensive contact with air of all the 2003s tasted for this report. This opulently jammy wine assaults the palate with powerful yet soft layers of oily, candied red fruits as well as notes of tar and hints of mocha. A highly concentrated effort, it is creamy textured, suave, and reveals an admirably long finish filled with additional layers of dark fruits intermingled with spices. Projected maturity: 2030-2055. 95 Points, Robert Parker

Quinta do Vesuvio 2003 Vintage Port SALE $79.95/bot
$430.00 per six pk
Waxy black and red cherries are found in the aromatic profile of the 2003 Quinta do Vesuvio Vintage Port. Thick, creamy-textured, and exuberant, it offers a medium to full-bodied personality redolent with sweet black cherries and blackberries. A seductively sexy port, it is seamless, feminine, ample, and displays a long, syrupy finish that more than makes up for a slight lack of complexity. Projected maturity: 2018-2035. 90 Points, Robert Parker

[Steven Kooij]

FWIW: Parker did not review the '03s - the TNs are by Pierre Rovani.

I doubt this will cause prices to rise; as RP (or indeed PR) don't seem to have the same inpact on Port pricing as they do in other regions (the 100 point Taylor '92 is a good example)- god bless, I might add!

[Tom Archer]

What verbal tripe!

I loved the bit about Warre - "ceiling wax"...

Sealing wax has very little smell until it's lit, when it is positively foul!

This is the rant of pretentious idiot.

[Al B.]

I spotted the "ceiling wax" error as well. I wondered if this was a variation of artex or some other DIY product.

Opens up a whole new range of descriptives for wine:- plasterboard, tile adhesive, window putty....

More seriously, I was astonished at something else that RP/PR said on the Grahams.

After four days of air

Now I have an excuse to open up a full bottle of Grahams 2003 and then to drink it up over a week. Hooray for Parker :?

Alex

[alec]

FWIW: Parker did not review the '03s - the TNs are by Pierre Rovani.

Are you quite sure of this?! If you have a source, I'd love to be able to blast these guys for falsifying reviews.

Yeah, there's some great "smells" out there...I bet it's a joke among inside friends and I'd bet there's a lot of laughing for the more ridiculous ones. I once heard someone describe a scotch with "smells of wet sheep." But I'm not really sure how he knew it was sheep and not goats...or llamas.

But really, though, is this not Parker's comments?

[Al B.]

The "wet sheep" description I can sympathise with. I have worked on a farm and been surrounded by wet sheep - and boy do they stink!! Whether they are different from llamas, I can't say. But if I smelt the same smell in a wine then I would be a little worried.

Alex

[Steven Kooij]

FWIW: Parker did not review the '03s - the TNs are by Pierre Rovani.

Are you quite sure of this?! If you have a source, I'd love to be able to blast these guys for falsifying reviews.

...

But really, though, is this not Parker's comments?

Quite sure - it says so in the TN-database at eBob. I don't subscribe to the paper edition, but they were published in issue 161.

[Ronald Wortel]

I also noticed it was Pierre Rovani and not Parker who rated these.

Doesn't matter for me personally, I never look at his ratings for port. For me, Suckling and Broadbent are much more reliable to use.

[Tom Archer]

...not forgetting Mayson

The experts of course do not always agree - compare Broadbent's views on Fonseca '83 with those of Mayson.

I've just broached a case of Fons 83 and delivered it into the rack. One of the bottles has a slightly frosty capsule and a vts level, so I've stood it up and will decant it this evening.

Which reviewer will I agree with???

[Andy Velebil]

I've noticed that Robert Parker is not that great at rating ports. He also seems to give really young drinking windows. IMHO, Parker is great at other wines, but not so good with portos. I trust the members of this forum much more than I do Parker. Nothing bad about Parker, but the members of this forum obviously really love porto and probably drink a bit more than Parker does. It is too early to tell about Rovani, but I do like the fact that he at least gave more realistic drinking windows for the 2003's.


Off the topic a bit, I heard a rumor that Parker had gout and this is why he is not reviewing as many wines lately. Is this a myth or truth? Maybe this is why Parker did not review such a great declared year as 2003...just a though

[Tom Archer]

Mayson 1 - Broadbent 0

Fonseca '83 is smooth and drinkable, but lacking in complexity with very little bouquet - somewhat disappointing.

[Roy Hersh]

I don't bash others who score wines for fun or for a living. That said, last night was the first time I have ever opened an actual issue of the Wine Advocate. I am staying with a friend in Edmonton, Alberta Canada and he is a subscriber.

I was very surprised to note that there was less than 2 pages devoted to the 2003 vintage Ports and that Pierre Rovani indeed, was the author of all the tasting notes. I had not seen his scores before. He makes NO COMMENTS about the overall vintage itself, or his tasting/decanting regimen which makes a huge difference in tasting the Ports. For example, were they tasted blind? Nor did Pierre mention if these were tasted as cask samples or months after bottling took place.

My own opinion of many of the scores are very different. His top score went to the Taylor 2003 and this causes me to scratch my head, as he is the only reviewer I have seen that places that wine so highly either in score or in the upper tier of the vintage. He puts the Quinta do Portal in the 80-84 point range, when almost unanimously all tasters and critics have felt that this is one of the nice surprises way up the 2003 ladder. Finally, the lack of inclusion of Niepoort and others is inexcusable IMO ... unless I just missed something.

On the other hand, I applaud him for being controversial (ie. Taylor at 98 pts.) and not going along with the tide. It is refreshing when folks have their own opinions, whether I agree with them or not. It is just their opinion and it is no better than yours or mine. For all we know, Pierre doesn't even like Port. I don't know this ... it is STRICTLY given as a hypothetical example of how an individual's personal preferences skew their critiques ... no matter how objective they try to be. This goes even for my own 2003 VP review, although I am pretty clear about tasting blind, discuss my entire regimen so there is no question as to the procedure. But more so, I went out on a limb and gave my opinion of the vintage. To his credit, RP does that with Bordeaux and other regions he is involved with. It would have been nice for the WA to provide some kind of commentary on the vintage, considering that as a consumer advocate's periodical that charges a subscription ... they should.

I seriously doubt that Parker has gout, but who knows. He is seemingly hiring content experts to take on many of the regions he no longer has time nor inclination to visit or taste professionally. I would not be surprised that within a year or two, he limits himself to only rating Bordeaux and CA allowing his prodigies to write about all other areas of the world. Maybe he is considering retiring in a few years, or again, just sticking to the areas he loves most?

No single critic gets 'em all right. So I always suggest using a vast array of reviewers and also there is nothing like tasting them yourself. If you can find a palate of a critic that aligns with your own "most of the time" then it makes things easier. But there is nothing as important as trying the wines for yourself whenever that is possible before making a buying decision. Of course I realize that is not possible when trying to buy futures or wines being offered pre-release.

[Frederick Blais]

Well if M Parker has gout, it would means that M Rovani went directly to the producers to taste the wines, else Parker would have had no problems tasting samples at home. If Pierre Rovani went directly to the producers to taste the wines, they were obviously not tasted blind. Lots of "if" but this is what I read between the lines of your posts.

I'm not a subscribers of WA nor the website, I own a couple of RP books and never he writes a comprehensive review of a Vintage in Ports. He basically only puts a mark in his reagionnal Vintage table that he publish on his website.

I never liked the tasted of the american journalist (execept Roy of course) that really thend to enjoy and recommend to drink the VP too young. They do not teach and continue the tradition of great VP at maturity. I won't complain too much beacause this is a reason why mature VP is so cheap in the US.

Is there a place where Richard Mayson wine tasting notes about Vintage 2003 can be read? I know he wrote a small article in Decanter this summer but nothing really including everything.

[Tom Archer]

Fred,

What were you drinking today?

I'd like some myself

[David R.]

Finally, the lack of inclusion of Niepoort and others is inexcusable IMO ... unless I just missed something.

I believe that Niepoort was tasted but deemed too low of a score to recommend. It is in the small print at the bottom, IIRC. I don't have my copy in front of me.

[Tom Archer]

When Parker started giving wines points, it was a great advance from the previous chaos of incomparable verbiage.

But that was one guy setting comparison markers - it never could work properly with more than one reviewer, and with Port, the issue of maturation is glossed over to the point of absurdity.

How can a two year old VP be rated as 98/100?

Is that now, or in 2040??

Now that he is delegating, and hoardes of wannabes are volunteering point scores that are pretty much meaningless, it is time to move on..

I'm launching a new thread under the title "Scoring port"

[Roy Hersh]

David,

You are absolutely correct. It might have been better to forget to review the Niepoort than relegate it to the Ports at the bottom that were deemed unworthy of individual notes or scoring.

There are others in that group that should not be there either, in my opinion of course. Pierre is welcome to his.

In fact, it is insulting to lump ANY producers into that pile, regardless of the quality of their 2003. Then again, I prefer a thorough report of as many producers as possible. Pierre may have felt it was nicer not to say anything bad about the '03s he did not like, beyond including them in that short list at the bottom. I think there are as many in there as he reviewed in entirety though, and THAT is a shame.

[alec]

I doubt this will cause prices to rise; as RP (or indeed PR) don't seem to have the same inpact on Port pricing as they do in other regions (the 100 point Taylor '92 is a good example)- god bless, I might add!

Didn't read this before. Lowest price I can find for 1992 Taylor is $160 per bottle. It's brother, Fonseca '92, is readily accessible for $95 or so. That's the 100 point Parker difference talking.

1997 Quinta do Noval is selling for $150... Another Parker 100 success story. 2000 and 2003 Novals are both around $70 or so.

I guess the key is to purchase your favorite ports before Parker (or any other wine critic with similar clout) gets ahold of it.

--A

[Steven Kooij]

Perhaps it a regional thing+ I bought my Taylor ´92 for 45 Euros 2 years ago...it might have been just luck, of course. The Taylor and Fonseca ´94 are the expensive ones over here (WS100).

[Roy Hersh]

A fun time to look back on this thread. Has your opinion changed?