Halliday Hate?

[phillisc]

Is it outrageous to suggest that the posters here (myself included) are not commercially relevant?

Fwiw I'm a Halliday fan, he's a legend, but I pay no attention to his points for reasons outlined above and stopped buying the book a few years ago. I was out last night with friends and one commented about a wine he bought online, a wine he'd never tried but had 96 hallidays points. It struck me that auswine posters are possibly a minority that don't align with the majority on this particular topic, and therefore it could be commecially naive to listen to.

For who exactly??

Cheers Craig

[Michael R]

For Halliday.
Basically on this topic, i'm not convinced that the Auswine consensus (to which i subscribe) is aligned with the vast majority of wine drinkers. And given Halliday is a business man, its in his interests to provide a service that serves the majority.
I'm particularly referring to his point scoring. His overall distribution model (book, website, app) doesnt seem to work well for anyone.

[vovo]

I think that's what we (the auswine consensus) are calling into question. If he is doing it without impartiality and for the business side, then he is cashing in on his reputation and his opinion is no longer valid.

The consensus here also seems to be that serious wine appreciators are taking little to no notice of his scores anymore. However, I have plenty of friends who rave about this wine or that which received 96 points for only $15.

[sjw_11]

I think that's what we (the auswine consensus) are calling into question. If he is doing it without impartiality and for the business side, then he is cashing in on his reputation and his opinion is no longer valid.

The consensus here also seems to be that serious wine appreciators are taking little to no notice of his scores anymore. However, I have plenty of friends who rave about this wine or that which received 96 points for only $15.

Exactly.

I am not disputing that clearly "Brand Halliday" is apparently working from the perspective of current Revenue $$.

I am just saying perhaps that success is incompatible with also maintaining an aura of santified respect from the informed community of cynical wine lovers AKA aus wine and its equivalent.

Now if I was running the brand, I might be concerned about the long-term impact of that (every winter once had a summer before it)... but that's just me.

[Michael McNally]

amusing response by the other prominent Melbourne e-tailer on his newsletter this week.

apparently, many of us are criticising Halliday for high scores for wines we have not even tasted!!!!!!! Oh really? well, let's sort this out.

Firstly, it is neither a criticism of Halliday or the e-tailer to say that the wine-loving reader is becoming bored with the weekly headline "96 point Halliday shiraz $11.99" It is a simple statement of fact, indeed, the wine loving reader is becoming bored with such headlines. Seriously, try something new!!!!!! The people who reads these newsletters are wine-lovers, and 99.9% now display glazed-over eyes and shift uncomfortably in their seat when mentioning his "scores"

Secondly, from a personal perspective, my criticisms of Halliday's scores come only after tasting the wine myself. As a critic, he is fairly open to criticism, as is a professional footballer who plays a bad game, or a doctor who misses a diagnosis for that matter (although these days, the consequences for such are much more dire than an internet forum rant)
Ok, let's take one wine in particular that you all love to seem to flog, and I wine I have had all recent vintages of. Mike Press Cabernet. According to his own definition of scores, this wine is "extraordinary" and a wine to seek out at any cost. Oh really????? from and experienced wine critic, really??? come on James, who are you trying to kid. Sure, scoring is "subjective" but people pay the man for his subjectivity to be accurate. A couple of years ago I attended a tasting of 2009 Cabernets from around the world, under $100, which I wrote up at the time on one board or another. There were 12 wines present on the night, 5 from Bordeaux, and the others from varying countries, including the Grosset Gaia and Mike Press fromAustralia.
There were, I would say, 30-40 people there, on four tables, and the organisers collated the scores. Pleasingly, the Grosset came in second to the 09 Fleur de Bouard. As a result of that, I purchased more of the Fleur, and a case of the Grosset, both great wines. Stone motherless last, with 0 votes for top three and by far the lowest score, 86pts, was the Mike Press. Can't complain about the wine too much, it was also by far the cheapest, but it tasted like a cheap red wine. Little varietal expression, short and fruity, it was possibly a crowd pleaser at a football club BBQ, nothing more. That was the opinion of not only me, but of the majority of the other 30-40 wine lovers present. Pretty good wine for the price, reminds me of the old Leasingham Bin wines of the early 90's. But not 95 points. I don't care how much you allow for subjectivity. Period. And like that magazine "Winestate" (does it still exist?) you live and die by your performance. Keep giving ridiculous reviews and you become irrelevant to the wine buying public.

According to the common theme here (not your post Felix), what benefit, material or otherwise, does James Halliday accrue from rating such a wine highly? On the Mike Press gravy train......

What vintage of the Mike Press was it? Perhaps you had a poor bottle(s)? Is that a possible explanation? Someone left it in a taxi in the sun on the way to the tasting (this is an exaggeration for effect!). I have some MP Cabs in the cellar (though I don't think anyone here has actually "flogged" the wine - they might have said they liked it or thought it was the best thing since sliced Merlot) and could offer my opinion on the same wine.

Finally, I am pretty certain that I have seen that he does admit that his scores are contextualised - I am sure I read an article (Top 100 blurb?) where he said a 94 point Australian sparkling wine is not the same quality as a 94 point Champagne.

Cheers

Michael

[Michael McNally]

The Aussie ethos is very much "the bigger you are, the harder you fall" and nobody in Aussie wine is bigger than Halliday. As such, it is not just enough to be fair, you must be seen to be fair... you must be whiter than white. And the extent of the modern commercial enterprise at work under "Brand Halliday" is such that in my view (for the informed consumer) that is no longer possible.

Hence, this loss of credibility which we are discussing is effectively inevitable (whether deserved, or not).

But please, to be clear - to the question of Halliday hate - I have never met the man, I have no ability to judge his motives. Really, I am not talking about the man, but the brand he has become.

The first statement seems like the epitome of the tall poppy syndrome. If you are at the top of your game we expect more of you than others. If the people at the top aren't perfect they lose credibility. If you fly too high you will lose control and your fall is inevitable. Well at least the poor fellow's not to blame: "I tried to keep my scores down your Honour, but it was inevitable".

Cheers

Michael

PS There is no such thing as an "Aussie ethos"

[felixp]

Mike, the wine at that tasting was an 09 Mike Press…. they were all 09 vintage wines. As it was a large tasting, with four tables, there would have been at least four bottles opened, hence all four would have to have been tainted or spoiled in some way. As I remember, the opinion on that wine was pretty universal.
Blind tastings are great, often throw up surprises, but the Mike Press was not one of them that night. The surprise was the Gaia, which I picked as a good Pomerol, and given the theme was less then $100 (50 quid to be precise) I was of the opinion it was great value!!! (to me, it actually was quite reminiscent of VCC, a big compliment in my book.)
I have had Mike Press on countless occasions, plenty of mates buy it for the price and drinkability. It is a good wine for the price (as I stated above) but it is simply ridiculous to say it warrants a score of 95 points. Equally, his descriptions of the wine bear no resemblance to the wine when I taste it.
And if Halliday actually does score Australian wines higher than old-World counterparts, then that is just silly, even idiotic. Do the socceroos get a 2-0 start in the World Cup when they play a European team? Is this the new quasi-golf-wine-handicap system?

Having said all that, my first post in this thread stated that Halliday seems a nice enough bloke, and I have absolutely nothing personal against him, I don't think there is any "sinister" reason he rates the wine highly, and I have no interest in the commerciality or otherwise of his "brand". My criticism is simply that, as a wine critic, his scores are no longer relevant to me, because I have recently found that his descriptions and scores of many wines bear little or no resemblance to the same wine sitting in my glass. Therefore, I would never, ever, purchase a wine based on his recommendation. And isn't that why wine-lovers buy books and subscribe to web-sites for?

What is the reason for score inflation? I have no idea!!! Wines are getting better, for sure, but not to the extent we are being asked to believe. I do not even have a theory!!! Perhaps it is reverse-wine snobbery, perhaps it is that love for all things young we experience as we age. Anyway, he is entitled to his opinion, no doubt, but he puts himself out there, and therefore as wine-buying public we are entitled to ours

[felixp]

… oh, and to add, I am very sure that James Halliday's opinion and score on any wine still carries great weight commercially. A huge amount. I am equally sure that the readers and contributors to this forum represent less that 0.1% of wine sales in Australia, so the vast majority of wine-makers, retailers, e-railers and critics could not give a stuff what we think.
… but let's just pretend for a second that the world's most influential wine critic, let's call him Robert Schmarker for argument's sake, started to follow a similar trend. In 2012, Schmarker gave Chateau Le Bum-fluff 2010, from Haut Medoc, 95 points, with the wine having a retail of $11.99. Those remaining 45,000 cases of the wine would sell out world-wide in about 35 minutes. 45,000 hugely satisfied wine drinkers take their case home, crack a bottle, and discover an ok wine, but not even remotely close to the quality of the 95 point, $300 Pichon Lalande. Pissed off, annoyed, upset, and wondering what he was smoking the day he tried it.
… but Schmarker has the runs on the board, and he is forgiven. Then in 2013, he gives Chateau Chunder 2011, from Lalande de Pomerol, 96 points, with the wine having a retail of $12.99. This time the remaining 45,000 cases sell out in 24 hours, and the same customers take their case home only to be again, bitterly disappointed by an ok wine no-where near the quality of the $350 2011 Eglise Clinet, which Schmarker also awarded 96 points.
… keep repeating that process over and over again, and people won't buy the wine, not because Schmarker recommended it, but because they never read his reviews in the first place.
… no matter how good or famous you might be, in the end, you will still be judged on performance. (as poor old Brad Sewell will attest to)

[phillisc]

Felix, do the Socceroos get a 2-0 start in the world cup?...that is absolute gold, priceless

However Halliday gets a 5-0 start if he states winery X is a 100 pointer...they would love him, because the great unwashed will line up like lemmings and buy buy buy...once the cash is in the till it does not matter if it tastes like road tar.

I think the thrill of the chase for me is to find and try wines that he has not reviewed...surprisingly there are quite a few out there and not every winery in Australia sends off samples for the wine companion.
In terms of us here at Auswine being a commercial naivety, I completely disagree.

If Gen Xers are seduced by all things in life that are glitzy glam (read 100 pointer with thousands of shiny little gold discs) they will buy. However, many will also go yuck, not what I was expecting, too tannic, do not have the patience to cellar for 20 years etc etc.
Then they will ask Ausforumites, because they believe we have some experience and knowledge, which in my book leads to power, influence and control.
Decisions will then be made re purchases, encouragement to try something a little different, with those at the big end of town feeling a bit of heat, because the unknown or little guy is now making a few sales.
As you have said Felix, does not take long for 45 000 cases to stack up in a warehouse somewhere...didn't $35M go into landfill??
My 2c
Cheers Craig

[Diddy]

I am equally sure that the readers and contributors to this forum represent less that 0.1% of wine sales in Australia, so the vast majority of wine-makers, retailers, e-railers and critics could not give a stuff what we think

Just noticed the following on James Halliday's Top 100 website, so maybe he does care what we think after all!

Disclaimer: I wish it to be known I have written this year’s Top 100 without any knowledge of any of the advertising placed in conjunction with this article by retailers, wineries, or any other wine-related business.

[rens]

For Christmas I always get a copy of Jeremy Oliver's Wine Annual. I know he comes here every now and then, so I hope he does not mind me quoting him.
In his 'Best Australian Wines $20 and Under' Oliver states:

'Unlike certain other local commentators I don't have separate marking scales for Australian and world wines. I score all wines on the same basis, regardless of origin or price. I am often shocked at the stratospheric scores I see allocated to Australian wines I know well. I see no value in contributing to a sense of domestic complacency by putting wine on a level it cannot honestly command on the world market.

Could it be Halliday he is talking about there?

[Luke W]

For Christmas I always get a copy of Jeremy Oliver's Wine Annual. I know he comes here every now and then, so I hope he does not mind me quoting him.
In his 'Best Australian Wines $20 and Under' Oliver states:

'Unlike certain other local commentators I don't have separate marking scales for Australian and world wines. I score all wines on the same basis, regardless of origin or price. I am often shocked at the stratospheric scores I see allocated to Australian wines I know well. I see no value in contributing to a sense of domestic complacency by putting wine on a level it cannot honestly command on the world market.

Could it be Halliday he is talking about there?

Hi Rens
I take your point but think Halliday ratings although inflated are far more consistent with my palates experience and history than JO'S.

[Chuck]

My 2 bobs worth.

Agree JH's points are a little generous and you can comfortably take off 3-4 points off to get a more comparable rating. On the 09 Mike Press Cabernet his rating was 89 which is 3 higher than the tasting above. Having tried it I think 89 is a little generous. Nice but simple wine.

Just one question. Have his scores blown out in recent times or has it always been like this?

Carl

[Andrew Jordan]

For Christmas I always get a copy of Jeremy Oliver's Wine Annual. I know he comes here every now and then, so I hope he does not mind me quoting him.
In his 'Best Australian Wines $20 and Under' Oliver states:

'Unlike certain other local commentators I don't have separate marking scales for Australian and world wines. I score all wines on the same basis, regardless of origin or price. I am often shocked at the stratospheric scores I see allocated to Australian wines I know well. I see no value in contributing to a sense of domestic complacency by putting wine on a level it cannot honestly command on the world market.

Could it be Halliday he is talking about there?

Interestingly, Houn Hooke mentions this subject in his new book "The Wine Guide 2015". In the section entitled A Word About Ratings Creep on page 10, Hooke has this to say about the subject. And I quote:

"There is a disturbing phenomenon today towards 'ratings creep'. We professional tasters have slightly different approaches to rating and indeed tasting. It wouldn't be possible for all of us to have our palates calibrated in exact agreement. We're all human after all. Some observers have suggested that reviewers who give consistently high ratings are commercially involved, that high scores generate publicity for the reviewer as much as the wine and winery reviewed. I would simply say that I do find my own ratings are consistently a little lower than those of my colleagues, but I don't take much notice of other people's reviews. I do my own thing, and my ratings have more meaning in their relatively to each other, than to other people's. Also, I use the same frame of reference for all wines I taste, whichever part of the world they come from".

Hooke brings out a few good points, especially around publicity ... for both reviewer and the winery ... and also how a 95 given by one critic cannot be compared with a 95 given by another. Each score is relative to the individual wine critic.

At the end of the day if you buy wines solely on a score, then you might end up with a cellar full of wine that in 10 years time you may not like. I personally put more value in the tasting note itself and not the score. Although Halliday has his place, I find his tasting notes a little thin and they do not give you much of an idea of what the wine is really like, hence why people might be inclined to lean on his scores for reference in purchasing a particular wine? To Luke's point above, once you find a critic who has a similar palate to yours, stick with them.

[trufflequeen]

Hi all, I'm quite new to the forum, and read this thread with interest. Having recently acquired a house with a wonderful cellar, I've started collecting seriously in the last 6 months. I subscribed to winecompanion.com.au late last year on a 1/2 price offer. I don't subscribe to his magazine to the masses. I use the tasting notes on the site as a guideline (amongst other resources) when purchasing at auction or ahead of a day visit to wineries, in particular to get an idea of a particular wine's cellaring potential. I must say, I'm glad I didn't pay more. The mass advertising (in the form of email spam) is quite annoying, and the overall layout of the website is quite poor IMO. Actually, I can confirm the winecompanion.com.au site is down as I type this

Regarding Halliday's scoring, I'm also sometimes amused when I discover a wine that I find very special - a recent example being Adelina Shiraz Mataro (from vines next door to Wendouree) that I picked up at Adelaide's East End Cellars recently - and look it up, only to find that Halliday has given it an awful score (87 points, in this case). Just goes to show that everyone's palate is different.

I also agree that the Halliday 'brand' has become something of a tiresome beast. Wherever one looks, unnamed sites are advertising wines from a 'Halliday 5 star winery' (as though a 5 starred winery can't put out nasty wine!), or mystery '96 Halliday pointers' - ridiculous, and preying on those who don't know any better.

[simon1980]

Hi trufflequeen, I have also previously subscribed to the Halliday website, but no longer. I decided to "reallocate resources" to the Winefront. This has resulted in two key happenings:

I now buy a lot better, as I have far fewer "misses".
I actually buy less volume, although not necessarily value, as purchases are more considered.

I'd highly recommend if you are looking for this type of subscription service,

Simon

[Chuck]

I just knock 3 points off his scores and am wary of the 94 pointed $12 wines eg Mike Press. Some I've tried are just ordinary wines that will not get better. Overall I find his site an important tool. I do love his writing style, A true wordsmith. No-one's perfect when it comes to such a subjective topic.

Carl

[calm]

I think he is probably one of the best marketers around in the industry, but when I was first getting into wine, I placed a lot of emphasis on his scores when buying and then sadly found out the hard way that his palate and mine were not aligned. Many highly scored wines were just BBQ wines. I also have a hypothesis that he rates according to price ie for a $12 wine, this is a 95, if you then try a $50 wine rated at 95 you find it materially superior.