originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
From this thread's title, I thought we would be revisiting the incident involving George Brett, pine tar and the Yankees.
Nice.
originally posted by Jonathan Loesberg:
From this thread's title, I thought we would be revisiting the incident involving George Brett, pine tar and the Yankees.
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
If I followed the article, serve the genuine article to Parker, who rates it. Then, per Billionaire's vinegar, you doctor up some replicate bottles using, perhaps, more recent, accessible vintages from the same producer as the base.
Are you sure you wouldn't go for a much more recent vintage of Petrus cut with maybe a lighter, older more off-vintage Petrus for RP scoring?
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Also, whatever I think of Parker's personality, I do not disparage his skill and knowledge where B'x wines are concerned, especially right bank.
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Well, I wouldn't have anything to do with this shit in the first place, but this is the drift I caught from the two sources mentioned. Also, whatever I think of Parker's personality, I do not disparage his skill and knowledge where B'x wines are concerned, especially right bank.
originally posted by SFJoe:
But if I'm an economically motivated guy who can put his ego aside, I move truckloads of fraudulent recent vintages. Why do a beautiful handcrafted job to make a mag of '21 Petrus that raises suspicion in everyone when you could move a case of "2005 Mouton" for the same price? That is a mass market wine, no one thinks it odd that a wholesaler could have 50 cases of it.
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Another reason to steer clear of B'x. Is B'y harder to do because of the smaller quantities produced?
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
If I followed the article, serve the genuine article to Parker, who rates it. Then, per Billionaire's vinegar, you doctor up some replicate bottles using, perhaps, more recent, accessible vintages from the same producer as the base.
Are you sure you wouldn't go for a much more recent vintage of Petrus cut with maybe a lighter, older more off-vintage Petrus for RP scoring?
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
originally posted by Bwood:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
If I followed the article, serve the genuine article to Parker, who rates it. Then, per Billionaire's vinegar, you doctor up some replicate bottles using, perhaps, more recent, accessible vintages from the same producer as the base.
Are you sure you wouldn't go for a much more recent vintage of Petrus cut with maybe a lighter, older more off-vintage Petrus for RP scoring?
Well, I wouldn't have anything to do with this shit in the first place, but this is the drift I caught from the two sources mentioned. Also, whatever I think of Parker's personality, I do not disparage his skill and knowledge where B'x wines are concerned, especially right bank.
originally posted by Florida Jim:
originally posted by Ian Fitzsimmons:
Also, whatever I think of Parker's personality, I do not disparage his skill and knowledge where B'x wines are concerned, especially right bank.
One hears that his "skill" is diminishing over time.
Honestly, I don't know or care but such are the theories being advanced around and about.
Best, Jim
You missed some stuff in the article, then. The newer assertion is that Parker maintained regular association with the Royal folks for both casual and less casual imbibing, association which (via scores and just the public nature of the relationship) was then used by the Royal gang to sell wine which may have been fraudulent.As I understand it, Parker's tie to the scandal is merely that he rated a Rodenstock wine with lots and lots of points.
Pavie?originally posted by Bwood:
Wow.
Ok, let's say that, hypothetically speaking of course, one wants to garner 100 points from RP for a fake 1921 Petrus and then sell the same wine to collectors, what wine do you put in the bottle?