No, but what I've tasted of the 2001 Cabernets has been pretty good. I was
stunned to hear that WS rated the 2001 BV GdL in the _60s_! I haven't
tasted it, but I had a bottle of the 2001 BV Rutherford tonight and liked it
well enough to give it mid to high 80s. How could the GdL possibly score a
couple of decades _lower_?
James Laube has been cantankerous and capricious, but it's gone
too far for me.
WS Online is now subscription-only - and I'm not paying.
I have a WS print subscription because someone gave it as a gift,
and I won't be renewing. The editorial slant of that historically
fine magazine has gone way off-kilter and they're rapidly losing
credibility with me.
I get my wine-rag fix from Wine Enthusiast now. If James
Laube wants to me email me ( firstname.lastname@example.org) and arrange
lunch (we don't live far) to explain his case to me, I'll pick
up the tab.
To add, I think Parker is more in line with my taste. But, hands down if
you like California the California Grape Vine is GREAT! No adds, just great
tasting notes. With me if CGV rates anything 90 or above, I have liked it
WS is only good for the articles regarding cooking and traveling, other than
that its just fluff....