Red Burgundy Research. Part 2.1. The Best Grand Crus

Faiveley has very little.
I haven't drunk a huge amount of Musigny in my life but I have drunk some, and all the best bottles have been from Drouhin, whose style seems uniquely appropriate to the vineyard.
Stas, thanks for the interesting articles, always fun to see pictures and read thoughts of the holy land!

But as a statistician, my problem is with your numbers. To put it simply, wine scores are garbage.

Thank you Brady for taking the time and effort to express so eloquently what are also my reservations to the whole numbers game in wine.
As you say there are two issues here.

Firstly, who says what some qualities of wine are better than others (wood/no wood, stems/no stems)? In Kermit's eternal words: better for what? Yes wines do have faults and many "supermarket" wines can be easily eliminated as not that great, but by the time we make it to proper wine, made with care and love, by someone who has skill, the whole grading thing becomes ridiculous. Just one example: I would never again have a bottle of Gonon's white St Joseph, I simply couldn't care less, it is just not my thing. So on my 100 point scale that's a 50/100. On the other hand give me one of Vaudoisey's 1er Volnays from 2011, and if I'm in the right mood I'd think the lightness and elegance as well as length deserve a mid 90s score. But this is complete nonsense! Both are fantastic winemakers producing little miracles in a bottle, some people will like one, some the other, some both. Once we are in a quality environment, there is just no point in ranking these things.

Secondly, the idea that you can measure something as fluid and subjective as wine on a 5 point scale, let alone on a 100 point scale grates for me too. There seems to be some obsession with numbers in today's world. 91 must be better than 89, right? But as Brady says, this is pseudo-science. In my field there's a number 9dipole moment of the electron) whose accuracy we know to such high precision that it is equivalent to knowing the distance between NY and LA to within a hair-breadth, as someone famous once said. Countless experiments have verified it. In such a setting it makes sense to talk about numbers, sure, I'm all for it. But what is the kilogram equivalent for wine? How do you measure it? Can others repeat the experiment and get the same answer? Of course not! There's only one place I can see where scores are even vaguely useful: as a personal shorthand for what we think of a wine to compare for ourselves when next we taste the wine. And even that is a bit of long shot. The rest is just marketing bs and trying to sell wine or reviews.

Yes there is a lot to learn in wine, much of if is quite scientific, but reducing it all to a single number, really?
I have been following this thread with , I have to say, amusement. My own view is that it is virtually impossible to arrive at a definitive rating that has validity particularly if you are relying on critic's scores. There are domaines that, if you give them a poor score after a tasting, will not invite you back next year. Also, critics usually taste knowing what each wine is. They are therefore, even if it is subconscious, influenced to give a higher score to , say, a Chambertin than a Clos St Jacques, regardless.
It was good to read my old pal Brady swinging in with his valid comments.
Best of luck with all this Stan. Rather you than me!
Faively’s piece of Musigny is the size of a Tennis Court. Depending on vintage about enough for
100 bottles maybe ?

like Howard I’m enjoying this thread with amusement. From a distance a bit like painting by numbers.......
Faiveley bought Dufouleur spot which is twice bigger than what he had... and Dufouleur Musigny was not as good as his clos Vougeot... for whatever reason... so Faiveley ? Mark. Never had Drouin Roumier....
Faiveley bought Dufouleur spot which is twice bigger than what he had... and Dufouleur Musigny was not as good as his clos Vougeot... for whatever reason... so Faiveley ? Mark. Never had Drouin Roumier....
Erwan Faiveley said to me that the Dufouleur vines were in good shape and so vineyard management was not the cause of the unexciting Musignys from Dufouleur. It's also well-sited. And Faiveley's Musignys incorporating the new acquisition have been excellent.
Thank you, gentlemen for your remarks and comments.
I find many of your arguments are very solid and I will definitely pay attention to it.

That shouldn't stop me from continuing my study either. I will be glad to learn from your feedback going forward.

And please don't hesitate to drop me a note once you schedule a tasting to get to the bottom of Musigny vs. Chambertin. I will be more than happy to contribute a bottle to this practical exercise.