Halliday Hate?

[Jaseziv]

I'm at the very inexperienced end of the spectrum when it comes to wine knowledge/appreciation etc so i don't intend this post to come across as ignorant. Nor is it meant to come to the defense of (or belittle anyone) either, but I notice in almost every thread on here - regardless of topic - Halliday gets mentioned in less than glowing terms. While his scores might be off (really, what does one individuals score mean anyway), I would've thought he's done his bit to bring greater attention to the industry? Sure, no doubt he has 'commercial interests', but who doesn't (ah capitalism)?

Wondering what all the hate is about? Is it warranted, or is our voracious appetite for being the absolute best at exhibiting our famous tall poppy syndrome taking charge?

[TiggerK]

I think I can say the general opinion here is one of great respect for the man, his palate and the incredible amount and breadth of wines he's enjoyed and scored. Not to mention his influence in promoting Australian wines on a world stage.

But few here seem to have any respect whatsoever for the increasingly commercial nature of Brand Halliday, and especially of the seemingly endless high (94+) points attached to so many very average wines (IMHO), which then get quoted ad nauseum in advertising. If I get offered a wine and they quote high Halliday points, I (almost) never buy it on principle! 97 Hallidays equates for me to a 93 from most other Oz reviewers and perhaps 91 on a world scale. I know the points system is totally b*ll**ks anyway, but he takes it to the extreme, and for me it reeks of commercial interest more than unbiased opinion.

My 2c, FWIW.

[odyssey]

I think historically and as a person most people, including me, have respect for him and his attitude and what he has done for the industry.

That said, I think there are a number of issues at hand that people have with his business.

One issue is less about Halliday himself and more an issue brought about by the wineries themselves - namely the pushing of Halliday stars and points left right and centre to unsuspecting cellar door visitors so much so that if you didn't know better (and most here do) then you couldn't separate the wheat from the chaff. Whilst that does not affect the knowledgable people here, who know much better, I feel that it is a detriment to the wine industry that the chaff is sold as if it is high standard.

What I believe is a legitimate issue is that, from my viewpoint Wine Companion online became a paid-for-subscription to what is mostly just a salespitch/advertising. I am happy to pay for good services but I unsubscribed from Wine Companion a long time ago due to what I consider to be, basically, spam. And perhaps that may not be James' fault directly, it may be his web strategist's doing - but he IS the director of his business.

Finally I tend to disagree with the palate of those who rate under his name (note I was careful here not to say "rated by him" as far as I understand many/most wines now are tasted and rated by his employees?). When I taste a rather ordinary mid-north NSW coast sauvignon blanc at the cellar door and see it is lauding "94 points James Halliday", it is only natural that I experience a little cynicism or at least, tend to shy away from his business' reviews and look elsewhere for TNs. Yet again these points are probably not his own doing but probably a taster working 8 hours a day through all kinds of deliveries... but again, the points and tasting notes are published under his name.

Perhaps it is less about James Halliday - the man - that people on forums are cynical with, and more about James Halliday - the business.

[ticklenow1]

What TiggerK and Odyssey said.

It's just a commercial business now and the points are a joke. What amazes me is that Campbell Mattinson now does some of Halliday's reviews and has to add extra points on what he would normally give a wine on TWF. If that is not selling out to the marketing of wineries, then I don't know what is. It just getting silly now.

My wife keeps buying me a membership but she has been banned from doing it again. As good as he can be for the wine industry, I'll not be donating to his already swelling bank account any longer!

Cheers
Ian

[Bobthebuilder]

I think he just got a bit too excited over time and as the scores crept too high he reached a point of no return.
I wonder if maybe he feels the same but realises he cant start heading back down because of the ramifications, he'd have to rate wines lower than his benchmark initially before he resets it and that would have some wineries fuming!
I just use cellar tracker reviews to sus things out, cant beat a heap of palates and opinions over a single one

[Scotty vino]

I'm on both sides of the fence. I can see how he's lifted the knowledge and profile of Australia wine but I also feel
his ratings/scores have become superfluous. I do have the 2013 wine companion which I find to be really useful
as more of a 'database' of wineries than something by which to judge them.
His model of "if you have nothing nice to say, than say nothing at all" is just a sneaky way of him staying on the good side
of most, if not all wine makers. Keeps his cellar stocked quite well too I imagine.

[Bobthebuilder]

the irony is that if he just said what he thought, good or bad, he would end up with more of the good stuff in that cellar and less of the stuff you don't want anyway

[TiggerK]

Slightly different topic, but I'd encourage anyone starting out in wine to not start madly collecting wine based on anyone's points. Start tasting wines from everywhere, whenever and wherever you can, decide what styles you like, and why you like them, but don't buy too much right away as your tastes will likely change over the first few years as you experience a wider range of styles, ages and quality levels. It's a fun journey!

Cheers!

[Bobthebuilder]

Top advice tigger!
Where were you when I needed you most!
Just kidding, I'm doing alright at developing those tastes and thoroughly enjoying the journey!

[tarija]

Slightly different topic, but I'd encourage anyone starting out in wine to not start madly collecting wine based on anyone's points. Start tasting wines from everywhere, whenever and wherever you can, decide what styles you like, and why you like them, but don't buy too much right away as your tastes will likely change over the first few years as you experience a wider range of styles, ages and quality levels. It's a fun journey!

Cheers!

This is good advice.

I think it is also a good idea to read foreign wine critics as well...most of the foreign critics taste far more broadly than the Australian ones (not unexpected, given Australia's distance from the rest of the world).

Also, good to avoid buying too much Australian shiraz. Every promo that comes by nowadays has a 96-97 point shiraz, you will end up with a cellar full of the stuff if you're not careful (not a bad thing per se, but not great if you're looking for diversity).

[Michael McNally]

Wondering what all the hate is about? Is it warranted, or is our voracious appetite for being the absolute best at exhibiting our famous tall poppy syndrome taking charge?

I think people like talking about what they don't like, and love talking about what they hate.

Why are his scores higher than they were previously? Could this in some small way reflect the improving quality of the wine he is tasting? That would suggest that the actual quality of wine in Australia had improved over the past couple of decades. Well, that wouldn't be very exciting.

It is ironic that people criticise him for his philosophy of only commenting on wines he likes. That he has attached his name to a pretty ordinary magazine aimed at the average punter seems to outrage some folks. Purists always see sell-outs.

As for it all being a grand strategy to accumulate free wine, what I have read seems to suggest he prefers European wine.

Life is too short for hate.

Cheers

Michael

[felixp]

I have become critical of Halliday, but certainly do not even dislike, let alone hate the man. Indeed, I have been present at quite a few single-table events where he has been the guest wine celebrity, and he is an amiable and moderately amusing man.
10-30 years ago, for me he was the go-to critic for Australian wines, a score of 95 was a surety the wine was fabulous. But for what-ever reason, and I actually do not care why, his current scores are now, simply-put, ridiculous. I have tasted utter swill he has given 95 points to, and ordinary wine he has anointed with 96 or 97 points. I heard some excuse that his scores are "in the context of Australian wine" which is even more idiotic. So, for me, he is now completely irrelevant. This is sad for a a wine-lover like me, who has followed his progress over the past 30 years.
Has the Australian wine industry improved over the past 30 years? Absolutely!!!! (as it has just about everywhere else in the world). Are the pinnacle Australian wines produced today better than the top-of-the-tree stuff of the 60's? No way!!! (although there are more excellent wines produced in Australia today in comparison to 50 years ago, and possibly less swill.) But that doesn't mean ordinary wines should be awarded 95, 96 or even 97 points, as is now often the case with this particular critic. Whether deliberate or not, Halliday points are now simply commercial spam.

[odyssey]

I also think people tend to tar all forms of disagreement and dissention with successful figures all too quickly with the "hate" brush and dismiss it as tall poppy syndrome but I think that despite the occasional outbreak of exaggerated point-making we are well reasoned enough to be able to make reasonably informed decisions. The fact that most above admitted to respecting Halliday despite disagreeing with his business is surely enough confirmation of that.

The wine community is chock full of personalities that love to debate and dissent, and generally there is some form of reasoning behind those debates no matter how differing the viewpoints are.

[Jaseziv]

Slightly different topic, but I'd encourage anyone starting out in wine to not start madly collecting wine based on anyone's points. Start tasting wines from everywhere, whenever and wherever you can, decide what styles you like, and why you like them, but don't buy too much right away as your tastes will likely change over the first few years as you experience a wider range of styles, ages and quality levels. It's a fun journey!

Cheers!

Thanks for the tip - will definitely come in handy for both my palate AND wallet!

Well sell out or not, as I sit at my desk this morning, I can't help but think I'd give a finger or toe to trade places with him!

[rooman]

I seem to come at Hallidays rating from a slightly different perspective. Clearly $20 wines that outscore some of the worlds top wines such as first growth Bordeaux and grand cru burgundy is silly. Where I find Halliday's reviews interesting however is how wines rate within a varietal category. For example a couple of years back he had Sons of Eden riesling as his 5th most preferred riesling overall for year and on this basis I tracked down the wine and discovered a new gem. The fact a wine is within his top 5 or 10 is of far more interest that the actual score.

[The fish]

Take it all with a grain of salt There's heaps of critics out there!

I find that I tend to look for the notes (some of which are quite hilarious - tastes like "bitumen" anyone? ) rather than the scores.

Cheers
Matt

[Mike Hawkins]

While there are many who quick to criticise critics, perhaps those same critics scoff and privately ridicule people like us when they read our posts and notes. Food for thought....

[Mahmoud Ali]

Look, despite the subject heading I don't think people hate Halliday. I suspect that many do "hate" the direction he has taken and what he and his notes have come to represent - exaggerated commercialism and inflated, meaningless scores.

However I have to add that scoring itself can be meaningless when it comes to wine critics. Here are a couple of scores I came across recently when looking up a particular wine, an '07 Marcarini Barolo 'La Serra' that I was thinking of buying based on a recommendation from a friend.

Score #1: Wine Spectator - 78 points: “This tastes like sweet berry and sawdust, with tough, astringent tannins and a dry finish.”

Score #2: Wine Advocate - 92 points: "This is a beautifully proportioned, harmonious Barolo from Marcarini."

Both tasting notes are for the same wine from the same vintage. How is a regular punter expected to decide whether it is a wine worth buying?

Mahmoud.

[Sigmamupi]

Hate is too strong a word but I, along with many others, detest the way his business has evolved and in particular the rampant points inflation that is exploited by lazy retailers. The points made by TiggerK, Odyssey and FelixP are all extremely well made. The reason I post is that I recently tried Halliday's Wine of Year, 2011 Xanadu Stevens Road cabernet. I tried it with a very experienced and knowledgeable wine maker who has an international palate. He was tasting blind and rated it 93 and thought that it didn't show a great deal of classic cabernet character. I knew the identity of the wine and would struggle to honestly rate it 93. Yet Halliday rates it 99 and says "it smote my vinous heart in the way a great Burgundy might." In my view, completely ludicrous and a classic example of ridiculous points inflation. Btw, the great Burgundies we did drink later that night, 1993 and 1996 Rousseau Chambertin, did smote my vinous heart, particularly the 1993

[Michael McNally]

Hate is too strong a word but I, along with many others, detest the way his business has evolved and in particular the rampant points inflation that is exploited by lazy retailers.

Detest is a pretty strong word too. Rampant is quite strong and negative. Inflation suggests that the point increase is deliberate/malicious. Exploitation is a fairly negative concept, though it actually suggests that he has no say in the matter. Quite an evocative sentence really.

Perhaps he struck (or was sent - how's that for a conspiracy theory!!) a really, really good bottle of that Xanadu, or he was listening to some really nice music when he was tasting it, or his mood was particularly elevated (perhaps he had been having a toke - who knows?), or it was a 'root day', whatever. Maybe he couldn't choose between 98 or 99 and went for 99. Why he rated the wine 6.45% higher than you did yourself (I think 93 indicates that in your opinion this is an excellent wine unless you yourself think 93 is just an excellent wine) is an unfathomable mystery. Perhaps you and your mate were having an off day?

Sigma, I am not having a go at you. As you say, many others share and express your views. And I acknowledge that I have the impression that his points are higher than they used to be. However, I have not seen any evidence that he is deliberately inflating his points for wines in general or any wines in particular. I have seen no evidence that he is in cahoots with industry (other than a magazine which bears his name and is shamelessley commercial like every other magazine on the planet). People disagree with some of his scores. I have myself. I disagree with other critics's scores.

I do not think that defending someone whose integrity is being assaulted without evidence is a reflexive act that ignores the substance of the arguments and labels others as guilty of tall poppy syndrome. Quite the opposite. Maybe he is a sell out who has sold his sold to the devil, but I haven't seen any proof, and I prefer evidence-based arguments (unless they are opinions about wine!!).

Cheers

Michael

[odyssey]

Michael I was careful in my post to avoid unfounded suggestions or accusations in a bid to avoid it being dismissed as slander... Thus I firmly believe my points remain valid.

PS my issues with Wine Companion subscriptions are not with the magazine. They are with regards to the website and emails. As far as I am concerned, both are heavily invested in sales and advertising and thus border on spam. And yes, that is an opinion and possibly even a provocative one at that, but I do not believe it is unfounded. I prefer not to pay to receive online advertising, thank you very much.

[kaos]

I have always had issue with his approach to inclusion/exclusion (ie don't include reviews if the wine is not above a certain level). It is at least as useful, and often quite entertaining, having negative reviews as it is having positive. I always look to critics to be frank and fearless: self-censorship does not meet this description........

[Andrew Jordan]

While there are many who quick to criticise critics, perhaps those same critics scoff and privately ridicule people like us when they read our posts and notes. Food for thought....

Tyson Stelzer probably thinks this about you and your champagne reviews ... "This guy doesn't have a clue about champagne but boy would I love to have his cellar ...!"

[tstelzer]

Hi everyone,

Interesting discussion and lots of great points here.

I host a lot of tastings and dinners and my goal is always to create an atmosphere where guests are comfortable to express what they really think about the wines. I encourage them to agree or disagree with me, and I always get everyone to vote on their favourite wines. That's the joy of wine. Everyone has an opinion on what they like. And in this game there are no right and wrong answers.

This is the reason that I never criticise a person's opinion on a wine, even if they know little about wine. Everyone knows their own taste, and that's what counts.

This is why the world need a diversity of critics, too. Find those whose palate agrees with yours and follow them. There will always be others you don't agree with - but the next person might!

I'm writing sparkling reviews for Halliday this year. They will all have my name to them, and the scores will be exactly the same scores that I publish elsewhere.

We won't publish scores below 86 points this year, purely for space reasons. I wish time and space allowed me to publish every wine I taste, but I'm sure the world does not have time to read 10,000 reviews under 88 points!

So far this week I've tasted more than 120 wines but fewer than 30 will ever be printed. Of these, I considered four to be of gold medal standard: three scored 94 points and one scored 95, and nothing over that. For most of my publications, those top four wines are the only ones that will appear. No one will ever see the 120 wines that it took me to find those four, but that's the context from which they come.

Re Wine Companion and commercialism, I am outside of this mechanism, and it is not for me to comment, but the concerns raised here are understood by the parties involved and there has been discussion around this, even in recent weeks.

Cheers, Tyson.

[daz]

Michael I was careful in my post to avoid unfounded suggestions or accusations in a bid to avoid it being dismissed as slander... Thus I firmly believe my points remain valid.

PS my issues with Wine Companion subscriptions are not with the magazine. They are with regards to the website and emails. As far as I am concerned, both are heavily invested in sales and advertising and thus border on spam. And yes, that is an opinion and possibly even a provocative one at that, but I do not believe it is unfounded. I prefer not to pay to receive online advertising, thank you very much.

Do you subscribe to The Wine Front?

[phillisc]

Thanks Tyson for the very refreshing assessment of what you taste.

I was fortunate to meet you at the Great Australian Red Challenge at the Adelaide wine centre last month...my musings of 40 or so wines to be posted here at some stage.

As a novice drinker... really know what I like and more importantly what I don't...
However, it is most reassuring for me when I tasted the 2012 Wolf Blass Black Label and my first descriptors were big, big , big, will it ever settle down, probably in 25 years.
Funny, as Matthew Jukes said exactly the same when he tasted the wine...you and he taste 000's more wines than I do, but happy that I might have got one right.

The commercialism and scores stuff does not really bother me, apart from the shameless bias seen in many publications. I am more bemused by the seemingly endless junkets that certain (not all!) scribes are 'involved' with, to the point of "I don't want to upset (large company X), cause there will be no rewards of patience tasting, no 30 year vertical of this, no Wynnsday HK invite...you get the picture.


Cheers
Craig.

[felixp]

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.

[phillisc]

Felixp, great post.

Completely agree regarding the Mike Press in terms of VFM...should be in the sub $15 category like Wynns shiraz or Metala, but you would be a fool comparing them with top flight shiraz or cabernet in SA, Australia or the world. These wines are kings in their own sandpit, but even little old me concedes that the argument begins and ends in relation to cost.

I laughed my head off at your reference to the now completely irrelevant publication that you refer to, that emerges from the state that I live in. The photographs of the tasters in the various panels are circa 1980, what were they winemakers in primary school? Circulation would perhaps only be a few thousand at best, don't know how it survives. Still there is a national wine mag that originates from Sydney, (includes a column from the chap featured in this thread), but refuses to hold any tastings here in Adelaide, despite writing to them nicely on many occasions that, sadly is irrelevant as well.

Have a great Christmas and might dig out a Grosset.

Cheers
Craig

[sjw_11]

Good post Felix... and Tyson, thanks for the insight from the other side of the fence.

I have avoided this thread, having written on this topic in too many of the 1,000 posts alluding to Halliday scores already, but the one thing I would add is that the fact his reviews are on the web means you can now see that statistically each year he is giving a higher proportion of top scores... So score inflation is a real thing (whether us plebs have tried to the wines or not).

Now, I like to think this is a reflection as I have said before of the scoring taking more account of VFM and being more of a rank within Aus and not as compared to the world rather than it being rank commercialism. Whether that makes it any better or not can be debated. And perhaps the average wine has also got better. Again, whether scores should have a bell curve element or not is again debateable.

However, the fact of the matter is 10-yrs ago, all Halliday had to sell you was a book. Now there is a book, a website, a magazine, and I get direct emails from his corporation or its faceless extensions with paid advertisements for wineries they gave good scores to and even trying to directly sell me wine! This is not to mention all the other retailers which depend on his scores to flog stuff as Felix has well mentioned, or all the wineries I now see with big "Halliday ***** winery!" banners outside.

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.

[Michael R]

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.