by Wine Owners
Posted on 2019-05-13
This time of year in the wine trade is always dominated by the Bordeaux en primeur circus. Please see our 2018 ‘In a nutshell' report here. It’s strange really, as en primeur has not made commercial sense for the legions of the swirling and spitting wine trade, let alone the man on the street, for very nearly a decade. En primeur business has shrivelled like a drought savaged grape over the years and there are only a handful of opportunities each year that really make sense. At the time of writing only a few releases have made sense according to our ‘proto-pricing’ (please see jancisrobinson.com), Branaire Ducru, Duhart Milon and Quinault L’Enclos. Palmer sold out quickly (at 2,880 per 12), partly due its rarity (see blog), but also because they have built their brand so brilliantly under the guidance of Thomas Duroux. As a result, Palmer has a strong en primeur following.
In general, the Chateaux are releasing less than ever this year which makes this game ever more senseless. According to one highly experienced trade legend EP is all about building the client base for merchants and clearly the avalanche of similarly persuasive e-mails work to some extent. Experienced wine players are highly selective in the EP arena and returns in the short to medium term are very far and few between. Real scarcity is where it’s at, if you’re hoping for rising prices, and that doesn’t come from en primeur.
| | Level | Month | YTD | 1 Year | 5 Year | 10 Year |
| WO 150 Index | 303 | -0.6% | -2.0% | 6.4% | 57.4% | 83.3% |
| WO Champagne 60 Index | 462.61 | 0.9% | -1.3% | 5.0% | 68.4% | 154.9% |
| WO Burgundy 80 Index | 691.36 | 3.7% | -2.0% | 25.7% | 142.1% | 233.2% |
| WO First Growth Index 75 Index | 276.71 | -0.5% | -2.0% | 2.6% | 45.5% | 71.2% |
| WO Bordeaux 750 Index | 340.71 | 1.0% | 1.7% | 6.3% | 57.5% | 100.3% |
| WO California 85 index | 669.86 | -0.1% | -0.4% | 15.4% | 106.4% | 309.9% |
| WO Piedmont 60 Index | 318.83 | -0.3% | 0.9% | 9.2% | 75.6% | 126.4% |
There were no new themes detected over the month and scarcity is still the biggest driver. Interest in Piedmont is still firm although the monthly movement of the index would suggest otherwise. The same can be said of Burgundy, which is still active but is trading below advertised offer levels, with buyers negotiating harder.
Brexit concerns seem to have been put on hold for now, more through ennui than anything else, which led to some increased activity from U.K. private clients but overall the market trundles along rather than powering up. It’s a time for gentle accumulation on the bid side of the market.
As an aside; several collectors have approached us about reviewing their cellars, mainly to consider what holdings are investment grade and which are not. This has led to most people making the realisation their collections lack structure. The combination of our expertise and the technological support from the platform is proving to be very valuable.
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2019-01-15
Chateau Margaux - ©Wine Owners Ltd.
WO Score: 95
Price: £4,675 per 12
Margaux ’89 has never received great scores from Robert Parker, with five tasting notes at either 89 or 90 points. His last post on the subject, however, was recorded in 2003. Neal Martin has always been more generous, rating the wine between 92 and 95, the last note dated 2010 – so, again, some time ago. In 2008 Jancis Robinson rewarded the wine with a generous 19 points which, as we know, is a high score from her.
The relatively low (and now aged) scores from Parker have probably always depressed the price performance of Margaux ’89. A more recent note from another critic a bit closer to home, from a dinner only a few months ago, yielded this review: “The generosity of the vintage is evident on the nose, yet the accomplishments of this wine are still hidden, and there’s a sense of more to come. That grainy texture and gorgeous spiced finish are surely harbingers of great things in store for future drinking. As a result, a decent investment to boot for a 10-year view: 94+.”
Margaux ‘89 has always been dwarfed by its much acclaimed sister from the ’90 vintage which currently trades at £13,000 per 12. 1989 and 1990 are often coupled for comparative purposes and have thrown up some intriguing pairs, both for tasting and trading purposes, Haut Brion and Petrus being the most fabled.
As the chart below demonstrates, the prices of Margaux ’89 and ’90 started diverging six months ago and the differential has never been wider. This, coupled with our own notes above, gives us good reason to recommend a purchase.
___ 1989
___ 1990
Recommendation: Buy.
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2018-04-19
Wine Owners created proto-prices (first published in this JancisRobinson.com article) to help consumers identify value among en primeur offers. The prices support consumers when buying en primeur, by providing a consistent baseline from which to make purchasing decisions. Confidence in en primeur has been damaged in recent years, by over-inflated release prices and by fraudsters posing as brokers (always check the data, and always check the broker!), so we saw a clear need for a remedy. Each proto-price is the price at which Wine Owners believes a wine should be released in order to make its en primeur offer attractive and worthwhile for the consumer.
©Jonathan Reeve / Wine Owners
Symbiotic EP
En Primeur must be symbiotic to continue thriving; it must benefit both chateau and consumer. Chateau benefits from smoother cash-flow and up-front guaranteed sales. Consumer benefits from a better price – significantly lower than buying two years later at general release. The symbiosis has lost balance slightly in recent years, with release prices rising apparently out of control. We created our proto-prices to help restore some of that balance, by creating informed consumers and collectors. We can't (and shouldn't try to) control the chateaux; they must release their new wine at the price they think best reflects the market, and their position within the market. What we can do, though, is give consumers the data they need to make informed purchasing decisions.
Not If But Which
Proto-prices address each wine individually. The decision is not if to buy wines en primeur, but which ones. If wine X doesn't look like good value, move to wine Y (no, that isn't an encoded hint to buy premier grand cru Sauternes!). And if none of your favourite wines look like good value this year, see below...
Back Vintages to the Future
Proto-prices support en primeur purchasing, and will hopefully help the tradition continue (on a stable path which benefits everyone involved). But if the new vintage of your preferred wine doesn't offer good value this year, adjust your gaze slightly. Caught up in the excitement of buying the new vintage en primeur, many of us forget to check availability and price of back-vintages. The Wine Owners Exchange is brimming with back-vintages you can buy instead. And hopefully, next year, you'll find the 2018 vintage at a more attractive en primeur price (the likelihood of which will significantly increase if enough consumers follow the buying advice in this article).
Proto-prices are based on a combination of solid wine market data and fine-grained knowledge. Last week in Bordeaux, one half of our team tasted tirelessly (well, almost tirelessly) through hundreds of 2017 Bordeaux wines, while at London HQ the other half was busy crunching market data. The combined result of these two efforts is the below table of 2017 proto-prices, featuring the seventy(ish) Bordeaux wines most commonly bought en primeur.
Happy en primeur purchasing, and...let the games begin!
WINE NAME | 2017 PROTO-PRICE | 2016 EP (IB) btl | % CHANGE 17 Vs. 16 | V-AVG * | Actual release price |
| Alter Ego de Palmer | £46.6 | £46.60 | 0% | £53.00 | £48.75 |
| Angelus | £232.05 | £298.00 | -22% | £238.00 | £280 |
| Ausone | £423.5 | £590.83 | -28% | £385.00 | |
| Beausejour Becot | £39.1 | £52.00 | -25% | £34.00 | £42 |
| Beausejour Duffau-Lagarrosse | £55.58 | £85.50 | -35% | £57.00 | £77 |
| Belair-Monange | £71.4 | £115.83 | -38% | £51.00 | £93 |
| Beychevelle | £56.3 | £56.30 | 0% | £68.00 | £52 |
| Calon-Segur | £71.5 | £78.30 | -9% | £65.00 | £61.50 |
| Canon | £65 | £90.80 | -28% | £50.00 | £67.50
|
| Canon La Gaffeliere | £44.85 | £64.17 | -30% | £46.00 | £54 |
| Cheval Blanc | £344.3 | £533.30 | -35% | £313.00 | |
| Clerc Milon | £49.16 | £49.16 | 0% | £52.00 | £52 |
| Clinet Pomerol | £49.73 | £72.00 | -31% | £51.00 | £57.50 |
| Clos Fourtet | £60.5 | £91.67 | -34% | £55.00 | £73 |
| Conseillante | £96 | £155.00 | -38% | £80.00 | £123 |
| Cos d'Estournel | £79 | £110.00 | -28% | £79.00 | £109 |
| de Valandraud | £87.75 | £129.15 | -32% | £90.00 | £100 |
| Domaine de Chevalier | £36.08 | £53.50 | -33% | £37.00 | £43 |
| Ducru-Beaucaillou | £92 | £140.00 | -34% | £92.00 | £124 |
| Duhart-Milon | £47.78 | £53.30 | -10% | £49.00 | £47 |
| Durfort Vivens | £34.65 | £40.33 | -14% | £33.00 | £38 |
| Figeac Saint Emilion | £113.4 | £155.00 | -27% | £81.00 | £123 |
| Gazin | £44.85 | £60.50 | -26% | £46.00 | £58.75 |
| Grand Puy Lacoste | £40 | £60.83 | -34% | £40.00 | £54 |
| Gruaud Larose | £40.95 | £51.67 | -21% | £42.00 | £52 |
| Haut Bailly | £52 | £87.50 | -41% | £52.00 | £74 |
| Haut-Brion | £310.2 | £400.00 | -22% | £282.00 | £355 |
| Haut-Brion Blanc | £583.33 | £583.33 | 0% | £557.00 | £615 |
| La Chapelle de La Mission Haut Brion | £48.4 | £63.33 | -24% | £44.00 | |
| La Fleur Petrus | £129.68 | £165.83 | -22% | £133.00 | £149 |
| La Mission Haut-Brion | £184.6 | £324.16 | -43% | £142.00 | £245 |
| La Mission Haut-Brion Blanc | £451.43 | £466.67 | -3% | £463.00 | £490 |
| La Mondotte | £126.75 | £199.00 | -36% | £130.00 | £119 |
| Lafite Rothschild | £398.72 | £491.66 | -19% | £498.40 | |
| Lafleur | £348.075 | £430.00 | -19% | £357.00 | £445 |
| Lagrange | £29.25 | £35.00 | -16% | £30.00 | £31 |
| L'Aile d'Argent Blanc | £54.17 | £54.17 | 0% | £53.00 | £56 |
| Lascombes | £47.78 | £56.67 | -16% | £49.00 | £52 |
| Le Petit Mouton Rothschild | £133.3 | £133.30 | 0% | £171.00 | £149 |
| Le Pin | £1574.63 | £2,083.00 | -24% | £1,615.00 | |
| L'Eglise-Clinet | £115.5 | £216.67 | -47% | £105.00 | |
| Leoville Barton | £48.75 | £62.50 | -22% | £50.00 | £54 |
| Leoville Las Cases | £113.3 | £175.00 | -35% | £103.00 | £148 |
| Leoville Poyferre | £49.73 | £67.00 | -26% | £51.00 | £55 |
| Les Carruades de Lafite | £125 | £125.00 | 0% | £215.00 | £135 |
| l'Evangile | £82.88 | £131.67 | -37% | £85.00 | £180 |
| L'If | £147.23 | £175.00 | -16% | £151.00 | |
| Lynch Bages | £74.1 | £95.80 | -23% | £76.00 | £74 |
| Malartic-Lagraviere | £33.6 | £40.00 | -16% | £28.00 | £33.30 |
| Malartic-Lagraviere Blanc | £41 | £41.00 | 0% | £32.00 | £42 |
| Margaux | £351.9 | £428.60 | -18% | £306.00 | £360 |
| Monbousquet | £33.15 | £36.67 | -10% | £34.00 | £38 |
| Montrose | £72.6 | £95.00 | -24% | £66.00 | £98 |
| Mouton Rothschild | £334.43 | £411.60 | -19% | £343.00 | £360 |
| Palmer Margaux | £171.6 | £236.60 | -27% | £156.00 | £195.75 |
| Pape Clement | £88.73 | £129.16 | -31% | £91.00 | £63.30 |
| Pape Clement Blanc | £98.33 | £98.33 | 0% | £68.00 | £100.45 |
| Pavie Macquin | £39.98 | £58.33 | -31% | £41.00 | £52 |
| Pavie Saint Emilion | £194.03 | £298.00 | -35% | £199.00 | £280 |
| Pavillon Blanc | £145.83 | £145.83 | 0% | £150.00 | £147 |
| Pavillon Rouge | £133.58 | £115.00 | 16% | £137.00 | £135 |
| Petrus | £1642.88 | £2,666.00 | -38% | £1,685.00 | |
| Pichon Baron | £79.2 | £115.60 | -31% | £72.00 | £98 |
| Pichon Longueville Comtesse de Lalande | £84.7 | £122.50 | -31% | £77.00 | £93 |
| Pontet Canet | £68.4 | £111.67 | -39% | £57.00 | £82 |
| Quintus | £58.5 | £95.80 | -39% | £60.00 | £93 |
| Rauzan Segla | £46.8 | £61.30 | -24% | £48.00 | £54 |
| Smith Haut Lafitte | £50 | £78.00 | -36% | £50.00 | £69 |
| Smith Haut Lafitte Blanc | £73 | £73.00 | 0% | £57.00 | £83 |
| Troplong Mondot | £66 | £100.00 | -34% | £55.00 | £72 |
| Trotanoy | £119.93 | £193.33 | -38% | £123.00 | |
| Vieux Chateau Certan | £128.75 | £196.67 | -35% | £103.00 | |
| AVERAGE REDUCTION FOR A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN | | | -23% | | |
* V-AVG: avg current mkt value 04,06,08,12,14
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2017-04-24
For a detailed overview of the vintage, please see What you need to know about Bordeaux 2016 reds
This year’s Bordeaux 2016 en primeur tasting notes reflect the vintage and its character. You’ll see the same words come up again and again in our tasting notes.
For fruit character, that commonly includes "briar fruit", "cassis" or "blackcurrant" and "sherbetty fruit". Very few showed prune or confit fruit character, and we generally marked these ones down as potentially showing overripe characteristics.
For non-fruit character, it’s "licorice" and "cedar". An Interestingly definitional note: Licorice (or liquorice) is extracted from the root of Glycyrrhiza glabra, a herb whose extract is 50 times sweeter than sugar!
Many of the best wines have a "liqueur-like" refined nose and a similar mouth-feel.
Structurally, a "charge of tannins" is very evident on the attack, often accompanied by a "chewy" finish. This comes from the July/August drought when lack of water led to the plants shutting down and producing correspondingly higher tannins.
The long autumn hang-time with cool nights led to the sense of freshness in the wines. You’ll find lots of wines in my notes that are "mouth-watering", "sappy" and "threaded with acidity".
The finish of the wine is so important when evaluating young, fine (and expensive) wine and this year the finishes are typified by the word "controlled" whilst there was generally very good "insistent" length. It’s that sense of containment and balance on the finish that helps make the best wines so good and sets them apart from the rest.
Further tasting notes will release on the right bank in due course where I did the least tasting, and see these links for what the critics think of St Emilion and Pomerol.
DECANTER - Bordeaux 2016 Right Bank: Anson’s first impression
JANCIS ROBINSON - Bordeaux 2016 : the guide
Picture: Wine Owners Ltd.
SAINT ESTEPHE
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Cos D'Estournel | 98 | * | Cedary, sweet nose. Then a charge of tannin. Firm fruit, progressively building from a cool mid palate to a powerful, broad finish - rather like a fan opening or a peacock's tail slowly revealing its intricate colours. | £££ | Saint Estephe |
| Montrose | 97 | | Liqueur like nose. Cassis and cedar notes in the attack then sweet mouthwatering, very balanced mid palate. Sweet finish. Very fine. | £££ | Saint Estephe |
| Calon Ségur | 97 | * | Blackcurrant nose, airy, structured attack, liqueur-like texture, then rich summer fruits and a warmer than anticipated finish. Nice firm undercurrent nonetheless as the soft tannins push through and bring needed focus to the finale. | £££ | saint Estephe |
| Le Crock | 95 | * | Refined nose, lovely attack, grainy fruit. Tremendous attack and energy. Dark fruit infused with licorice. Complete, large scaled and satisfying. | ££ | saint Estephe |
| Lafon Rochet | 95 | * | This is fine. Spiced, sweet fruit on the attack and mid palate, a big tannic charge and chewy finish. This is long term, big-scaled and really serious. | ££ | Saint Estephe |
| Chateau Phelan Segur | 93 | * | Svelte, dense, lots of freshness, spiced attack. Soyeux, with a point of freshness at the finish. | ££ | Saint Estephe |
| Cos Labory | 93 | * | Good density and attack. Very good complexity to the fruit. Mid weight. Super length. Quite clearly the best since the superb 1990. | ££ | Saint Estephe |
| Ormes de Pez | 92 | * | Seasoned nose, a touch of cassis and cream, glorious cassis fruit and blackcurrant leaf. Great freshness and zesty finish. | ££ | Saint Estephe |
Pagodes | 92 | | Gentle attack, a sweet flourish and a mouthwatering mid-palate. Attractive, if not the most impressive St Estephe this year. | ££ | Saint Estephe |
| Dame de Montrose | 91 | | Lovely attack, good dry fruit, nice lift and fine finish. | ££ | Saint Estephe |
| Meyney | 93 | * | Liqueur-like in its texture, a super attack of cassis crème. Long, intense, well balanced and super-well integrated. I love St Estepehe in 2016 | £ | Saint Estephe |
| Chateau de Pez | 92 | * | Super-vibrant, a little sweeter than some, but nicely done and a great finish. | £ | Saint Estephe |
| Marquis de Calon Segur | 90 | | Evident structure, quite sweet mid-palate but lots of sap to it too to accompany the ripeness, hence the finish coats the lips with a dollop of cassis jam. | £ | Saint Estephe |
| Capberne Casqueton | 89 | | Savoury, attractive attack with good weight, a noticeable intensity, but just a little less energy for me than 2010. Second best ever vintage of this wine. | £ | Saint Estephe |
| Tronquoy Lalande | 89 | | Briar fruit, quite deep, merlot heavy and correspondingly plush. | £ | Saint Estephe |
| Haut Marbuzet | 88 | | It's fine, but in a veritable constellation of terrific St Estephe performances, this is closer to the back of the classroom. | £ | Saint Estephe |
PAUILLAC
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Lafite Rothschild | 99 | * | Subtle, elegant, understated. Buffered tannins, very, very complex fruit with an illuminated fringe of acidity. It's an exercise in balance with a firm, insistent finish. | ££££ | Pauillac |
| Mouton | 98 | | Aromatic, perfumed, sensual nose. Lush, huge, spiced with cloves. Powerful and dense. Very fine complex palate, anise seeds. Amazingly well-integrated tannins. | ££££ | pauillac |
| Latour | 97 | | Restrained nose, fruit attack, buffered tannins, complex with an iron infusion and a touch a meatiness, leading to a firm finish. | ££££ | Pauillac |
| Carruades de Lafite | 96 | * | Mouthwatering attack, Covered, voluminous fruit. Powerful, serious wine. Licorice. Very, very long. Best ever. | ££££ | Pauillac |
| Pichon Longueville Lalande | 99 | * | Subdued nose, then a very refined attack, more backward than many, but there's evident intensity of fruit, a wonderful aromatic quality, with great prickly acidity throughout. Not showy, but extremely impressive in its reserved, elemental state. It feels like it could be a legend in the making. | £££ | Pauillac |
| Pontet Canet | 97 | * | Saline, eucalyptus nose, powerful attack. Sweeter than some others. Unctuous but a beautiful balance. The sweet fruit submerges the considerable tannins. Then a sappy, mouthwatering lift. Pure, powerful and in line with the character of the vintage, a firm finish. | £££ | pauillac |
| Pichon Baron Longeuville | 96 | | Vinous nose. Fine attack and mid palate, showing balance and control. Super-refined. Aromatic, characterful and complete. | £££ | Pauillac |
| Lynch Bages | 96 | * | Deep nose, packed with fruit. Energetic attack. A formidable charge of tannins; chewy, bright attack. Settled, calm finish. | £££ | pauillac |
| Petit Mouton | 93 | | Very fine nose, svelte, integrated, balanced powerful, long and large scaled. | £££ | pauillac |
| Chateau Clerc Milon | 96 | * | Seasoned nose, restrained, quite high acidity. Very mouthwatering and dry. Vinous mid palate. Firm, damsons, réglisse, very svelte finish. Liqueur quality of texture. Very refined but not polished or made-up. | ££ | Pauillac |
| Grand Puy Lacoste | 95 | * | Rich and generous nose, with a touch of licorice. Smooth, supremely balanced wine featuring crystalline fruit. As good as 2010. | ££ | pauillac |
| Réserve de la Comtesse | 94 | * | Vinous nose, perfumed with myrrh, delightfully textured and delicious mid palate. It's hard not to fall in love with this. | ££ | Pauillac |
| D'Armailhac | 94 | | Liqueur-like, fine nose. Good attack. Fine thread of acidity. Sweet mid palate and very controlled, sweet, sappy finish. Lots of tannin, very well integrated. | ££ | pauillac |
| Echo (Lynch Bages) | 92 | | Large-scaled, aromatic fruit, nice grip, sappy, dry mid palate. Characterful. | ££ | Pauillac |
| Chateau Duhart Milon | 91 | | Warm, vinous nose. Quite an overt palate. Slightly bitter twist to the fruit. Quite intense. Powerful tannic charge in the mid-palate. Reminds me of the 89s when they were babies. Ambitious. | ££ | pauillac |
| Chateau Croizet Bages | 91 | | Covered, thickly styled fruit, cedary fresh and insistent, long finish. Cedary and good overall balance. | ££ | Pauillac |
| Chateau Lynch Moussas | 90 | | Iron-infused fruit. A little fierce, but likely to settle down with a bit of bottle age. There is proper intensity there and it's certainly 'real' young wine; a bit disjointed but with the key elements in place. | ££ | Pauillac |
| Pedesclaux | 93 | * | Good concentration, fresh, with a taut citric core. Mouthwatering then the dense fruit kicks in towards the end. Very progressive and very good. Retested May 17: Classical and firm, fresh damsons, spicy, sweet. | £ | Pauillac |
| Lacoste Borie | 90 | | Nice density, good weight, freshness and very silky tannins | £ | pauillac |
| Batailley | 90 | | Pretty, confit fruit. Earlier drinking but delicious for what it is. | £ | Pauillac |
| Grand Puy Ducasse | 89 | | At the sweeter end of the spectrum in the vintage context. | £ | Pauillac |
| Griffons | 89 | | Dense and texturally interesting. Liqueur-like, fruity, and a charge of tannins, that perhaps prematurely curtail the finish. | £ | Pauillac |
| Pibran | 87 | | Slightly odd. A bit of fur on the fruit. A little savoury and wild for my taste. | £ | Pauillac |
| Tourelles de Longueville | | | A bit dull. Uninteresting. | £ | Pauillac |
SAINT JULIEN
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Leoville Las Cases | 96 | | Super aromatic nose. Savoury. Finely crafted fruit, comprising redcurrants, briar and cherry. Cushioned tannins, and a very integrated finish, with an orange-peel lift. | £££ | Saint Julien |
| Ducru Beaucaillou | 95 | | Vinous nose of blackberry leaf and cedar. Bright attack, chewy without a tannic charge of the year seen elsewhere. Very covered in plush fruit, though fresh and with good energy. Blackcurrant and mint. Cushioned tannins. Lovely but perhaps a little polished for so early? | £££ | Saint Julien |
| Chateau Leoville Barton | 95 | * | Lovely firm-fruited attack, intense but not huge. Very fine mid palate Sweet fruited and medium weight. Insistent and elegant. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Chateau Gruaud Larose | 94 | | Cool reserved nose, controlled, fine attack. Very fine tannins. Beautifully balanced. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Branaire Ducru | 94 | | Complete wine, great mouth-coating texture. Big but fine tannins. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Beychevelle | 94 | * | Liqueur-like nose, vivid attack, rich progressive finish but reassuringly controlled. Excellent. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Leoville Poyferré | 94 | | Cedary, saline nose, big cassis and briar fruit, with a touch of warmth. Controlled progression, super-integrated tannins, then a dry tannic charge kicks in with chewy, fresh, matière. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| St. Pierre | 94 | * | Powerful attack and tannins but a sweet and long mid palate. Complete and long. Much better balance than the over-polished 2015. Much better and unforced in 2016. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Langoa Barton | 93 | | Round, sweet mid palate and a mouthwatering finish. Charm and character. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Gloria | 92 | * | Cool nose, fine mid palate, good energy and a citrus lemony finish. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Talbot | 92 | | A bit bigger on the attack than some, but certainly not too sweet, and although a little unknit at this stage, there's a fine sap to the finish and it could evolve into an excellent Talbot. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Chateau Lagrange St Julien | 91 | | Cool restrained nose, super charge of tannins, and a sappy finish. A little bit unknit at this stage to be hyper-critical, but the intensity is there, hence the positive score. | ££ | Saint Julien |
| Clos du Marquis | 90 | | This is very good, peppery, reserved nose, mid weight. Crystalline, crunchy fruit. | £ | Saint Julien |
| Moulin Riche | 89 | | Rich, chewy, with a cocktail of cherry and briar fruit. Gives the impression of being more alcoholic than others. Good length. | £ | Saint Julien |
| Petit Lion | 89 | | Liqueur-like and refined on the palate, quite a bit of acidity and right now, not the longest finish. | £ | Saint Julien |
| Lalande Borie | 88 | | Mid weight, sappy and a reasonable finish. 2010 a better prospect at this level. | £ | Saint Julien |
| la Petite Marquise | 88 | | Cassis nose, creamy and field herbs, including anise on the palate. Approachable and well-balanced with an attractive fresh finish, that is nevertheless on the short side. | £ | Saint Julien |
| Croix de Beaucaillou | 88 | | Vinous, liqueur-like nose, sappy, sweet with soft, svelte fruit. Forward. | £ | Saint Julien |
MARGAUX
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Palmer | 98 | * | Lots of energy, the attack is incredible. 29 ha/ha due to a mildew attack resulting from a miscalculation (too little) of copper treatment on this biodynamic estate. Creamy briar fruit in a mid-weight+ frame. So much more elegant than 2015. Classy firm fruit. Sweet sherbetty mid-palate and an interesting herbaceousness on the finish. Beautiful wine. | ££££ | Margaux |
| Margaux | 96 | | Refined nose, faintly perfumed. Cassis and energetic attack. A less harmonious mid palate than 2015, but still with a at least a good dab of summer pudding emerging with air. More of a sappy character, firm tannins lurking in background but barely surfacing. This could be very good but is somewhat backward today. | ££££ | Margaux |
| Pavillon Rouge | 92 | | Subdued nose, saline. Savoury palate, quite powerful attack. Rather unusual 84% cabernet composition, signaling the ongoing and increasing seriousness of Margaux's second wine, lending some support to its market price. | £££ | Margaux |
| Ego (de Palmer) | 94 | * | Delicious! Croquant fruit, fine lingering finish, Evident purity. | ££ | Margaux |
| Chateau Durfort Vivens | 93 | * | Characterful and grippy. Quite crystalline, crunchy fruit, with black cherry infused mid palate. Chewy finish competes with persistence of fruit on a mid-weight frame. This is different to 2015, that came across as richer and more mineral (iron), but the minerality is still there. Time will tell which is the more satisfying, they are both excellent in their very different ways. Demeter certified this year (French biodynamic certification). | ££ | Margaux |
| Brane Cantenac | 92 | | Rounded, showing as forward in the context of the vintage, back cherry infused mid-palate, lifted by freshness and with a very nice finish. | £ | Margaux |
| Rauzan Segla | 90 | | Very classy as always but it's not 2015. | £ | Margaux |
| Lascombes | 89 | | Nice attack, then mid palate fades away. Maybe just closed? | £ | Margaux |
| Cantenac Brown | 89-91 | | Very nicely balanced, mid weight, not a patch on the 2015. Retasted May 17: Ripe, progressive, spiced and very energetic. This has come on leaps and bounds in 6 weeks since previous tasting. | £ | Margaux |
| Prieuré Lichine | 88 | | Good energy, just lacking character. | £ | Margaux |
| Malescot St. Exupery | 88 | | I worry that there's a bit of a hole in the middle of the palate. | £ | Margaux |
| Kirwan | 88 | | OK, but not as exciting as the rather good 2015. | £ | Margaux |
| D'Issan | 88-91 | | A bit stalky? Not a patch on the marvelously saline 2015. Retasted May 17: lifted and fine. | £ | Margaux |
| Ferriere | 87 | | I love this Chateau for its direct character blending ripe fruit with a classic mould. I'm afraid 2016 isn't one of those vintages I can recommend. You'd be best looking backwards at least 5-10 years for value for money drinking. | £ | Margaux |
MOULIS EN MEDOC
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Mauvesin Barton | 92 | * | Superb texture and good length | £ | Moulis en Medoc |
| Chasse Spleen | 92 | * | Liqueur-like texture, solid mid-palate and a fine finish. Very good indeed, and this should be a sensible buy as it always performs in the secondary market. | £ | Moulis en Medoc |
LISTRAC
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Forcas Borie | 89 | | Superb, fleshy merlot. A lovely near-term wine that should drink on release but has the stuffing to last. A surprise and another good showing for Moulis in 2016. | £ | Listrac |
MEDOC
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Les Grands Chenes | 91 | * | Juicy, fruity nose. Liqueur texture in the mouth with a controlled, fresh, mouthwatering finish. Young vines on what Bernard Magrez describes as a very impressive terroir with a little bit of gradient to it. This is not at all what I was expecting: classical and quite fine for what it is. | £ | Medoc |
| Goulée | 88 | | Quite rich, warm inviting nose, not the longest. | £ | medoc |
| Chapelle de Potensac | 87 | | Savoury nose. Approachable and easy, a certain density notwithstanding, then savouriness on the mid palate and a nice bright finish. Far less serious than Potensac but does that make it any the worse? | £ | Medoc |
| Tour de By | 86 | | No | £ | Medoc |
| Tour St Bonnet | 86 | | No | £ | Medoc |
| Potensac | 86 | | Aromatic attack, a tannic charge and a slightly rustic finish. This is an agitated wine. Big chewy end-game. | £ | Medoc |
PESSAC LEOGNAN
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Mission Haut Brion | 97 | * | Vinous. Round, inviting nose. Aristocratic, juggling dense, firm fruit and a mid-weight+ stature. Fresh mid palate, mouthwatering, a fine thread of acidity coaxes the wine into a long, lingering finale. More approachable than Haut Brion and today all the better for it. | ££££ | Pessac-Leognan |
| Haut Brion | 95 | | Floral notes precede a cool nose of ripe fruit. On the palate the fruit is firm, a little more withdrawn at first than MHB, showing a touch of oak, but the tannins are super-fine. Cool finish despite the obvious lurking size of the wine. Should show more in the future, for now probably quite impressive, and elemental just like 2015 was, not obviously showy. In terms of ranking I's suggest more like 1998 than 1989, and a notch or two below their super-serious and intense 2015. My guess is the quality of the Cabernet Franc last vintage was a step up. | £££ | Pessac-Leognan |
| Carmes Haut Brion | 95 | * | Firm, proper and mouthwatering from partial whole bunches. Very good length. Classy and a standout in Pessac at this level. | ££ | Pessac-Leognan |
| Domaine de Chevalier | 94 | * | Lightly seasoned nose. Firm, fruit, bright aromatic mid palate and finale. Sherbetty and refreshing. Fine tannins. Nicely judged weight. | ££ | pessac-Leognan |
| Clarence de Haut Brion | 90 | | Fruity accessible nose, touch of white pepper. Textured entry allied to a lightness of feel, then a touch of warmth and caramel on the finish. | ££ | pessac-Leognan |
| La Chapelle de La Mission Haut-Brion | 90 | | Vinous, fine tannins, crystalline fruit, and a licorice twist towards the back of the mid palate. Mid weight and delicious. | ££ | Pessac-Leognan |
| Pape Clément | 90 | | I fell in love with Pape Clément last year. It had such exceptional balance, lift and class. The terroir truly expressed itself combined with a velour quality to the fruit and great definition thanks to its freshness. 2016 is a step backwards, with hints of over-ripeness within the rich fruit, and (for me) missing a sense of place. | ££ | pessac Leognan |
| Malartic La Graviere | 91 | * | Superb, mid weight and moorish claret with gently sweet mid palate. | £ | Pessac-Leognan |
| La Louviere | 89 | | Good mid weight, with some intensity and charm | £ | pessac-Leognan |
| Esprit de Chevalier | 89 | | Aromatic character, present tannins and graves like dry finish. | £ | Pessac-Leognan |
| Solitude | 88 | | Mid weight and nicely balanced | £ | pessac-Leognan |
| Espault Martillac | 88 | | Padded savoury fruit. | £ | pessac-Leognan |
| Chateau Carbonnieux | 88 | | A bit rustic | £ | Pessac-Leognan |
SAINT EMILION
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Cheval Blanc | 96 | | Subdued nose, stony and earthy. Very fine mid palate, progressive, aromatic attack, juicy dark licorice and spiced finish. | ££££ | Saint Emilion |
| Figeac | 99 | * | Perfumed nose with jasmine. Energetic attack. Cedary mid palate. Fresh pithy attack. Then chewy bitter, dark cherry conclusion. This is excellent. A bit less of an eager labrador than 2015, it misses the rich summer pudding quality of last year but has greater elegance and is nigh on perfect. | £££ | Saint Emilion |
| Petit Cheval | 91 | | Liqueur textured elegance, leading to a dark, slightly pruney finish | £££ | Saint Emilion |
| Quintus | 91 | | Sweet fruited nose, good volume, nicely done. | ££ | Saint Emilion |
| Quinault L'Enclos | 95 | * | Great fruity nose, very aromatic. Lovely liqueur like mouth feel on a river of flavour. Effortless and fine. Highly recommended. | £ | Saint Emilion |
| Corbin | 93 | * | Quite fat, red fruit predominate, super intensity, quite creamy. Bramble and sloe. Very good. | £ | Saint Emilion |
| Destieux | 92 | * | Liqueur eau de vie nose, character and energy, good intensity and a properly chewy finish. This will be good value. | £ | Saint Emilion |
| Fombrauge | 89 | | Good intensity, tannic charge and grainy texture, with a slightly loose finish | £ | Saint Emilion |
| Le Dragon de Quintus | 89 | | Fruity nose, firm fruited palate. | £ | Saint Emilion |
| Labergorce | 87 | | Savoury, some intensity, cherry finish but slightly rustic | £ | Saint Emilion |
| Saintayme | 87 | | Powerful, lifted attach, with a very firm, slightly bitter mid-palate. (Was this a bad tasting moment of mine?) | £ | Saint Emilion |
| La Dominique | 87 | | Middle of the road, nothing to complain about - or to get excited about. 2015 considerably better. | £ | Saint Emilion |
POMEROL
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Vieux Chateau Certan | 97 | *
| Reserved nose, with a lovely infusion of eau de vie. There is a very substantial tannic charge in the mid palate, with plenty of intense dark, covered fruit and licorice to compete. Impressive but my guess is that will be a pretty backward wine for years to come. | £££ | Pomerol |
| Eglise Clinet | 95 | | Intense, firm, backward, impressive. | £££ | Pomerol |
| Conseillante | 95 | | Seasoned nose, cool. Creamy and dense cassis fruit, the attack is rather aromatic. The expansive mid palate is spiced. Chewy but soft and silken tannins on the progressively rich finish. Rich yet there's a crystalline aspect; a control and focus that constrains the eager fruit. | £££ | Pomerol |
| l'Evangile | 92 | | Dark hued and correspondingly darker flavours than many in 2016. Cassis, mulberries and a hint of plum. There's a certain freshness that duels with a little warmth on the finish, like a welcome current of air alleviating an otherwise hot day. Those who enjoy bigger wines will attract to L'Evangile. | £££ | Pomerol |
| Petit Villages | 95 | *
| Cedar nose, cool. Liqueur like texture, the fruit infused with eau de vie. Super charge of tannins, racy balanced and elegant. Is this the best Petit-Villages ever? | ££ | pomerol |
| Vray Croix de Gay | 92 | *
| Reserved, elegant with a fine finish. Good vinosity. | ££ | Pomerol |
| Chateau Rouget | 92 | | Good definition, intensity and freshness | ££ | Pomerol |
| Petite Eglise | 90 | | An exercise in restraint for the vintage, but for now it presents as a bit angular. (Was this a bad tasting moment of mine?) | £ | Pomerol |
| Chateau Beauregard | 89 | | Nice control on he finish though comes across as a little monolithic | £ | pomerol |
| Chateau La Pointe | 88 | | Big attack, sticky ripe fruit, quite monolithic | £ | Pomerol |
LALANDE DE POMEROL
| Producer | Score | Favourited | Description | Price bracket | Appellation |
| Siaurac | 92 | * | Classy, balanced, controlled, rich and delicious. | £ | Lalande de Pomerol |
| la Chenade | 88 | | Mid weight, sappy, pure, grippy bitter fruit. Good length and satisfying finish. What I don't get is a specific character. | £ | Lalande de Pomerol |
| Cruzelles | 87 | | Bitter cherry, a little drying in the mid palate ((Was this a bad tasting moment of mine?) | £ | Lalande de Pomerol |
Picture: Wine Owners Ltd.
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2016-12-13
2015 is the best Northern Rhone vintage in 55 years, according to this article on JancisRobinson.com. That’s some statement given the quality of vintages over the last 15 years or so, including the superb 1999, which at the top end is just coming into its drinking window.
Great though 2015 is, it isn’t going to satisfy drinking requirements in the short term, even at more modest levels, whereas my bottle of Chave Offerus (St. Joseph) 1999 is melt-in-the-mouth gorgeous now.
Outside of the Rhone elite and their blue chip labels that can appreciate markedly in value over the medium-to-longer term, along with some of the region’s special cuvees and bottlings, these are not wines to use as a store of value. They do not appreciate in value. They are wines to enjoy. But they need time to come around. As impressive as new vintages are, they express in youth only a general sense of the wine they will become.
In our estimation these are wines that are depressingly under-appreciated. As you’d expect from such a large region of production, styles vary enormously. They variously show varietal character, complexity, precision, texture, and depth of flavour with more than just a touch of minerality.
If you’ve not tasted mature white Rhone recently, you could well find the waxy texture, floral and white peach character refreshingly braided with acidity an exciting experience. For the quality and complexity these great wines offer, many are cheap. Not a word I use lightly, but they really are terrific value and hold their own in the company of any of the world’s great whites.
Though it’s tempting to buy into great new releases, and potentially worthwhile at the top of the tree, there’s no kudos in hanging onto cases of wine and paying a decade or two’s worth of storage, when you can drink the real thing without playing stockholder.
There really is something for everyone.
View Rhone offers on the exchange
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2016-08-19
It has been said by some wise sage that 1% of people care way too much about wine and 99% of people don’t care enough. This rings true, and I thought it would be interesting to investigate why this is.
Most of my friends and peers drink wine. With sufficient regularity to alarm the British Medical Council in many cases. And most of them drink rubbish. Seriously – any £5 bottle will do the trick normally, and the second cheapest wine on the restaurant wine list is pretty much as far as they go.
This baffles me.
OK, so not everyone is going to spend a fortune on a wine collection, or consult Parker or Robinson for every wine buying decision, but it is really simple to drink more interesting wines without breaking the bank or having to do hours of painstaking research.Here are a few rules of thumb, aimed at buying wine in a restaurant (assuming it isn’t one of the growing numbers that allow you to BYO for a modest corkage).
1) The cheapest wines normally have the highest % mark-ups, and the second cheapest wine normally has the highest mark-up. Restaurateurs know how people make buying decisions, so be aware of the relative lack of value.
2) The first few wines on a list will have tendency to be ‘neutral’ in style, as they are likely to be bought to match all foods. One size fits all is not the best way to approach buying wine – think about what you are going to order.
3) Don’t be afraid to buy by the glass. Technology such as Coravin means a far wider array of wines can be sampled, so you can avoid just plumping for a bottle of NZ Sauvignon Blanc, or a bog standard Rioja, and narrowing your options. Why not order a suitable wine for every course of you meal?
4) Look for exotic grape varieties or little known regions – these are likely to be the sommelier’s attempts to stamp their expertise and personality on the wine list, and will likely be good value and interesting. Think Greece, Portugal, Austria, or regions like Swartland in South Africa or Salta in Argentina.
5) Embrace the joys of dessert wines. Seriously, sweet wines are amazing things that are criminally overlooked. A little bit of ‘sticky’ at the end of your meal is always a good thing!
6) If the restaurant has a sommelier, get their opinion. Don’t be afraid to ask seemingly silly questions. These guys are there to ensure you get the most enjoyment from your meal.
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2015-12-09
Robert Parker has consistently highlighted low yields over the years as a key indicator of quality. It’s a belief over which he’s been challenged by producers and experts alike.
But is he wrong? Are low yields a prerequisite for wines of character and nuance that we so crave, or is this just a red herring seized upon by eager wine writers whose understanding of winemaking techniques are inadequate?
Jordon Ross of Oenology International points to a run of vintages where the worst wines from the key regions of Bordeaux, Burgundy and California were made from lowest production vintages, whereas the best wines came from those where production was highest.
His misgivings, and those of producers he interviews such as Dominique Lafon, are down to the belief that low yields sell wine and that old vines do not necessarily produce better wines than young vines.
M. Lafon highlights an extreme case to argue that view “Some producers here are talking low yields but with so many dead vines in their vineyards that it’s nonsense, it means nothing.”
That’s as maybe, but let’s not allow rotten vineyard husbandry to define the argument and allow the rejection of the notion that low yields might nonetheless be an important factor behind quality.
I for one am more than happy to accept that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, that my own technical base - like the know-how of most collectors - is relatively scant, and that it’s easy to grossly oversimplify.
However, I do possess one means of very subjectively putting the question to the test, and that’s my palate. When all is said and done, surely that’s what matters most?
Burgundy seems to be a particularly good and topical reference point when discussing yields given the run of low yield vintages the region endured 2010-2014.
The true colours of a fine wine show with age, long after they've been evaluated by tasters in their first blush of youth (or in the case of Burgundy as échantillons untimely plucked from the comfort of their oak casks).
Vintages blessed with good production volumes and generally fine weather - 1990 and 1999 being prime examples that were lauded upon release - whilst studded with beautiful wines, contain as many examples that are bland and fruity, but fall short of complex or exciting.
On the other hand, there are many wines from low-yielding vintages characterised as difficult or gawky upon release, which 15-20+ years on show a level of intensity and aromatic complexity that are more than a match for the bigger, ‘better’ vintages. For example, there are truly wonderful wines from 1998 (Gouges, Barthod, Bachelet, Mortet) that at release were described (correctly in my view) by Jancis Robinson as ‘tough and stolid’. 18 years on, and they have matured into exceptionally complex, deeply toned wines.
Seeking out the best producers is a must of course, since there are great, good, average and awful ones irrespective of anything else.
Talking of great, no one does it better in Barolo than Roberto Giacomo. His transparent Monfortino 2002, with its tiny yields from a dismal vintage, is a very special wine of weightless proportions. It will never be mistaken for a hot year like 1997 or 2004, but so what? The wine has a rare aromatic subtlety and sweetness that makes it a rarity.
So what of more recent vintages? Bill Nanson talks about 2012 red Burgundy as a vintage visited by ‘the four horsemen of the apocalypse’! It wasn’t easy and yields were considerably reduced. Will it prove to be a great vintage? I believe so, with the best wines surely destined to be as good as 2010 or 2005. There is a fabulous vitality to the vintage that ought to see the best examples blossom into wines of great character.
As if that wasn’t bad enough from a vigneron perspective, 2013 was worse: an exceptionally low yielding year, blighted by a summer that only dared speak its name in July. Although the wines can seem lean and dry at times (evident in January 2015’s échantillons in London), on another day from barrel in situ they show fine, sappy, delineated fruit.
Even though 2013s have higher acidity levels and bright flavours, my guess is that the miserly yields and consequent concentration of juice will compensate over time and make some fine older bones, unlike the much higher-yielding 1996 vintage which remains angular and more often than not lacking.
So far we’ve discussed low yields resulting from nature’s hand.
When it comes to the age of vines and yields per vine, it seems to me the argument is rather more clear-cut. Assuming the producer puts the necessary time and effort into vineyard husbandry, older vines and the naturally occurring lower yields seem to very obviously impart intensity and complexity to the end result. When Clive Coates talks about ‘creamy old vine flavour’ I get what he’s describing.
So, whilst accepting that low yields per se do not necessarily mean good wine, to deny its very significant contribution to creating truly great wines and their appreciation seems unnecessary.
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2015-08-06
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2015-06-07
Which wine writers exert the most influence over consumer purchasing decisions of fine wine?
It’s a question we’ve often been asked, and one we wanted to understand in context of what kind of recommendations influence consumers’ fine wine buying decisions.
To find out, we teamed up with Spiral Cellars, and organised a structured research programme through Effective Research. The fine wine purchasing influence ranking is based on 244 questionnaire responses.
We discovered that consumers rely on multiple recommendation sources, and even the least relied-upon source is quite significant in influencing purchases. This also suggests that social media influence is real, and can indirectly contribute towards buying decisions.
There is nonetheless a clear, favorable bias towards online sources, with the subscription sites of leading critics exerting the greatest sway over consumers.
Which critics and bloggers, if any, are you most likely to base a proportion of your buying decisions on?
When it comes to informing a proportion of buying decisions, Robert Parker is the clear winner with more than half of all respondents likely to buy based on his reviews. Neal Martin, his successor for new Bordeaux releases and leading Burgundy critic, is relied upon by 29% of respondents, with Jancis Robinson in a very strong second place position on 49%.
Vinous (Antonio Galloni on 26% and Stephen Tanzer on 17%) showed complementary strength, with Burghound (Allen Meadows) registering 22% and Tim Atkin on 20%.
Whilst consumers have their favourites, their buying decisions will be influenced by a number of critics and writers.
by Wine Owners
Posted on 2015-03-16
With Robert Parker handing over the reins of Bordeaux Primeurs tasting to Neal Martin, what are the implications?
The first, most obvious, change is Neal’s palate.
However objective a critic may be, his or her palate and personal preferences inevitably play a big part. Where Parker excelled was at getting his impressions across in a particularly accessible and descriptive way; not easy when tasting barrel samples. The temptation is to describe a wine in its elemental state elementally, which isn't that interesting to read. He described its future, and over the years demonstrated he was rather good at that.
His personal preferences may have veered towards a sunnier style of wine, but he tended to let the wine buyer know if a wine was stylistically towards one end of the spectrum or another. But it must be very hard to award a great score to a wine that doesn’t move you viscerally, and to that extent personal preferences must come into play.
Martin’s tasting preferences are naturally more European than Parker’s, and is perhaps more likely to be dazzled by finesse and complexity over power, texture and rich fruit. This is a gross oversimplification for sure, but perhaps suffice to say his evaluations will be his own.
The second is winemaking trends.
The trend back towards a more classical form of winemaking is already underway (allied to far better vineyard husbandry than was broadly the case when Parker started out – he is often attributed with raising standards). Use of new oak is being moderated at many Chateaux, and régisseurs are looking at ways to fully express and nuance their amazing terroirs, sub-plots and micro-climates whilst making the most of Bordeaux’s inherent ability to bear and bottle the most age-worthy wines in the world.
The tendency of the late 1980s and 1990s towards making and showing the kind of wines proprietors thought would garner the best scores early on is on the wane. If the world’s leading critics and evaluators of young Bordeaux favour a finer-boned vernacular, this will be reflected in the market, which is more likely than not to reward those styles of wine with the greatest demand.
The third change is context.
Back in the early 1980s there was no Internet, market transparency was therefore limited and the market was much narrower than today’s. Can another critic, however good, assume the same degree of importance and purchasing influence over a market in the way that Parker has achieved? If so, will they come from Europe or do they have to be American? Or Asian?
Will crowdsourcing views and reviews become a proxy for the next leading critic of his or her generation, a perspective that arises with the growing importance of the Internet? I wonder. Some may argue that buyers are too ready in our online age to trust the word of a virtual room-full of complete strangers over the words of an advisor or friend. Whilst such principles may work well for holiday destinations or white goods manufacturers, it’s tougher to see how this will ultimately prevail for the finest of fine wine. How experienced is the taster, do they have a bank of reference points in respect of tasting young wines, and can they draw parallels between what a wine tasted like when in barrel compared with 10-15 years on? Can they recognise the future evolution of a young wine, see similarities and differences, then context (and visualise) the next young wine they taste accordingly? What does it mean when experienced tasters say that great wine is born great? What does great taste like? What’s the palate preference of each taster; where on the spectrum do they sit?
That’s an awful lot of questions to ask of a crowd, especially when most of them have day jobs. Broadly, people may not care about all that of course; but people into their fine wine, and making spending decisions based on the judgement of others, will care. That’s why evaluators of fine wine such as Neal Martin, Jancis Robinson, Stephen Tanzer, Antonio Galloni, Tim Atkin, Will Lyons, and many other talented writers (see here) matter so much.
What could be somewhat significant in turning reputation and influence into market impact is the business model deployed. What I wonder is this: with the Internet capable of coalescing huge audiences and showing the true - often massively underestimated - size of market niches, will blanket subscription firewalls allow wine writers to maximise market influence?
How experts in general monetise their high value content may yet change over the next few years, perhaps in a parallel way that the music business experienced a profound shift from selling records to selling bums on seats and festival tickets. Will the experiential become the bigger money-spinner? How the world’s critics engage with their audience and allow them an element of participation and dialogue may prove decisive for the next Parker, if there is to be one. Being social web savvy can only but help.
The fourth change may be the end to ‘wait and see’.
If the Chateaux knew Robert Parker was coming to Bordeaux, they might hold off from releasing until his scores were known, and the job of negociant and merchant alike was simplified, if sometimes a little delayed.
When Parker didn't come to town within a few months of the new vintage, the market reflected the collective views of the wine industry that had tasted samples most frequently (producers, courtiers, negociants, importers) and added a dose of realism to do with the macro-economic context. Price differentials within a set of wines (e.g. First Growths) were narrower. So, famously, 1990 was priced cheaply in the recession of 1991 as was 2008 in the post-Lehmann, financially sclerotic environment of 2009.
In the short term at least, all the leading critics will turn up to taste on time and publish on time. The extent to which they will collectively or individually influence prices (and demand) remains to be seen, but it would be more surprising if they didn’t have at least some bearing on the market. Producers are more likely to have made up their mind on pricing based on their qualitative assessments early on, and perhaps we shall all be spared interminably long campaigns.
