Le Pin vertical - Suspicions confirmed

Are you saying this wine received a WS rating of just 77 points? Some vendors are still listing this wine at $1400/bottle.

Yes - a WS rating of only 77 points, and a WS judgement of 'shouldn't have been bottled'

WS - April 30, 2008; page 167

One observation - just to be a contrarian ...

we (the curmudgeons who post on internet wine forums and rant about the Wine Dictator) can't have it both ways; declaring the WS to be mis-informed and self-serving, while at the same time using them as a reference for the unworthiness of any given wine.

Just to play devil's advocate (along the lines of the usual characterizations of WS) - maybe the wine is fine, but refused to pay homage to Suckling or whomever. Result - a shocking rating intended to punish the infidel winery.

I know - unlikely - but heck, it really is kinda two-faced of anyone on this forum to hold up a WS rating as evidence of a wine's unworthiness, when we refuse to accept their vouchsafing any wine's worthiness, isn't it?

Well, I don't take their word as LAW, but I also don't think they are

23 points off on any one wine, either. This vertical they are reporting on has 26 vintages, with a 100, a 99, 16 others judged in the 90's and the rest in the 80's except for the 91 given a 79 score. My point, I guess, is that if they say that it shouldn't have been bottled, I would trust that enough not to pay over $400 for a bottle.

The suspicions confirmed is that the price is a function of label, rather than content. I think UC (another dreaded entity :-) would love this...

Jim

Excellent point. We can't discount their scores, then use for an example when it pleases us. I think the WS score on 2001 Montelena was 68 points, that one is considered whacky by most people. Just like many people consider Parker's 99 for a Carnival of Love whacky.

Also, that $1400 price is from 20/20, not a store with realistic prices.

In any case, Le Pin is all about scarcity and prestige. Better vintages can go for $4K and up. Prices are always many times more than many similarly scored wines.

On a less conspiratorial note, perhaps the wine just doesn't fit Suckling's preferred taste profile, which actually wouldn't surprise me a bit. Given JS's preference for the more "Californicated" Bdx, a '92 might have been too lean for his palate, but just right for mine. Of course, I've long since dismissed JS as having an unreliable palate for a critic, so trying to parse his scores with any eye to logic or consistency is a fool's game IMO.

Mark Lipton