ThePortForum.com

I have been asked to give a talk on port. One of the points I want to make is that port is cheap, in that a port scored x by RP is cheaper than any other wine scored x by RP. Though proof by assertion has the merit of requiring little work, some data might be more convincing. Please, do any readers have a list of RP’s port scores, especially those ≥98.

Thank you.

did you see what happened to the 2008 bordeaux's after parker gave the lafite a 98-100?

it went from 200$ to well over 350$ a bottle =)



Fonseca 70 - 99 points
Fonseca 77 - 93 points
Fonseca 83 - 92 points
Fonseca 85 - 90 points
Fonseca 92 - 97 points
Fonseca 94 - 97 points
Fonseca 97 - 93 points
Fonseca 00 - 95+
Fonseca 03 - 96 points Parker stops with the ports and is picked up by Pierre Rovani for his mag.

Just Parker?

WS Fonseca ratings
1977 100
1982 85
1983 90
1985 95
1992 96
1994 100
1995 92
1997 91
2000 94
2003 96

Here's a few more from WS:
Graham2000 98 (winesearcher: $76)
Croft2003 100 (winesearcher: $55... hey, that's a good price!)

Just Parker: this is an attempt to speak the language of my audience.

Thank you both more welcomed.

this is an attempt to speak the language of my audience

Brave man..

I personally feel that Parker (and his little helpers) is completely out of his depth when it comes to port..

Tom

Tom,

this is an interesting topic. I was just asked on exactly this relationship and do believe that Parkers strongpoint is not to be searched in the Port region, but the RP system very much affects the pricing as most people do drink claret as well and are very much used to his system.

Fortunately it does not affect the pricing as much as on the bordeaux so there is still excellent port to acquire for a fair price.

Axel

uncle tom wrote:I personally feel that Parker (and his little helpers) is completely out of his depth when it comes to port.

Excepting only the number of the verb, I suspect that this is completely correct. But irrelevant to my needs.

Do you want Suckling's ratings? I don't keep a note of Parker's but do of Suckling's.

Well, of course, yes please, but not for this exercise. I want ratings that would be ‘understood’ by drinkers of Napa Cabs and Oregon Pinot Noirs.

uncle tom wrote:

this is an attempt to speak the language of my audience

Brave man..

I personally feel that Parker (and his little helpers) is completely out of his depth when it comes to port..

Tom

Tom,
I agree 100%. Port is not to his suit and he is the last one I look to for VP scores. Other wines like Bordeaux, I do look to him for notes...Port, no way!

Oh, I totally forgot,

how can one miss on the parker 100 pter' Quinta do Noval 1997 whose price has reached to catastrophic spheres compared to other ports of the same vintage.

Andy V wrote: Tom,
I agree 100%.

I never thought I would read those words

DRT wrote:

Andy V wrote: Tom,
I agree 100%.

I never thought I would read those words

And it's not even April Fools day anymore Seriously, although Tom and I disagree on some things, we also agree on others. Ain't life grand

jdaw1 wrote:One of the points I want to make is that port is cheap, in that a port scored x by RP is cheaper than any other wine scored x by RP.

I hope this won’t have too much of an inflationary effect on Port prices!

I hope it’s not too tangential to Julian’s purposes, but has Robert Parker ever scored some of the smaller houses or less prestigious Ports? He obviously rates the big vintages and major shippers highly (perhaps making them good value for money if one’s primary wine guide is his scores) but does anyone know how do the lesser houses or the SQVPs and LBVs measure up? Do they also do well for their price in terms of his scores?