A few weeks ago the wine writer Stephen Brook, who inexplicably reads HoseMaster of Wine™, wrote to me asking if I'd be interested in publishing a guest post. Finally! Someone else wants to write this crap. Stephen's conceit was to seriously rate the 2014 Bordeaux using his encyclopedic (or is it now Wikipedic?) knowledge of Bordeaux and of Bordeaux prognosticators. For those of you who invest in these wines, who try to purchase the highest rated wines of a given vintage, in other words, you numbskulls, this is an invaluable service. I suspect Stephen's numbers are going to prove uncannily accurate. Well, let's put it this way, his numbers will be uncannily numerical, and of equal value to Suckling's or Molesworth's or Parker's. I love the idea of comparing Stephen's imaginary scores to theirs. If you don't know Stephen Brook's wine books, I recommend you add them to your wine library. Thanks, Stephen, for giving me the day off! And congratulations, you're the first Guest Writer on HoseMaster of Wine™! Who's next?How good are the 2014s? Pretty good, is the consensus, though not stellar. Should you buy them? Everybody asks me that question but it really isn't my problem.
Here are my ratings of the 2014 wines, uncontaminated by any unpleasant tasting experiences.
PAUILLAC
Lafite Rothschild 94-96
Latour 95-97
Mouton Rothschild 94-96
Pichon-Longueville 91-93
Pichon-Lalande 90-92
Duhart-Milon 89-91
Pontet Canet 93-95
Batailley 86-88
Grand-Puy-Lacoste 90-92
Grand-Puy-Ducasse 85-87
Lynch-Bages 91-93
Lynch-Moussas 85-87
D'Armailhac 89-91
Haut-Bages-Libéral 89-91
Pédesclaux 86-88
Clerc-Milon 90-92
Croizet-Bages 85-87
ST ESTEPHE
Cos d'Estournel 93-95
Montrose 93-95
Calon Ségur 91-93
Cos Labory 84-86
ST JULIEN
Léoville-Las-Cases 93-95
Léoville-Poyferré 91-93
Léoville-Barton 89-91
Gruaud-Larose 90-92
Ducru-Beaucaillou 92-94
Langoa-Barton 88-90
Lagrange 87-89
St Pierre 87-89
Talbot 85-87
Branaire-Ducru 88-90
Beychevelle 87-89
MARGAUX
Margaux 94-96
Rauzan-Ségla 90-92
Rauzan-Gassies 85-87
Durfort-Vivens 85-87
Lascombes 89-91
Brane-Cantenac 89-91
Kirwan 90-92
D'Issan 88-90
Giscours 88-90
Malescot-St-Exupéry 91-93
Boyd-Cantenac 86-88
Cantenac-Brown 87-89
Palmer 92-94
Desmirail 85-87
Ferriere 88-90
Marquis d'Alesme 87-89
Prieuré-Lichine 88-90
Marquis de Terme 87-89
Dauzac 84-86
Du Tertre 86-88
PESSAC-LEOGNAN (red)
Haut Brion 94-96
La Mission Haut-Brion 92-94
Pape-Clément 92-94
Dom de Chevalier 89-91
Haut Bailly 90-92
Smith Haut Lafitte 91-93
PESSAC-LEOGNAN (white)
Haut-Brion 95-97
La Mission Haut-Brion 93-95
Pape-Clément 91-93
Dom de Chevalier 90-92
Malartic-Lagravière 90-92
Smith Haut Lafitte 91-93
POMEROL
Petrus 96-98
Le Pin 94-96
Vieux Ch Certan 93-95
Lafleur 95-97
Trotanoy 93-95
Certan de May 89-91
Clinet 91-93
La Conseillante 91-93
L'Eglise Clinet 93-95
L'Evangile 90-92
Fleur-Petrus 92-94
Le Gay 91-93
ST EMILION
Ausone 96-98
Cheval Blanc 95-97
Angélus 93-95
Pavie 95-97
Clos Fourtet 92-94
Canon 90-92
Figeac 90-92
Beausejour-Bécot 91-93
Bel-Air-Monange 90-92
Pavie-Macquin 92-94
Troplong-Mondot 92-94
La Mondotte 94-96
Valandraud 93-95
Le Dome 92-94
La Gaffelière 89-91
Canon La Gaffelière 90-92
Trottevieille 88-90
SAUTERNES
No one buys Sauternes, sadly, so there's no point in scoring the wines.
As a public service, the Hosemaster will in due course compare my scores with those from critics who tramped all the way to Bordeaux to taste them in April.
Stephen Brook
I wonder if anyone would pay to read HoseMaster of Wine™.
And if they would, why, when I give it
away for free? Would it be like leaving
a gratuity for a Friend with Benefits? When I was a teenager, there were no
Friends with Benefits to leave a gratuity—though one girl told me I could just
put the tip in, which confused me. I have more than 1800 email subscribers. If
they all sent me five bucks, I’d have nine thousand dollars! I could buy that
fake bottle of DRC I’ve always wanted. This doesn’t seem like a lot to ask,
really. Most of you waste five bucks every day at Starbucks, and then tip the
barista. Skip a day and then send me the money. By the way, I hate the word
“barista.” Who’s proud of being a fucking “barista?” You’re just a glorified
McDonald’s employee. Who don’t call themselves “drive-thruistas,” by the way.
But five bucks a reader? I should get a PO Box.
Right around Thanksgiving of last year, HoseMaster of Wine™
broke the 1,000,000 page view barrier, according to the Google stats at the
backend of Blogger. I have no idea what this measures. I was going to write a
self-congratulatory post, but suddenly realized that the page view numbers are
essentially as meaningless as 89 points. Plus, it took me four years or so to
accumulate that imaginary number, so that’s not really very impressive. Though
1,000,000 page views makes me feel a bit like Scrooge McDuck using a bulldozer
to move my gold coins around. Bloggers, and I’m no exception, check their stats
compulsively, like flashers who just have to put on a trench coat twice a day
to wag their weenies at teenage girls. We think our junk is fascinating.
Mostly, it’s pathetic and laughable.
Slacker! Has the HoseMaster of Wine been over-served once too often?
ReplyDeleteDr. Samuel Johnson said, "No place affords a more striking conviction of the vanity of human hopes than a public library."
We, your faithful readers, demand the HoseMaster get back to work.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteI was wondering if you could also provide imaginary drinking windows or will we have to wait for the critics to provide their imaginary drinking windows.
-Wineknurd
Looks like only 15 kinds of bordeaux this year.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Latour will be available when?
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing ... E.L. Doctorow once said “Writing is a socially acceptable form of schizophrenia.”
ReplyDeleteGet back to work, HoseMaster.
I've got a sawbuck for ya, hose.
ReplyDeleteYou have paypal?
Just another drive-by.
EVO
"I like Bordeaux. I had a good one from Walla Walla." actual customer quote.
ReplyDeleteYou know we can't afford to give you money, Hose, as we mostly work in the wine business. No one ends up with a small fortune in the business unless they started with a large fortune.
A better option; I'll happily share a bottle of something with you if you are ever up in the PNW (Tacoma).
or, if you prefer, a bottle of something crappy...
I wonder if Steven Brooks got his inspiration from Alder Yarrow's unsupported numbers or from Hosemaster's review of books.
ReplyDeleteOne reason I would NEVER try to be a guest columnist here is that the Hosemaster has a particular rhythm, humor, insight, and I would do no better at matching up to that high standard than Mr. Brooks has done.
Being a journalist is too close to being the opposite of a satirist.
Are these TripAdvisor scores? I'd love to stay at Lafite. Definitely not at Croizet Bages.
ReplyDeleteTim Atkin, M.W. who researches and writes new vintage Bordeaux reviews (http://www.timatkin.com/reports/2013-bordeaux-special-report), must not be feelin' the love right now -- what with Steven Brooks getting the nod as the first guest columnist.
ReplyDelete(Or is this Tim's nom de plume?)
Quote:
"I have more than 1800 email subscribers. If they all sent me five bucks, I’d have nine thousand dollars! ... Skip a day and then send me the money. ... But five bucks a reader? I should get a PO Box."
Yeah ... a drop box in the Cayman Islands.
With the fund administered by Robert Vesco.
welcome to the Million Mile High Club, Ron...
ReplyDeleteHey Gang,
ReplyDeleteSorry for the very tardy response. I was busy hiding from Islamic fundamentalists. Oh, wait, I meant Natural Wine advocates.
I can't speak for Stephen, but I will. The piece highlights the point that in the world we live in, Bordeaux quality and certain critics' preferences are entirely predictable. So why wait for their scores when you pretty much know the results? For Stephen, it's a way to tweak his friends and fellow experts. When their "actual" scores come out, how far off will his scores be? Not by much, I'm guessing. But, no matter what, it will be funny to see.
Stephen felt no one else would publish this subtly satiric piece. I'm, of course, shameless.
As for the monetary donations, that, too, was simple foolishness. Though, hey, Eric, a Paypal thing might be a good idea. Or just mail me the $20. Tips are always accepted on HoseMaster of Wine™.
For those who just come here and expect the same "high" level of comedy, the same old crapola, well, too fucking bad. It's my blog, and I intend to screw it up.
I rush to respond to the comments, most of which seem unrelated to my piece. Drinking windows for 2014? Easy: for US drinkers, the moment they arrive on the shelves; for UK drinkers, wait 25 years.
ReplyDeleteCharley Allken (he couldn't spell my name either) suspects me of aiming to occupy the same satirical spot as Hosemaster. Nothing could be further from the truth. Hosemaster is unique. But Charlesie is free to dislike my piece on anyway.
What, no perfect scores?
ReplyDeleteMr. Brook obviously needs more pulling numbers out of one's ass training.
I am, however, awaiting the Pinot Grigio scores. Somebody's gotta beat Santa Marjoram.
Stephen,
ReplyDeleteMy common taters only rarely respond to the posted piece. It's like a cocktail party where everyone is off in a different corner having separate conversations in their own head. I'm used to it.
Don't fret about Charlie. Not that you are. And, Charlie, I'm not looking for replacements when it comes to guest bloggers, I'm looking to provide a place where genuine wine writers can have some fun with the business. They don't have to compete with the HoseMaster, which isn't really that hard to begin with, just have some fun.
Thomas,
I mentioned the exact same point to Stephen, wondering where the 100 Point Scores were. I even proposed the Margaux get 98-102 rating. Stephen wanted to try as much as possible to accurately reflect the upcoming scores of leading wine critics, that being more to his satiric point. His piece is something of a time bomb--if and when his scores are seen to be right on, that's when the comedy bomb goes off.
His idea appeals to my sense of humor, and, frankly, that's the one that matters around here.
Ron:
ReplyDeleteI didn't need an explanation, as you already know, but your three other readers may not know that I was being facetious, which of course is one reason for this blog's existence.
Does anyone know what the other reason is?
In any case, aren't perfect scores becoming the new black? Or am I being misled by Beserkers?
Stephen--How can you not be "Brooks", as in Brooks saddles, upon which my ass sat for so many years of riding Ralieghs around town.
ReplyDeleteI did not confuse you with Brooks Brothers, an American sartorial institution, even though it is now owned by Marks & Sparks.
In any event, I remain a fan of your writing--jut not this one.
Sincerly,
Charlie Oaken Barrel
Thomas,
ReplyDeleteThe other reason for this blog is to annoy every other blogger. I thought orange wines were the new black. Or David Oyelowo.
Charlie,
I may be unique but Mr. Brook is singular.
I was going to say that guest contributors be required to make humorous statements in addition to their serious content. But the humor in the other readers' comments will suffice. "TripAdvisor scores", that was a good one!
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteOne of the nicest things about having my blog has been the common taters. It's a funny group, and often they make me laugh, which seems fair.
I suspect I'm unlikely to have another person volunteer to write a guest post for HoseMaster. And certainly not someone of Stephen Brook's stature. But I can hope.