Now I am not going to knock Chateau Talbot which is a perfectly good and popular mid-ranked Bordeaux classed growth. And to its credit its price tag has always remained earthbound. All is relative.
Humanity does, however, never cease to amaze me in its often crass stupidity. Wine humanity even more so. As surely as the world turns upon its axis, so the wine world, or at least the speculative part of it, follows every “gob” and tit-bit of Robert Parker. Or not, apparently.
From the Oracle of Monckton’s mouth comes eternal and certain truth. Presumably this is because they find his system easy to understand and communicate, but also because they reckon he has a pretty good palate. Otherwise said, he knows a good wine (sic).
So witness this gem of data from Liv-Ex’s blog:
On his website, Parker describes the 2002 in this category,
“70 – 79:
An average wine with little distinction except that it is a soundly made. In essence, a straightforward, innocuous wine.”
What person posessed of his or her complete faculties would spend £120 more on a case of wine that is pretty much undrinkable in epicurean terms, or at very best, not worthwhile? What idiot would pay more for a poor 2002 than a certainly more loveable 2004?
I saw a case of 1987 Lafite Rothschild (RP “87 points – Old”) on someone’s list for five grand this morning. Now that would be a really pointless piece of expenditure, but at least it’s Lafite.
It’s a funny old world, and fools and their money are soon parted.