Parker dates

I don't know anyone who's drink by dates are always sensible to me. Actually, Parker is usually better (and longer) than WS. And few seem to anticipate closed periods (there are lots of wines I thin drink well on release, but then need to be avoided for years). I found the 2002 Montrose pretty tannic.

I think in Parker's case you have to remember that many of his subscribers value fruit above all. When you realize that, plus the fact that not every bottle sees optimum storage, a window of 2006-2016 (or

2010-2020 - I just looked through winesearcher and stores had 2 RP reviews listed, I assume one was barrel samples) might not seem so illogical.

I know I like more tertiary aromas than some, and plan accordingly.

graham wrote:

Many thanks for your comments. A local wine store gives the Parker comments for each of the Bordeaux in stock. They are having a sale this w/e and I have been trying to make a short list of the 2nd to 5th Growths that I fancy. Trouble is, the short list keeps getting longer:-)) They have both the 99 and 02 Montrose as well as the 03 Dame and a goodish selection of other chateaux from 01-03 and a few decent right bankers. Graham

Parker has stated(don't ask me to find it) that he stores some of his wines at 65+F. some people store their wines at 50-F. that alone would account for close to doubling aging rates

some people like a bit of life(tannin) left in their wines, others want them dead leather. that accounts for about a 3x difference in aging practice.

I have been very disappointed in 20+ year old Bordeaux that many have raved about at the same tasting. I find 89-90 burgundy to be very tried. others love it.

all of my 96 white burgs have turned to shit. some of the people I feed them to think they are great?????????

Personally, I think the '99 Montrose is better than the '02 (based on just one sample of latter). I found the '02 quite tannic personally (not surprising for Montrose), and the '99 more approachable. I have

2008-2014 for my lone bottle of '99, but with decanting it would be fine now.

graham wrote:

Many thanks for your advice! It echoes my suspicions so I think that I'll get a couple of the 99s and possibly the Dame on the assumption that it will be ready sooner. I've bought several 2nd Growth 2nd labels recently to make the wine budget stretch further. Perhaps I'll treat myself to some 1st Growth 2nd labels for xmas (as if I needed an excuse).

Do you really give a shit what Parker thinks?

Well I sure as hell don't give a shit what you think!

most restaurants in this city want to put out a wine list. procuring an aged, deep list is expensive, time consuming, and just about impossible in this city. wash. dc. would have to buy retail.

I sent a couple cases of my '88 richbourg(a real disappointment) to the Chicago auction. the stuff sold by the bottle(for insane prices) over a course of a year, or a year and a half. was told it went onto a couple of restaurant lists, and they replaced the 1 or 2 bottles they carried as they used them.

I have tried to cut deals with some of the restaurants in the area to flesh out their list, but there is no interest.

dino has a great italian list and a decent american list, but still, not too much pre 1998 wine. it is just not available, other than retail and from (junk) collectors.

Good!

One major consideration is one's preference for "aged wines." I appreciate age in many wines, but my wife does not - at least not so much as I. It all depends on the personal palete. If Parker likes a wine with more age, that is not necessarily wrong - just a statement of his personal choice.

Zinfandel is a good example, as it is usually fruit-driven in its youth, and then matures into a totally different wine. Bdx. often does the same, but more so regarding the tannins.

Back to the wife, for a moment. She likes her reds young, but her digestive track really appreciates the age! Interesting dicotomy from my perspective.

Hunt