At the same time as the 2007 scores, Parker released his 'final' 2005 scores, after retasting.
There are some suprising comparisons with other years, if you can excuse me getting technical for a minute - particularly when you think about the prices 2005 are going for.
For example:
Lafite in 2005 scored 96 (re-tasted score)
The 1996, 2000 and 2003 all have 100 points.
Latour in 2005 also got 96 points.
The 2003 got 100 points.
Mouton got 96 in 03 and 05.
Margaux got 98 points for 05, but got 100 points in 2000 and 1990.
Haut Brion got 98 points in 05, and the same in 2000.
Ausone got 100 points in 2000, 2003 and 2005, so seems fairly safe investment!
Petrus got 100 points in 2000 and 96 points in 05.
Le Pin got 98 points in 2000 and 93 points in 05.
Cheval Blanc got 100 points in 2000 and 96 in 2005
Mission Haut Brion got 100 points in 2000 and 97 points in 2005.
My point is just that these wines in 2005 are being called the best vintage for the past 30 years (in Parker's own words, best in his career), and are being traded at enormous sums (check out any of these on www.wine-searcher.com - Lafite for example about £10,000 a case), but haven't made it to 100 points. The 2000 vintage is being traded for around the same price, but got a better score.
Is Parker scoring more harshly than he used to? Or should traders be worried that their investments are not as safe as they assumed??
No Comments/Trackbacks for this post yet...