The Auswine Forum

Apparently the 2004 Australian issue of Parker's Wine Advcoate was mailed yesterday from the States. Not sure exactly how long it takes to arrive, but have heard that Noon received 99 (Res Shiraz) 96 (Res Cab) & 97 (Eclipse) for the 2002 vintage.

Always an interesting time of the year, as like him or not, his impact is huge.

If anyone has any further scores, would be interested to hear them.

I have timed it - The printed version takes about as long as it takes for them to put the electronic version up online - Makes it more cost effective to only subscribe to eBob then.

Scoob - see my dead arm post

Greetings:

My understanding is that the Amon Ra and Mitolo 2003s did extremely well, at least for the shiraz wines. Similarly Kalleske had huge numbers.


Cheers,


Arvin(AJ)

I think we have not recovered from the Duck Muck/Draycott Reserve excitement of Parker high scores in Australia.

High Parker scores, amongst Australian wines, quite common now.

I was fortunate enough to have a couple of wine holidays last year- Alsace, Middle Mosel and the Rhone. I was surprised at how common it was to stagger upon wines with high Parker scores. The wines were often enough, freely available from cellar door, and at a modest Parker created inflation value-Chapoutier had dozens of wines, with scores between 95 and 100pts, on offer.

Parker points in the high 90's, will soon be as common numerically, as Hallidays high 90's.

Thankfully, the days of Duck Muck/Burge Family hysteria are over!

Anyone got any hints as to how to get on Noon's mailer?

markg wrote:I have timed it - The printed version takes about as long as it takes for them to put the electronic version up online - Makes it more cost effective to only subscribe to eBob then.

Mark what does it cost for eBob in AUD? I finally signed up in the middle of this year and pay a little less than $10USD/month. Still I've also decided to buy the single printed issue of the Aussie report. At $12USD (incl. shipping and tax) its not cheap and it should be put online immediately or even before its posted out. No wonder he predicts it will take 10 years for the internet to catch on in the wine world.

Just a little note on scores. There was a time, not that long ago, when a wine that scored 90 points or better (by WA or WS in particular) was regarded as a gotta have wine. Currently it seems that if you score in the low 90s its no big deal. It would be interesting, for someone with a lot of time on their hands, to see if the percentage of wines that WA and WS give high scores has changed over the last decade. For Aussie wines the increase in high scoring wines may also reflect the big increase in the number of wines that we see over here.

And just one little point about the Parker scoring system. He gives 50 points to every wine, color and appearance up to 5 points, aroma and bouquet up to 15 points, flavor and finish up to 20 points, and finally up to 10 points for "the overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement—aging". This last category is interesting not only because it scores two properties that I don't believe have ever been scientifically linked - quality and aging potential, but it also gives him an out when scoring a high scoring wine wine later in its life. In other words if you give the 2002 Noon 99/100 in 2004 then it probably scored a 9 or 10 in the last category. But when you taste this wine in 2020 the aging potential is now significantly reduced, while the quality will be a variable factor - it may be improved, the same or reduced. Parker is said to taste non-blind and, having a subscription to eBob, I believe he writes his notes with previous notes before him (either that or he or his secretary are really bad at cutting and pasting tasting notes). So if he ever does retaste the Noon in 2020 he'll know its the 2002 Noon and that he gave it 99 and the 2020 score won't fall far from that tree. If pressed about it I think he would argue that over time quality replaces aging potential. And of course the masses won't argue. But quality is one aspect, and aging potential is something else and they should really be scored separately. My own opinion is that aging potential should not be scored, commented on, guessed at, but not scored.

Finally anyone game to give the scores the Kalleskes received?

Mike

Troy (Kalleske) did very well, all in the mid to high 90's.

Deserved.

According to another forum, Greenock Creek has received some ridiculous scores.
1998 Roen Road CS and Shiraz - 100
2001 Apricot Block 99+
2001 Alice's - 98

6 of the 8 wines rated were between 98 & 100!

Prices are already starting to move on langtons!

Scoobinski wrote:According to another forum, Greenock Creek has received some ridiculous scores.
1998 Roen Road CS and Shiraz - 100
2001 Apricot Block 99+
2001 Alice's - 98

6 of the 8 wines rated were between 98 & 100!

Prices are already starting to move on langtons!

A good time to have 01 Greenock Creeks sitting in langtons!!!!

Gavin Trott wrote:

Scoobinski wrote:According to another forum, Greenock Creek has received some ridiculous scores.
1998 Roen Road CS and Shiraz - 100
2001 Apricot Block 99+
2001 Alice's - 98

6 of the 8 wines rated were between 98 & 100!

Prices are already starting to move on langtons!

A good time to have 01 Greenock Creeks sitting in langtons!!!!

Thats for sure...I suppose I need to re-evaluate all my reserves and price ranges now for my November auction - rats

With wines like these Mark, no reserves r needed.
Will there be a ceiling?:lol:

Scoobinski wrote:According to another forum, Greenock Creek has received some ridiculous scores.
1998 Roen Road CS and Shiraz - 100
2001 Apricot Block 99+
2001 Alice's - 98

6 of the 8 wines rated were between 98 & 100!

Prices are already starting to move on langtons!

Never had a Parker 98er. Hmmm, if I'm really lucky today I might still be able to find the 2001 Alice's for about $50USD.

Mike