Ok so here's a little pop quiz for you all. I want to know what your perceptions of well-known wine writers' biases are.
Note at this stage - I am specifically not referring to "commercial" biases where you believe a writer has a vested interest in pushing something. I am talking more about, for instance, the infamous "Parker style" of full-bodied, fruity wines - a writer's personal taste or preference for a certain style coming through in their coverage.
My example would by James Halliday, who I have always thought has a slightly over-emphasised love of Hunter wines compared to his peers. Now I personally like Hunter wine and think it is probably suffering from being out of fashion as much as low quality, but Halliday does tend to find some five star wineries in the Hunter where I might well see no more than four. of course he has been accused of being a compulsive high marker across the board but hey, that's my perception.
So what biases/notable preferences do you see in the popular writers?
Perception of bias in wine writers
Perception of bias in wine writers
3, 65, 7, 50
I would add a couple more "biases" for Halliday (A more neutral word might be preferences, which everyone has to have to hold an opinion).
1.) He loves riesling. Riesling, whoever has made it, wherever they have made it, gets comparatively high marks. I like it too, and most of it in Australia is pretty good, so maybe I share this one.
2.) He dislikes obvious oak, though this is reflected in his comments more than his marks (he regularly complains that a wine has "a touch too much oak", and usually I don't mind the oak - in fact, a wine with "a touch too much oak" in Halliday terms is exactly what I like, and usually these are wines that Halliday rates quite highly anyway).
3.) He loves Victorian reds. But I'm inclined to say, based on my experience "Why not?".
1.) He loves riesling. Riesling, whoever has made it, wherever they have made it, gets comparatively high marks. I like it too, and most of it in Australia is pretty good, so maybe I share this one.
2.) He dislikes obvious oak, though this is reflected in his comments more than his marks (he regularly complains that a wine has "a touch too much oak", and usually I don't mind the oak - in fact, a wine with "a touch too much oak" in Halliday terms is exactly what I like, and usually these are wines that Halliday rates quite highly anyway).
3.) He loves Victorian reds. But I'm inclined to say, based on my experience "Why not?".
im popular with my mum so will answer for me hehe
my bias:
love off dry riesling
love refined and elegant bdx blends
hard on chardonnay (hate obvious oak) but love really good examples
hard on pinot noir (its gotta be really really good)
hard on pinot gris + viognier
elegance and definition over power and size
my bias:
love off dry riesling
love refined and elegant bdx blends
hard on chardonnay (hate obvious oak) but love really good examples
hard on pinot noir (its gotta be really really good)
hard on pinot gris + viognier
elegance and definition over power and size
Follow me on Vivino for tasting notes Craig Thomson
Every human has biases/preferences. They key to me is that critics should be aware of their own likes and dislikes, and be brave enough to admit them to their readers. The readers should also take some responsibility in trying to determine any biases of critics, but I think the critic should fess up ASAP.
Critic, know thyself!
Critic, know thyself!
orpheus wrote:(A more neutral word might be preferences, which everyone has to have to hold an opinion).
Fair enough. As I said, I'm not looking for insinuations of impropriety, just ideas of preferences.
I wonder if Halliday's Hunter and Riesling thing might be two sides of the same coin? Sharp, acidic whites - most Aussie Riesling and young Hunter Semillon both fall under that umbrella.
3, 65, 7, 50
JDSJDS wrote:Every human has biases/preferences. They key to me is that critics should be aware of their own likes and dislikes, and be brave enough to admit them to their readers. The readers should also take some responsibility in trying to determine any biases of critics, but I think the critic should fess up ASAP.
Critic, know thyself!
I agree and I think it is problematic for the individual critic to "correct" for them. I think it's better if everyone knows what they are so that each of us can do our own "correction" taking into account our own individual biases/preferences.
Sorry for the thread drift.
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
a mainstream columnist from Adelaide used to write volumes on high alcohol, and unnecessary irrigation, and how these wines would ruin the aussie wine world. this same winewriter now works for a smaller news service and still regularly promotes a winery, from the Barossa, which has nothing in its "dry red wine" portfolio at what used to be regarded as an aussie fortified alcohol level. I used to love the wines from this vineyard(s) but now they are so unblanced it makes my tastebuds cringe.
Bias, I would hope not.
Let your tastebuds decide.
Bias, I would hope not.
Let your tastebuds decide.
Drink the wine, not the label.
crusty2 wrote:a mainstream columnist from Adelaide used to write volumes on high alcohol, and unnecessary irrigation, and how these wines would ruin the aussie wine world. this same winewriter now works for a smaller news service and still regularly promotes a winery, from the Barossa, which has nothing in its "dry red wine" portfolio at what used to be regarded as an aussie fortified alcohol level. I used to love the wines from this vineyard(s) but now they are so unblanced it makes my tastebuds cringe.
Bias, I would hope not.
Let your tastebuds decide.
'Mainstream' is not quite the way I'd describe Philip White.
Cheers
Wayno
Give me the luxuries of life and I will willingly do without the necessities.
Wayno
Give me the luxuries of life and I will willingly do without the necessities.
Halliday - Hunter and riesling, hard marker for Pinot
Oliver - Victorian wines
Jancis Robinson - elegance and finesse
Haven't really noticed a preference for some of the other high profile writers such as Huon Hooke etc.
Jamie
Oliver - Victorian wines
Jancis Robinson - elegance and finesse
Haven't really noticed a preference for some of the other high profile writers such as Huon Hooke etc.
Jamie
Lets just say I have never had a wine I've hated, but there are some I would rather not taste again....
Not sure this is the place to be doing this, but purely in the spirit of fun.
Halliday- Don't know that he's hard on Pinot?! Certainly not a lot of time for neb or pinot gris. Specialties are overall knowledge amassed. His TNs are being left behind by better TN writers IMHO.
Oliver- Ummmm, all over the place, don't use him.
GW- specialises in Hunter and WA (although does "lotsa" other very well), loves cabernet and merlot. Not big on Gris or Viognier or SV's
CM- big on Hunter and Beechworth, I think prefers Reds, is beginning to become a Cab and Cab et al fan and dabbles in Sav Blanc...in fact I think you have to be reading him pretty often at the moment to keep up (not that it ain't worth it). Generally plumps for interest mainly. And has a perverse desire to drink wines people badmouth
HH- should write a book or have a website. Love his work but can't pin him down in any real way.
Jancis Robinson- almost always right
Well, I like her.
Oz Clarke and Hugh Johnson- haven't really convinced me they have much to offer at all
These are impressions and the above authors should feel free to set the record straight
Halliday- Don't know that he's hard on Pinot?! Certainly not a lot of time for neb or pinot gris. Specialties are overall knowledge amassed. His TNs are being left behind by better TN writers IMHO.
Oliver- Ummmm, all over the place, don't use him.
GW- specialises in Hunter and WA (although does "lotsa" other very well), loves cabernet and merlot. Not big on Gris or Viognier or SV's
CM- big on Hunter and Beechworth, I think prefers Reds, is beginning to become a Cab and Cab et al fan and dabbles in Sav Blanc...in fact I think you have to be reading him pretty often at the moment to keep up (not that it ain't worth it). Generally plumps for interest mainly. And has a perverse desire to drink wines people badmouth
HH- should write a book or have a website. Love his work but can't pin him down in any real way.
Jancis Robinson- almost always right
Well, I like her.
Oz Clarke and Hugh Johnson- haven't really convinced me they have much to offer at all
These are impressions and the above authors should feel free to set the record straight
Crusty /Wayno
The same journalist refused to taste my wines based on their reputation.
He got really annoyed at another local winery who blacked out the alc on the sample of red he tasted.
He really got into it and was disgusted when told it was 17%.
I think he used the term...ambush?
home of the mega-red
My opinion may not mean anything to you:
Broadbent: Soft spot for aged wines.
Hugh Johnson: Changed a lot over the years, soft spot for Champagne but now too relaxed to keep up with other writers.
Robert Parker: Thanks to him the terrible unripe and green years of Bordeaux all but gone. He is getting tired but still, great palate and one of the best writers out there.
Jeremy Oliver: He certainly needs to wake up to himself, his palate and writing simply uninspiring.
James Halliday: Over scorer but loves his country and I still love his writing and share his love for Australian wine.
Peter Bourne: Great 15 years ago but his writing today lacks focus for me. A Burgundy man in the old days but can't tell today...
Huon Hooke: I read him every Tuesday, always good fun and his soft spots change yearly.
Rick Einstein: Used to love his wine region travel journals but his wine score system simply doesn't work (for me). He is limiting himself to red wine which means he has no full experience in the world of wine.
Gary Walsh: Occassional great work but some really unusual quirky notes makes one think. Loves the Hunter. Since Winorama gone, I don't read his work that often.
Broadbent: Soft spot for aged wines.
Hugh Johnson: Changed a lot over the years, soft spot for Champagne but now too relaxed to keep up with other writers.
Robert Parker: Thanks to him the terrible unripe and green years of Bordeaux all but gone. He is getting tired but still, great palate and one of the best writers out there.
Jeremy Oliver: He certainly needs to wake up to himself, his palate and writing simply uninspiring.
James Halliday: Over scorer but loves his country and I still love his writing and share his love for Australian wine.
Peter Bourne: Great 15 years ago but his writing today lacks focus for me. A Burgundy man in the old days but can't tell today...
Huon Hooke: I read him every Tuesday, always good fun and his soft spots change yearly.
Rick Einstein: Used to love his wine region travel journals but his wine score system simply doesn't work (for me). He is limiting himself to red wine which means he has no full experience in the world of wine.
Gary Walsh: Occassional great work but some really unusual quirky notes makes one think. Loves the Hunter. Since Winorama gone, I don't read his work that often.
"(Wine) information is only as valuable as its source" DB
This is an interesting question.
I distinguish between two sorts of bias -
1) Innate or acquired prejudice which leads the writer or consumer to mark down wines from certain areas or of a certain type. The most common form of this prejudice is patriotic bias in favour of wines of the home country or region or against certain wines because of dislike for a country or culture, e.g. against France amongst Bush supporters following the Iraq invasion. It can also swing the other way; there is a segment of American wine-lovers who seem prejudiced against the domestic product but they would defend themselves by saying that this is really a type 2 bias, (see 2 below). Another manifestation of prejudice is the snobbish "ABC" (anything but Chardonnay and Cabernet) - to which Merlot should now be added.
2) Bias in favour of personal taste, e.g. Parker's taste for hedonistic, alcoholic wines and Robinson's for the elegant and harmonious. This personal taste is less often innate than a product of wine education, e.g. my taste was formed on the elegant Bordeaux and Burgundies of the 50s and 60s and this style still tends to be my reference point. Others whom I know first started with a love for fruity blockbusters and only graduated with experience to more understated and elegant wines; it can go the other way and I think that Parker, who started with a love of Bordeaux, is an example of that.
Bias of the first sort exists amongst most consumers living in wine growing countries and regions and is also present amongst some wine writers living there; it exists in its most extreme form in France where, for example, many Bordelais will rarely drink anything not coming from Bordeaux and, if they do, are likely to have a knee jerk reaction of finding fault. Good wine writers should be able to guard against this type of prejudice but it is natural that they will have a better knowledge of wines of their own region and this can be mistaken for prejudice. In this respect British wine writers enjoy an advantage of neutrality but this can be attenuated by cultural affinities in favour of English speaking producers.
On the other hand, most British wine writers of the older generation were, like me, brought up on European classics and their tastes remain orientated in that direction; Broadbent is the most obvious example of this but I don't think he shows the prejudiced sort of bias; if he likes an Aussie wine, he will say so. The younger British wine writers may not have followed this route; I think that Jamie Goode, for example, has said that he started out on mainly New World wines and came later to appreciate the European style.
Personally I think that wine-writers need to fight against prejudice but not against their own personal tastes provided that, like Parker, they make these clear to the reader. Like music and the arts, wine quality is unquantifiable and judgements are subjective.
I distinguish between two sorts of bias -
1) Innate or acquired prejudice which leads the writer or consumer to mark down wines from certain areas or of a certain type. The most common form of this prejudice is patriotic bias in favour of wines of the home country or region or against certain wines because of dislike for a country or culture, e.g. against France amongst Bush supporters following the Iraq invasion. It can also swing the other way; there is a segment of American wine-lovers who seem prejudiced against the domestic product but they would defend themselves by saying that this is really a type 2 bias, (see 2 below). Another manifestation of prejudice is the snobbish "ABC" (anything but Chardonnay and Cabernet) - to which Merlot should now be added.
2) Bias in favour of personal taste, e.g. Parker's taste for hedonistic, alcoholic wines and Robinson's for the elegant and harmonious. This personal taste is less often innate than a product of wine education, e.g. my taste was formed on the elegant Bordeaux and Burgundies of the 50s and 60s and this style still tends to be my reference point. Others whom I know first started with a love for fruity blockbusters and only graduated with experience to more understated and elegant wines; it can go the other way and I think that Parker, who started with a love of Bordeaux, is an example of that.
Bias of the first sort exists amongst most consumers living in wine growing countries and regions and is also present amongst some wine writers living there; it exists in its most extreme form in France where, for example, many Bordelais will rarely drink anything not coming from Bordeaux and, if they do, are likely to have a knee jerk reaction of finding fault. Good wine writers should be able to guard against this type of prejudice but it is natural that they will have a better knowledge of wines of their own region and this can be mistaken for prejudice. In this respect British wine writers enjoy an advantage of neutrality but this can be attenuated by cultural affinities in favour of English speaking producers.
On the other hand, most British wine writers of the older generation were, like me, brought up on European classics and their tastes remain orientated in that direction; Broadbent is the most obvious example of this but I don't think he shows the prejudiced sort of bias; if he likes an Aussie wine, he will say so. The younger British wine writers may not have followed this route; I think that Jamie Goode, for example, has said that he started out on mainly New World wines and came later to appreciate the European style.
Personally I think that wine-writers need to fight against prejudice but not against their own personal tastes provided that, like Parker, they make these clear to the reader. Like music and the arts, wine quality is unquantifiable and judgements are subjective.
Eboracum
-
cuttlefish
- Posts: 1017
- Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 1:46 pm
- Location: Sunbury
TORB wrote:Attila,
Just to set the record straight, I was drinking bucket loads of c-though, including heaps of French stuff, when you were still in nappies. And that means "I have had full experience in the world of wine," even if it is not recent.
What a pity...we'd benefit from your insights on the white stuff. You is a guru
Smack my [insert grape type here] up !
Excellent post from Eboracum.
I am however not convinced that the two types of bias you describe are mutually exclusive. I suspect that the two may be somewhat intertwined within our psyches. There are some aspects of taste that may be innate, but I think that much more is acquired. We all have experience of our personal preferences changing over time.
Prejudices are always acquired in my opinion.
While prejudices and tastes (or "palate" preferences) can and do operate at a conscious level, they may also act at an unconscious level. As such they cannot be consciously separated or controlled.
I think the only way the two can be properly separated is into innate (posssibly inherited) aspects of taste (which I think are of secondary importance), and all acquired aspects of taste. I don't think we know enough about the former for the distinction to be of any more than academic interest at present.
The distinction you make may indeed be useful for wine critics to reflect upon, but I believe they are largely powerless to overcome the unconscious effects that these biases may have.
I am however not convinced that the two types of bias you describe are mutually exclusive. I suspect that the two may be somewhat intertwined within our psyches. There are some aspects of taste that may be innate, but I think that much more is acquired. We all have experience of our personal preferences changing over time.
Prejudices are always acquired in my opinion.
While prejudices and tastes (or "palate" preferences) can and do operate at a conscious level, they may also act at an unconscious level. As such they cannot be consciously separated or controlled.
I think the only way the two can be properly separated is into innate (posssibly inherited) aspects of taste (which I think are of secondary importance), and all acquired aspects of taste. I don't think we know enough about the former for the distinction to be of any more than academic interest at present.
The distinction you make may indeed be useful for wine critics to reflect upon, but I believe they are largely powerless to overcome the unconscious effects that these biases may have.
"It is very hard to make predictions, especially about the future." Samuel Goldwyn
Care Factor threshold of some people around here is disturbingly low. I dont think its healthy for anyone to care about the technicalities of 2x types of bias within wine writers, let alone write half a novel on the subject
Has anyone seen Billy Connelly's latest 'a wee beige jobby' session??
This thread reminds me of the "going to a party" scene
ducking for cover now...be gentle
Has anyone seen Billy Connelly's latest 'a wee beige jobby' session??
This thread reminds me of the "going to a party" scene
ducking for cover now...be gentle
Follow me on Vivino for tasting notes Craig Thomson
Critique-ing the critics of the critics?
And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?
We are well into wine-w*nkery here.
I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.
And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?
We are well into wine-w*nkery here.
I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.
“There are no standards of taste in wine. Each mans own taste is the standard, and a majority vote cannot decide for him or in any slightest degree affect the supremacy of his own standard". Mark Twain.
Critique-ing the critics of the critics?
And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?
We are well into wine-w*nkery here.
I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.
now let me think about that for a second
if your sisiters brothers mothers half sister married your cousins brothers mothers uncle, who is the flower girl?
Follow me on Vivino for tasting notes Craig Thomson
-
Daryl Douglas
- Posts: 1361
- Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2003 7:23 pm
- Location: Nth Qld
Jay60A wrote:Critique-ing the critics of the critics?
And I am questioning the critique-ing the critics of the critics?
We are well into wine-w*nkery here.
I dare everyone on this thread to post a TN instead.
It's natural that individual palates prefer some styles to others and that those preferences can sometimes show through in tasting notes, even though the taster is trying to remain objective. I was trying to give an objective, accurate assessment here:
http://forum.auswine.com.au/viewtopic.php?t=9646
Cheers
daz