The wine still has fairly deep color with not much evidence of age
around the rim. There is some herbal character in the bouquet and
something somewhat like slightly burned cassis jam. There still is a bit
of tannin, and enough acid, but far less than in many of the 1975s. It
is quite drinkable, but not of classified Bordeaux quality, much less
first growth quality. This wine should have been sold off to be part of
a regional blend.

The critics may have a bit of crow to eat concerning some of their early
reviews of the 75s. In an earler report Parker rated the 75 Margaux as
68 and in his 91 book expected it to be in serious decline. It has
lasted much better than he expected. Broadbent recently rates it as 3
out or 4 star, and Coates recently rated it as 13/20.

However in his 91 book, Parker still rates the 75 Lafite as 96 ! and
gave an anticipated maturity of up to 2010. Coates now rates it as 14/20
in need of drinking. Broadbent recently gave it a rating of 3 out of 5
star and did not expect improvement. I have not seen a recent rating
from Parker. It would be interesting to see if he has eaten crow, or if
he still stands by his old rating from 1991.

Parker rants about the 61 Lafite in his 91 book and gives it only an 84
rating. However Broadbent now gives it a 5 out of 5 star at the best,
indicating there has been some bottle variation. Coates recently rated
it as 19.5/20. Either Parker has been unfortunate over the years to get
bottles not at their best, or he has a taste very out of tune with many
other critics, especially in Europe. I have not seen a recent rating of
the 61 Lafite by Parker. He may need to eat 2 crows for his earlier
evaluation. I really pay no attention to what Parker has to say about
Bordeaux anymore.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

(Cwdjrx _) wrote:

> The wine still has fairly deep color with not much evidence of
> age around the rim. There is some herbal character in the
> bouquet and something somewhat like slightly burned cassis jam.
> There still is a bit of tannin, and enough acid, but far less
> than in many of the 1975s. It is quite drinkable, but not of
> classified Bordeaux quality, much less first growth quality.
> This wine should have been sold off to be part of a regional
> blend.

Which seems to be very much in line with what most (all?) critics
say.

> The critics may have a bit of crow to eat concerning some of
> their early reviews of the 75s. In an earler report Parker rated
> the 75 Margaux as 68 and in his 91 book expected it to be in
> serious decline. It has lasted much better than he expected.
> Broadbent recently rates it as 3 out or 4 star,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Apparently I don't quite get what you mean (typos?), but Broadbent
rates this wine 3 out of 5 stars.

> and Coates recently rated it as 13/20.

Which seems to be reasonable in this light.

> However in his 91 book, Parker still rates the 75 Lafite as 96 !
^^^^^^^

What has Lafite to do with Margaux? And what do you mean with
"still"? Because he didn't change his mind since the 1st edition
from 1985? In Parker's 3rd edition (1998), Lafite 1975 is rated
"92?", in his 4th edition (2003) it's "90?" - note the question
marks!

> and gave an anticipated maturity of up to 2010.

Not mentioned in the 3rd and 4th edition.

> Coates now rates it as 14/20 in need of drinking. Broadbent
> recently gave it a rating of 3 out of 5 star and did not expect
> improvement.

Didn't check Coates, but you're right with Broadbent.

> I have not seen a recent rating from Parker. It would be
> interesting to see if he has eaten crow, or if he still stands
> by his old rating from 1991.

There heve been two(!) recwent editions where he made up his mind.

> Parker rants about the 61 Lafite in his 91 book and gives it
> only an 84 rating. However Broadbent now gives it a 5 out of 5
> star at the best, indicating there has been some bottle
> variation.

Broadbent is well-known for being an unabashed Lafite lover.

> Coates recently rated it as 19.5/20. Either Parker has been
> unfortunate over the years to get bottles not at their best, or
> he has a taste very out of tune with many other critics,
> especially in Europe. I have not seen a recent rating of the 61
> Lafite by Parker.

Both the 1998 and the 2003 edition show the same score.

> He may need to eat 2 crows for his earlier evaluation. I really
> pay no attention to what Parker has to say about Bordeaux
> anymore.

And I cannot follow your conclusion.

M.

My conclusion is that I do not consider Parker as a reliable critic for
making a decision to buy younger Bordeaux based on what I consider his
major failures on prediction of the eventual quality of major first
growth Bordeauxs in the past wth the 1961 and 1975 Lafite being the most
extreme examples. Many bought large amounts of the 1975 Lafite in the US
at a very inflated price for the time based on Parker's ratings.
Fortunately I only bought 3 bottles of this swill. I talked to a local
reporter who decided not to buy any because he considered the
development of it in question and the price too inflated. Parker also
probably discouraged many from buying the 1961 Lafite while it was still
somewhat in a reasonable price range with his early rants about it.
Parker did hit fairly well on the 1982's, and this probably was his main
claim to fame. I no longer bought any Parker books after his 1991 one
and did not read his newsletter. I considered Parker dangerous to my
bank account when it comes to Bordeaux. For writers publishing in
English, I find Coates in his Vine and his books the most reliable for
younger Burgudy and Bordeaux. Broadbent often is the best source for
older wines. Parker does have useful information for Rhone and
California wines.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

Typo. "I talked to a local reporter..." should be "I talked to a local
importer." The importer could have made considerable money on 1975
Lafite if he had decided to carry it. He liked wine, and in at least
this case, he put what he considered quality considerations and value
ahead of a quick profit. This is the same importer who made special
arrangements with his shipper in Germany to have mixed cases of 1976
TBA and BA Rieslings for me sent to him. These wines usually were sold
only in full cases, but the importer was a very good customer of the
German exporter. Unfortunately this importer no longer is in business.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

Typo. "I talked to a local reporter..." should be "I talked to a local
importer." The importer could have made considerable money on 1975
Lafite if he had decided to carry it. He liked wine, and in at least
this case, he put what he considered quality considerations and value
ahead of a quick profit. This is the same importer who made special
arrangements with his shipper in Germany to have mixed cases of 1976
TBA and BA Rieslings for me sent to him. These wines usually were sold
only in full cases, but the importer was a very good customer of the
German exporter. Unfortunately this importer no longer is in business.

My mailbox is always full to avoid spam. To contact me, erase
from my email address. Then add . I do not
check this box every day, so post if you need a quick response.

In message >
(Cwdjrx _) wrote:

> My conclusion is that I do not consider Parker as a reliable critic for
> making a decision to buy younger Bordeaux based on what I consider his
> major failures on prediction of the eventual quality of major first
> growth Bordeauxs in the past with the 1961 and 1975 Lafite being the most
> extreme examples. Œ.

Besides which you have to like wine of the style which he likes or else use
his recommendations only as a guide to what to avoid. Anyone who believes it
possible — objectively — to distinguish between 95 and 96 or 97 when
talking about something as subjective as wine even if there was no such
thing as tasting conditions, cuvée to cuvée, or bottle to bottle, variation,
must surely have cause to think again after a relatively short time tasting wine.
Unfortunately the ratings seem to affect people‘s decisions as to whethr to buy
and, worse, affect the decisions of some growers as to how to make wines.
If those who had admired and followed Parker are now beginning a perod of either
atheism or agnosticism I for one shall rejoice and hope to see his influence diminish
before my beloved St. Emilion is further affected by disease worse than coulure or even
phylloxera.

Timothy Hartley

(Cwdjrx _) wrote:

> My conclusion is that I do not consider Parker as a reliable
> critic for making a decision to buy younger Bordeaux based on
> what I consider his major failures on prediction of the eventual
> quality of major first growth Bordeauxs in the past wth the 1961
> and 1975 Lafite being the most extreme examples.

My conclusion is exact the opposite. Since the vintage of 1997 I
have been doing cask samples regularly, and I find my findings
*very* close to Parker's - with the evident exception of oxidized
cask samples both of us encounter. But this concerns a one figure
bandwidth percentage.

Maybe you shoud start to read younger editions of his Bordeaux
books instead of bashing him based on his early writings.

M.

>I find it very reliable that if Parker hates it and the Wine Spectator
>loves it it will be available, inexpensive and delicious. A high Parker
>rating and a low WS rating tends to turn me off.

Parker is quite consistent - you can calibrate your palate against his, whether
or not you share his preferences in wine.

The Wine Speculator has all sorts of people tasting, many of whom seem to lack
the first clue about the sorts of wine they taste and review.

Their reviews of many traditional Italian wines, for instance, are a joke.

>I find it very reliable that if Parker hates it and the Wine Spectator
>loves it it will be available, inexpensive and delicious. A high Parker
>rating and a low WS rating tends to turn me off.

Parker is quite consistent - you can calibrate your palate against his, whether
or not you share his preferences in wine.

The Wine Speculator has all sorts of people tasting, many of whom seem to lack
the first clue about the sorts of wine they taste and review.

Their reviews of many traditional Italian wines, for instance, are a joke.