There are three main scoring systems in the world of wine. There is Parkers 100 point scale, Jancis Robinson's 20 point scale and then there is the Broadbent five star rating system too. And there is me doing my marks out of ten. So, I have been debating what to do. Should I go old school and follow Broadbent - nope as he is pretty much the only one doing it. Should I follow Jancis? I could as it is simply just doubling the scores that I do and would make the conversion a lot easier. Or should I just give in and adopt the hundred point scale and then I am in line with everyone from Parker to Cellar Tracker and everyone else. My question is akin to that in the 1980s of should I go VHS or just stick with my Betamax video player. I might get better picture with one, but I can get more movies with the other. With points, I do carve my own niche with marks out of ten or do I go with everyone else and make it easier for my readers?
Oh sod it, scores don't matter anyway so I might as well just adopt Parker's 100 point system and where else to start but with Bordeaux.
When a Chateau has to dig up dead or dying plants they replant with new vines, but there is a problem. These young vines don't produce the quality of fruit to put into their main wines, so a lot of producers either declassify these grapes into their entry level product or, in Bordeaux, they produce a second wine. I tried two second wines from well known and respected producers, Chateau Leoville Poyferre from St Julien and Chateau Pavie from St Emilion. I kept the vintage the same, but was amazed at the difference in quality between these two wines.
Firstly was the 2005 Pavillon de Poyferre. This has only been the second wine of Leoville Poyferre since the 2004 vintage, and it showed Dusty fruit, lots of cherry fruit and a bundle of cassis. A lot of up front fruit but delivered with a gentle touch, not a big, powerful blast. Some dark chocolate comes off and then there is a polish element on the nose. Some baked fruit pie as well - brambles, raspberries and blueberries. The palate is dark, a bit concentrated with very noticable tannin. Lots of vegetal flavours, very dark and cocoa laden with green pepper, some leafy flavours as well. Having said that, it is still quite elegant, some dusty berry stone and plum skin. Quite tasty but too young yet. 90pts
The second wine, the 2005 Aromes de Pavie, couldn't have been more different and disappointing. A Merlot dominant blend, this is the first vintage of the second wine under this label. But despite the pedigree, this wine had a rather sweet, poopy note on the nose, some dulled chocolate aromas but it is all very muted. The palate is very vegetal, with a lot of tannin. Horribly extracted, so so so much tannin with just far too much dry, leathery flavours mixed in with some sour cherry and liquorice. This is a really bad wine. It will never balance out as the tannins will just stay there until all the fruit goes. A really bad wine, and nearly double the price of the Poyferre. 65pts
I know that the Aromes de Pavie has 90pt scores, but today this wine was seriously awful and the bottle I had showed all the signs of no future, but with no bottle flaws. The main thing, is I have made the leap from Betamax to VHS and am scoring with 100 points.
I feel dirty.
Comments