Brutal Review

[crusty2]

Saw a quite brutal review on another site. Quite unusual to see something like this

It was almost impossible for me to write notes, much less rate, these jaw-droppingly horrific affronts to Australian wine in a way that didn't sound completely insulting to the people who made and actually enjoy them. I simply find the entire 2014 Mollydooker range of grape-derived beverages somewhere between simply undrinkable and completely but fascinatingly repulsive. As usual, I actually drank, rather than just tasted, the wines over a couple of days to give them every opportunity to reveal even a glimmer of redeeming value, but, as the old saying goes: live in hope, die in despair. To me these bottlings taste as if they could be made from anything and come from anywhere, so completely untethered as they are from my concept of wine reality

ouch

Further in the thread is a nice plug for this site

Worth checking out the Auswine forum for what's new and exciting. It is common for good wineries on the up to get quite decent forum coverage before there is ever an impact on prices (e.g. Woodlands, Fraser Gallop and others). As my buying reduced, I find myself less aware of the rising stars, but those guys will have their fingers on the pulse (when they stop buying all the Barolo/Barbaresco!). They may even have some tips of where to find some older wines in shops and restaurants.

here is a link if you want to look at the full thread
http://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/vie ... 82&start=0

cheers
Phill

[swirler]

They discuss 2 Hands Ares. I found this JH review on the Two Hands website (cached):

Ares Barossa Valley McLaren Vale Shiraz 2006
Dense crimson; there is no point in grumbling about the alcohol, for the wine takes no prisoners. Recalls Robert Parker's glowing description of a Barossa red as unfortified vintage port to which he gave 99 or so points. In that context, this is as good as they come. Cork. 16% alc. Rating 94 Drink 2030 $165 Date Tasted Mar 09

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:surpNwe0MgMJ:www.twohandswines.com/reviews/James-Halliday-s-Wine-Companion-2009-Ares-Shiraz+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us#sthash.1YgfIf7J.dpuf

[Chuck]

Winemaker Sparky Marquis and partner were winemakers at Fox Creek in its glory days and bought the Classic McLaren winery a few years ago renaming it Mollydooker as Sparky is a lefty. Apparently he uses his left hand to shake hands. CM wines were really good made from great grapes and Sparky now makes over the top extractive high alcohol (some 16%+) sweet wines made to appeal to the US market. Saw them in a Hawaiian supermarket a few years ago. Shelf space indicated good sales. Whilst not bad wines I doubt their potential for aging due to low acid levels to improve early drinkability. He is targeting of a particular market has been successful and good luck to him. He's just filling a void. He is a genuinely nice guy if a little exuberant.

Carl

[mjs]

Spent a couple of hours at MD with usual wine mates in Feb 14. Had a look at the vineyard and the winery for while then tasting. Some interesting practices on water management during Summer, clearly spent a shedload on the winery/equipment and I have never seen so much new oak before. Tasted most of the range and it was pretty average from my point of view. Extracted wines, high alcohol, structure and ageing potential questionable. Some stupid marketing gimmicks like shaking the bottle to get rid of residual nitrogen. Pricey as well. So, not that impressed tbh. Clearly seemed to be targeting the US market, perhaps not that successfully judging by the wineberserkers comments

[Polymer]

Well what I think really funny about big wines like that are:

US wine enthusiasts generally dislike it and think Aussies love the stuff.
Aussie wine enthusiasts generally dislike it and think Americans love the stuff.

The reality is, a lot of wine drinkers like bigger reds....I think most of the lovers of this style tend to be people that love wine but maybe aren't "into" wine..but you still have some hardcore wine enthusiasts that do as well...

Personally, I'm not a fan of the style and I don't think it is representative of what Australian wine looks like now..but it probably was a good example of where it was headed not too long ago...That said, if I can pick up some cheap, it is a good crowd pleaser...

[mjs]

That said, if I can pick up some cheap, it is a good crowd pleaser...

I agree ... but what I saw wasn't what I'd call cheap, say $50-$70. Still, MD does appear in the secondary market a bit

[cuttlefish]

I'll start by saying that I'm not really a fan of the big over-extracted styles from south Australia (or anywhere). If Mollydooker and others are pursuing this style with success, then good luck to them. I think it's perfectly fair for someone to hoe into their wines and give them a horrible review. There's plenty of wine out there that may deserve criticism for one reason or another. MD don't have to read any of this criticism or give a #### about it. If they're selling it successfully, then they're probably not going to put much weight in criticism.
FWIW, it's wonderful to see a scathing review from time to time.

[Michael McNally]

What skin in the game do critics have? Very little? None? Winemakers have their reputations, livelihoods and respect out there. Why be brutal when you could be kind?

Cheers

Michael

[cuttlefish]

Well if you put weight in a critique, it matters but only to you, yeah ?
If you're one to base your purchases or endorsements on an independent (or not) critique, it's no different from believing what the person next to you recommends (or doesn't) at a BBQ. No different than if someone (perhaps at a BBQ) told you an Audi is the worst vehicle you could ever drive.
Your decision based on your best possible guess based on what you know or have learned. You can't point the finger at the critic, can you ?
( You may of course, have an opinion about the critic, yeah?)
Sorry, it's late and, ah...

[odyssey]

Whilst this reviewer is being too melodramatic to be taken seriously, I do prefer wine critics to have "critical thinking".

You wouldn't expect a movie critic to posively slant every single movie they see would you?

Why should wine critics be different?

The critic's skin in any game is critical review itself - that's their job. Like it or not, they get paid to help average joes with no time to find things they may like and avoid wasting money on things they are unlikely to enjoy.

Otherwise why even bother having them? You may as well just pay a marketing firm to put a positive slant on everything.

[phillisc]

Cuttlefish, think you make some good points , if truth be known there is far too much sugar coating of so many wines in Australia.
And the fact that there are many who make a bloody good living from it.

Yes the livelihood of the smaller winemaker might be 'compromised' but is this not the same for any industry or profession the world over?
I work in higher education, we 'endure' world rankings, student feedback, the perils of teaching versus research, not much of it is pretty.
When we get the brutal review, we do what most others do (or should)...don't have a cry, get on with how we can change and improve and go round again.

We had a recent situation in Adelaide where a national food critic (no secret to anyone) rated a review of restaurant, 0 out of 5.
Rather than management behaving like shooky la la's and getting the lawyers in (clearly said management need to learn a fair bit and go for a PR firm instead of a litigator for advice), this should be an opportunity to improve...get more staff in, tweak the menu, drop the price if needed etc.
This would certainly win Joe public over a lot more than the hysterical reactive response of looking to blame someone else.

Cheers
Craig

[mjs]

Craig,
You piqued my curiosity, google is your friend, and I read the review and some other outcomes. Lethlean's review sounds believable. The sorts of things he criticises are exactly the things that get me upset in restaurants, wine, food, service, décor not so much. Can't figure out why Australian and Filipino fusion together with the HoG name. From a distance, just doesn't make sense. Opportunity well and truly lost at the moment.
cheers, Malcolm

[Chuck]

I'm not sure the MD people will be concerned with the review. There have been a number of negative reviews in the past but I have not seen their wines in the discount bins or heavily discounted online sites. Only wine nerds like us read this stuff leaving 99%+ of the drinking population enjoying wines they like.

Carl

[Scotty vino]

Craig,
You piqued my curiosity, google is your friend, and I read the review and some other outcomes. Lethlean's review sounds believable. The sorts of things he criticises are exactly the things that get me upset in restaurants, wine, food, service, décor not so much. Can't figure out why Australian and Filipino fusion together with the HoG name. From a distance, just doesn't make sense. Opportunity well and truly lost at the moment.
cheers, Malcolm

Service in Australia still has a long way to go.
I would say most of the decent restaurant experiences are good to very good in
Australia but the bad experiences are just....bad.
I wasn't really aware of the true standard of service in Aus until I went to the states.
Quite often I've had better service in local corner diners than in a lot of high end restaurants in Aus. Seriously.
OK so they get gratuity. But still.....

[mjs]

Yes, agree with that. It can be good here but I have also had very good service overseas, even a pizza joint in Brooklyn for example!

Pretending to be an upmarket experience, in an iconic venue, with an iconic name, perhaps questionable fusion of food, but with stratospheric prices. From what I have read of comments, the quality of wine service is appalling, food not much better. How could anyone with any sort of food and beverage experience think that whole combination was acceptable? As an ex-pat Sth Australian, I try to support food and wine in SA as much as I can, but instances like this make it hard.

[Michael McNally]

Whilst this reviewer is being too melodramatic to be taken seriously, I do prefer wine critics to have "critical thinking".

You wouldn't expect a movie critic to posively slant every single movie they see would you?

Why should wine critics be different?

The critic's skin in any game is critical review itself - that's their job. Like it or not, they get paid to help average joes with no time to find things they may like and avoid wasting money on things they are unlikely to enjoy.

Otherwise why even bother having them? You may as well just pay a marketing firm to put a positive slant on everything.

The melodrama is what takes this review from a comment on the quality of the wine to something else. It feels like an attack of some sort: "jaw-droppingly horrific" and "fascinatingly repulsive".

I don't expect a positive review for every wine (or every film or restaurant), but the points could be made about the quality of the wine. The part of the review quoted had nothing to describe the actual wines so I assume that is elsewhere, but this section conveys no information about the wines, other than the last line, which I did understand as I have tasted wines that could be anything from anywhere before.

And yes, you and the wise Cuttlefish are right. Critics do have skin in the game. We have seen their reviews held up to the light here on a frequent basis.

For context I was troubled by a searingly critical review in the Adelaide Advertiser last weekend about an Italian Restaurant, and then I watched Birdman for the first time on Saturday night and the attack Michael Keaton's character makes on the critic who says she will shut down his play was fresh in my mind.

My point still stands though - why be brutal when you can be kind? I am tired of melodrama.

Cheers

Michael

[Polymer]

The melodrama is what takes this review from a comment on the quality of the wine to something else. It feels like an attack of some sort: "jaw-droppingly horrific" and "fascinatingly repulsive".

I don't expect a positive review for every wine (or every film or restaurant), but the points could be made about the quality of the wine. The part of the review quoted had nothing to describe the actual wines so I assume that is elsewhere, but this section conveys no information about the wines, other than the last line, which I did understand as I have tasted wines that could be anything from anywhere before.

My point still stands though - why be brutal when you can be kind? I am tired of melodrama.

So is your criticism that the review didn't talk enough about the wine? Or was it the type of language used?

I agree with you half of your point... you don't have to be brutal...but certainly being kind to a wine for no other reason to be kind is not being very genuine and virtually worthless. As Odyssey said, why not just have a marketing person write up the wine then? Or maybe you just mean "not brutal" not necessarily kind...

As far as the impact on the winemaker....This wasn't going to hurt Mollydooker at all...It might if it were a different situation but really, most wine critics are often "too kind" and give whatever they give in the name of being objective which can make it difficult to align with anything they say. Others establish a style they like and dislike..and will bash what they dislike, probably unfairly so, but at least you know where they stand.

[Scotty vino]

For me there's a difference between measured criticism and being down right nasty.
Sometimes you can tell when a critic has a bee in their bonnet. You can tell a gun has been drawn.
Perhaps walk away from starting the review and take a breath.
Tell it straight but keep the theatrics to a minimum.

I just felt sorry for the local lass in Adelaide who reviewed Laurence Mooney's fringe show.
Mr Mooney should've had a cup of tea, a Bex and a good lie down before going berserk on Twitter as he did.
I'm actually a big fan of Laurence's as I've seen a few of his stand up gigs and he had me in stitches.
But he was better and above his vicious rebuttal.

[phillisc]

Yeah, old Laurie certainly lost his lolly that night!

Cheers
Craig

[Michael McNally]

So is your criticism that the review didn't talk enough about the wine? Or was it the type of language used?

I agree with you half of your point... you don't have to be brutal...but certainly being kind to a wine for no other reason to be kind is not being very genuine and virtually worthless. As Odyssey said, why not just have a marketing person write up the wine then? Or maybe you just mean "not brutal" not necessarily kind...

As far as the impact on the winemaker....This wasn't going to hurt Mollydooker at all...It might if it were a different situation but really, most wine critics are often "too kind" and give whatever they give in the name of being objective which can make it difficult to align with anything they say. Others establish a style they like and dislike..and will bash what they dislike, probably unfairly so, but at least you know where they stand.

Yes it was mainly about the language, and yes, you don't have to be kind. It's the difference between saying "This really isn't very good because it is over the top and alcoholic to the point where the "dead fruit" completely dominates the palate" as opposed to "jaw-droppingly horrific". So I don't mean you have to be kind to the point of saying you like something you don't, but no need to be nasty.

Cheers

Michael

[felixp]

you make some good points Michael, and I fully agree.
why be nasty? well, to be brutally honest, I reckon said author did so deliberately knowing such a melodramatic critique would garner a lot more interest (and, therefore, eventually a lot more $$$$) than a "kind" one.
I don't think Gordon Ramsay would be nearly so famous if he wasn't such an asshole.

[Ian S]

why be nasty? well, to be brutally honest, I reckon said author did so deliberately knowing such a melodramatic critique would garner a lot more interest (and, therefore, eventually a lot more $$$$) than a "kind" one.
I don't think Gordon Ramsay would be nearly so famous if he wasn't such an asshole.

Agreed, at least amongst US wine critics. If it's not these sort of reviews, it's a 'vintage of the century' every 5 years, or a deluge of 100 pointers. Hype.

[marsalla]

Reading the berserker site it would appear the reviewer has seen the wine before, and didnt like it. If the wine is not your thing why would you continue to review it. You have made your point previously, to go on about it just seems a bit uncool to me.

[Polymer]

why be nasty? well, to be brutally honest, I reckon said author did so deliberately knowing such a melodramatic critique would garner a lot more interest (and, therefore, eventually a lot more $$$$) than a "kind" one.
I don't think Gordon Ramsay would be nearly so famous if he wasn't such an asshole.

Of course...it is there to garner attention. It is there because people see the review and it brings out a response..good or bad..

But also, it defines the style of wines you like/dislike as a critic...

I personally see it as too extreme..but that's probably the easiest way to get attention..

[Diq]

Reading the berserker site it would appear the reviewer has seen the wine before, and didnt like it. If the wine is not your thing why would you continue to review it. You have made your point previously, to go on about it just seems a bit uncool to me.

Isn't it still their job to review the wine? If he is told by his publication to review the wines in front of him he's not going to say 'No sorry, I hate that wine'. Wines also change by vintage and some bottles I could barely tolerate one year have amazed me the next. Would be a shame if every reviewer who hated a wine once never touched it again.

[marsalla]

I dont have a problem if the wine is faulty, which the wine isn't, but if the wine is sound, but not to your taste you dont need to hammer it, If you dont like the wine style, review the styles you enjoy. It is not as if he average professional reviewer doesn't have more than enough wines to review,

[Polymer]

I dont have a problem if the wine is faulty, which the wine isn't, but if the wine is sound, but not to your taste you dont need to hammer it, If you dont like the wine style, review the styles you enjoy. It is not as if he average professional reviewer doesn't have more than enough wines to review,

Disagree..what is the point of that? Why would you only limit your reviews to wines you enjoy? This isn't marketing, it is a review of the wine..(actually it is marketing as well but not paid for marketing..well, maybe that isn't accurate either ).

[swirler]

Don't Winefront give the wines to the reviewers who like that respective label/style?

[marsalla]

Winefront channel the styles, you don't see Walsh doing natural wines.

Plenty of wine reviewers focus on wine styles, you wouldn't expect a burgundy specialist reviewing port, also the reviewer has exhibited a bias against the wine, so hard to be objective there. That said I am sure the mollydookers care not a jot for the review. Generally you have reviewers whose opinion you rate, and the rest are just white noise. However an unfair, deliberately nasty review, someone who mocks your work, they do get under your skin, annoyingly so. All that said,
I cant say I like the style of wine myself so I probably should just shut up

[Polymer]

Not that I think there is a better way to do reviews but..

If you were trying to see if your palate aligns with a critic, would you consider it easier to figure out if you are aligned if you see reviews where there are highs and lows? Or when the range of points is relatively narrow and where the critic rates wines a bit more "objectively (if there is such a thing" even when they dislike the style?

I think it would be easier when there is a defined style that person prefers and likes or hates....although if I wanted to gain a larger audience I'd try to be more general about stuff....