Rant-What's Going On With Wine Reviewers?

[Ian S]

The older I get, the more I seem to gravitate to wine writers, as against the 'wine annual / buying guide' critics.

Although a bit rambling, I do like the writing of Nicholas Belfrage and also in Italy, Ian d'Agata's native wine grapes of Italy is my favourite wine book.

I also very much enjoy reading Geoff Kelly's wine reviews website. He may have more in common with the points wielding critics in the individual TNs / scores being a key part of his site, but his writing is so often interesting, occasionally controversial, but not just for the sake of being provocative (as someone like Jamie Goode could be). I do share his love of mature wines, and although I don't always agree, I do find his opinion worth reading even if I do disagree.

Who are your favourite wine writers and how do they elevate themselves from the problems of pure wine critics?

[Scotty vino]

So I'm at unnamed Cellar door in the Barossa. A chap comes in the door accompanied by a tour guide.
He wants a case of the new release wine that received the 'points'. The cellar door attendant informs the man that the wine is open for tasting right here, right now. Won't hurt to make sure you like it? No interest. It's got 'points' it has to be amazing.
Man leaves with a case....

Huge credit to the person at the cellar door - indeed they probably deserve a name check for doing the right thing in trying to ensure the wine was one the guy would like.

One other possibility, maybe that guy was a 'flipper'. Buying it because he thought he could make a quick buck. More prevalent in the US, but probably exists to a lesser degree the world over.

This guy didn't murder anyone of course but it shows the power of the points scale.
It's a repeated mantra in any cellar door as the newly released vino hits the glass if said wine has been 'halliday-ed'.
"here we have our 2017 vintage riesling which has just received 96 points from Johnny Holiday".
This is followed by the nodding heads of approval with schnozz in glass.

[tarija]

Fully agree with the criticisms of the nature of the 100 point scale, leading to over-hype. A 2013 Barolo that has always been fair (but not stunning IMO) value got 'awarded' 100 points by Galloni and the Points whores (c Robert Parker) and opportunists pushed the price up to 3 times what it was.

Galloni is a fairly conservative critic, just that he chooses to use 100. The Australian critics cluster a lot of their scores around 94-96, and in my opinion for too many mid-level wines that are not deserving of it.

For Barolo 2012 and 2013, there are 43 Barolo reviewed and scored by both Wine Front (mostly Walsh, some Bennie) and Vinous (Galloni):
- Wine Front scored 35 Barolo higher, on average by 2.4 points;
- Galloni scored 5 Barolo higher, on average by 2 points (main driver of this is Burlotto Monvigliero 2013, a variance of 4);
- 3 wines scored the same (2013 Vajra Bricco delle Viole, and the two 2013 G Rinaldi Barolo).

For the Barolo that Wine Front reviewed higher, range of scores: 90 - 96.5, compared to 87 - 95.5.

Galloni more conservative than the Wine Front crew for the majority of Barolo. 2011 would be interesting to compare the two - I've not analysed the data, however critic preference likely to come into play with Walsh having stated his displeasure of the vintage.

[JamieBahrain]

Quick sidetrack, do you think Galloni worthwhile subscription as a Piedmont tragic? I was turned off by BDX/Burg reviews on his page.

There is a market for somebody to move to Alba and write an exclusive Piedmont review. Wish I was clever enough !

[tarija]

Quick sidetrack, do you think Galloni worthwhile subscription as a Piedmont tragic? I was turned off by BDX/Burg reviews on his page.

There is a market for somebody to move to Alba and write an exclusive Piedmont review. Wish I was clever enough !

The Galloni website is very good, especially the forum. There is an enormous degree of respect from all posters, and none of the snide/snark that you see on Berserkers, or on other paid wine reviewer websites. Very pleasant.

Jamie, I think you would also enjoy the vintage reports for Piedmont. Plus the fact that you have two Piedmont experts in Galloni and D'Agata around. Italy wine coverage is a strength.

Re. Bdx: probably enough free resources to use nowadays. Burg: I do not drink enough Burg to test out Vinous vs Meadows, but I'd wager that Meadows is still the more experienced and incisive palate.

[JamieBahrain]

Thx Tarija. I'll sign up. It'll give me something to do at work.

[Gary W]

For the Barolo that Wine Front reviewed higher, range of scores: 90 - 96.5, compared to 87 - 95.5.

Galloni more conservative than the Wine Front crew for the majority of Barolo. 2011 would be interesting to compare the two - I've not analysed the data, however critic preference likely to come into play with Walsh having stated his displeasure of the vintage.

Fascinating! Thank you. It's not apples with apples though, it's apples v oranges, as we use 100 points, but apply them differently.

Galloni is
96-100 Exceptional
90-95 Outstanding
85-89 Excellent
80-84 Average
75-79 Below Average
Below 75 - not worth your time.

Walsh is
97-100 Exceptional
94-96 Outstanding - Gold medal
91-93 Excellent - Silver
88-90 Good - Bronze
85-87 Average
82-84 Poor
79-81 Yuk

So looking at the examples you've provided, it's pretty much like with like, in terms of where the wines sit on the scale. That is, the 100 point scale is not universal, it applies from critic to critic differently, which is VERY confusing really.

[Michael McNally]

Fascinating! Thank you. It's not apples with apples though, it's apples v oranges, as we use 100 points, but apply them differently.

Galloni is
96-100 Exceptional
90-95 Outstanding
85-89 Excellent
80-84 Average
75-79 Below Average
Below 75 - not worth your time.

Walsh is
97-100 Exceptional
94-96 Outstanding - Gold medal
91-93 Excellent - Silver
88-90 Good - Bronze
85-87 Average
82-84 Poor
79-81 Yuk

So looking at the examples you've provided, it's pretty much like with like, in terms of where the wines sit on the scale. That is, the 100 point scale is not universal, it applies from critic to critic differently, which is VERY confusing really.

I'd rate this explanation 98 points. You lose points for referring to yourself in the third person and unnecessary capitalisation.

Cheers

Michael

[Gary W]

I'd rate this explanation 98 points. You lose points for referring to yourself in the third person and unnecessary capitalisation.

Cheers

Michael

Talking about myself in the third person makes me feel More Important.

[bdellabosca]

Brilliant

[Cactus]

Reverse rant.

At some level I think people need to take responsibility. Are you paying for the service reviewers provide? If not then i dont think you can have a beef with any of them.

Are you keeping a mental track of whether their palate lines up with yours over time? Are you tasting and verifying wines before purchase? Do your own due diligence.

If you are paying, I would say a wine reviewer is still just a guide. They highlight wines you might like that you wouldnt ordinarily find. They can also highlight wines that dont justify the hype. In their subtle ways you can see this from Winefront and Andrew Graham. These guys have opened my eyes to new wines. Not all of their pics are to my liking. But they have performed a valuable service in cutting through the volume.

[Gary W]

Yes! It's not our job to tell you what you'll like, it's our job to suggest what you might like, and to be gatekeepers and sift through the shit to get the gold (so to speak). And as you say, to uncover the odd gem that people don't know much about. The score is a by-product of that, and not the be all and end all.

[Polymer]

They are all scored on the same basis. MR Cabernet, Bordeaux, Barolo, Barossa. It would be INSANITY to handicap wines.

I'm not saying you handicap the wines...but they're scored in relation to how other AU writers score...maybe that is because everyone aligned to the Halliday scoring scale which is a bit high...or maybe it is just what it is, as Felix mentioned, you' be at a commercial disadvantage not to align yourself with the same "scale" that others in AU use...but that also means higher scores...

I don't like the leading with stupid scores, and yes, I'm part of the problem, but possibly part of the solution too. The trend to quote 'man with a bottle and a nose on his face' as trusted source, by a few online retailers is kind of bemusing. I don't think the public are stupid. If Mr X says this wine is brilliant and 96 points, then they can only cry wolf so many times before Joe Public says "This person is SHIT!". The note is the important thing. We write a lot of words at TWF, and have, I think, three good communicators with individual styles. I think we have built up a lot of trust over the years, not only with paying subscribers (of course), but those who read the notes in retailer channels and in the trade. But that's my biased opinion.

Yes and no...You can't have outlandish scores for everything..but certainly the rogue very high score here and there that builds your brand isn't going to ruin how most wine drinkers/readers view your opinion... And most people reading for points, while not stupid, are still in the sheeple mode..They don't feel confident enough about their own opinions or thoughts on a wine and are looking for someone to tell them what is good, what they should drink, etc. They certainly don't feel confident enough to call out the opinion of critics...

Not to mention that if AU writers are scoring high in general...what is stupidly high? I'm sure you already recognize there isn't much left in the 100 point scale for wines to go...and writers all over the world are guilty of this..I just think in AU the scoring is higher on average and has even less room to go...

Fascinating! Thank you. It's not apples with apples though, it's apples v oranges, as we use 100 points, but apply them differently.

That's not really what you said before..and I think Tarija is just pointing that out...not that it matters, 34 wines or whatever is not a big sample size...I don't have much of an opinion on TWF's rating on non AU wines as I don't think there is a huge number there...although they generally seemed to be scored higher although it could just be the wines reviewed, on average, were better....

At some level I think people need to take responsibility. Are you paying for the service reviewers provide? If not then i dont think you can have a beef with any of them.

Of course you can...

Parker single-handedly changed how winemaking was done in Bordeaux....They influence what gets carried in stores, what gets carried in restaurants...They even influence what will be imported into your country...Even if you don't subscribe to any of them, their opinions DO make a difference in the industry....and as a result, have an impact on our wine lives..

[Cactus]

The 100 point scale has always been silly to me. I think scored simpler makes sense. The first 85 points arent used.

[TiggerK]

Yeah but even on a 20 point scale ( or a '40 point' like Jancis), how often do you see scores below 15, let alone below 10? Descriptions are ideal, but many people want a quantative scale.

Think of the 100 point scale as a 15 point scale that generally starts from 85 and we can all move on.

[Chris H]

You probably deserve a "nice indeed" rating.

[felixp21]

Parker single-handedly changed how winemaking was done in Bordeaux....They influence what gets carried in stores, what gets carried in restaurants...They even influence what will be imported into your country...Even if you don't subscribe to any of them, their opinions DO make a difference in the industry....and as a result, have an impact on our wine lives..


........ I dispute this. The 1982 vintage changed wine-making in Bordeaux. That near-perfect vintage was really the first genuinely stellar vintage since 1961. The perfect growing season, particularly late, allowed the wine-makers to produce wines that were fruit-forward, incredibly easy to enjoy and accessible pretty much from day one after bottling. Those characteristics proved immensely popular with the wine-loving hordes, and the vintage broke all records en primeur.
It has been 21 years since the last great vintage, and the wine-loving public had become accustomed to hard, green, tannic wines that the vintages and wine-making styles of the 70's produced. 1982 was therefore a revelation to most, except those who were around for the 47,48,50,52,55,59 and 61 vintages, which were also fruit forward, lush and generally accessible early on.
the difference between Parker and virtually every other wine critic in 1982 is that he touted the vintage as legendary, the others as some sort of aberration in which the wines would fall apart after 5-7 years. Oh yes, all the great made this call, only to retract over the years, using that most wonderful of instruments, the retro-spectoscope. Now they all claim they thought it to be great from the outset.... my EP summaries from 82 say very differently!!

the popularity of 1982 vintage really brought forward a change in philosophy for the Chateaux, and the style of wine we now see was born, or should I say re-born, of course, very much supported by RPJ ( he was practically a nobody in 1982, and it wasn't really until the internet boom in the mid-90's did he rise to incredible popularity)
I don't dispute for one second that Parker was and remains a champion of this style of wine, but I will always maintain that the style was born (re-born) from the amazing success of vintage 1982.

[Gary W]

Agree. Parker was the herald, not the cause.

[Ian S]

Quick sidetrack, do you think Galloni worthwhile subscription as a Piedmont tragic? I was turned off by BDX/Burg reviews on his page.

There is a market for somebody to move to Alba and write an exclusive Piedmont review. Wish I was clever enough !

Hi Jamie
A group of Wine Pages forumites clubbed together to take advantage of a group rate for Vinous. I can't recall the numbers needed, but not excessive for a substantial discount.
Regards
Ian

[Polymer]

I don't agree...1982 might've shown what they could do and was the catalyst and eye opener but not the cause.

You've had quite a number of people in the region talk about how they've changed the style to get more points from Parker..which impacted how much they could sell the wine for and the success of their wine...
1982 showed them what they could do..it didn't show them to go super overripe like many have more and more so over the years, that was Parker.
He's had a huge influence on what happens in Bordeaux...you can say if it wasn't him it would've been someone else...but we don't know that for sure.

Or look at what happened to the AU wine industry..are we going to say he didn't singlehandedly influence the overblown style that plagued AU for a number of years?

But regardless..the point is, critics do have a major impact on the industry...regardless of whether or not you subscribe to them, they impact our of our wine lives..

[Ian S]

At some level I think people need to take responsibility. Are you paying for the service reviewers provide? If not then i dont think you can have a beef with any of them.

Indeed. The stupidity of points chasing and rapid price escalation of highly 'pointed' wines, would be nothing if people didn't blindly follow them. A merchant adding a few extra bucks on shouldn't offend too much, though ones that hold the price but allocate to regular customers probably win out in the ethics stakes. Those that double/triple the price, or even worse those opportunists that chase the pointy wines to then sell on for a quick profit, are much more worthy of contempt. Critics have a significant role to play as well, in how they introduce their reviews / ratings. I can't recall any saying "don't simply buy on my points - work out what appeals to your palate". Those that refer to their publications as 'buying guides', either in the name or the blurb, deserve contempt for that.

I called points chasing stupidity, and it is, but it happens mainly due to the mystique that wine seems to hold, and the doubt that new enthusiasts in particular have in their own palate. They feel so vulnerable that I see people who view being handed a wine list as the equivalent of being handed a grenade with the pin removed. Here the wine critics step in, as 'your friend with a great palate', to make a complex subject as simple as a simple number between 80-10. I suspect there are few of us here that haven't bought on points in the past, or at least given such points more credibility than they deserved. Probably plenty who if they were honest with themselves still do. I remain indebted to a good friend, who when I said many years ago "That wine should be good because it won a gold medal". he said "Bollocks should it - that means nothing, taste it and judge for yourself". A much needed comment.

[Phil H]

Sorry for bringing up Halliday again - However noticed in the 2018 edition he has rated 2013 Penfolds St Henri at 90 points. Is the wine that bad.....?
Also bringing up the 100 point system - I notice that on cellar tracker - a review site maintained by mugs like us who are critical of professional reviewers, 89 points - okay wine. 91 points - very good wine, 93 to 95 points exceptional wine. Hmmmm - similar to Haliday minus 3 points.
Yes the point system is flawed - much prefer general impressions.

[Ian S]

Hi Phil
Yes I've voiced my dismay before that us non-commercial wine enthusiasts go along with a horribly biased variant of a 100 point scale. I see the commercial sense of critics having the majority of wine reviews toting 90+ point scores, but us amateurs have no reason to 'plump up' the ratings.

I don't score wines, though if I had to it would either be a simple 0-3 or 0-5 star scale. I'm surprised no-one ever adopted the $ scale, i.e. it scores what you'd be happy to pay for another bottle of it.

regards
Ian

[Diddy]

So I'm at unnamed Cellar door in the Barossa. A chap comes in the door accompanied by a tour guide.
He wants a case of the new release wine that received the 'points'. The cellar door attendant informs the man that the wine is open for tasting right here, right now. Won't hurt to make sure you like it? No interest. It's got 'points' it has to be amazing.
Man leaves with a case....

This reminds me of a very similar experience at Leeuwin Estate. Imagine the punter's surprise when they started boxing the Art Series chardonnay when he was expecting something red!

[Chuck]

Also bringing up the 100 point system - I notice that on cellar tracker - a review site maintained by mugs like us who are critical of professional reviewers, 89 points - okay wine. 91 points - very good wine, 93 to 95 points exceptional wine. Hmmmm - similar to Haliday minus 3 points.
Yes the point system is flawed - much prefer general impressions.

I'll drink to that .

Carl