Which wine critics for which categories?

[afn33282]

Hey eGullet,

As my boss at the wine shop constantly reminds me, even the most reputable wine critics (Parker, Tanzer, Robinson) have their predjudices. This really comes home when, say, the Wine Spectator give the Geyser Peak Reserve Cab an 84 and Parker gives it a 91. No kidding. He was commenting the other day, I forget within which context, that Parker doesn't especially like "the big California style," and that you always need to keep their individual palates and preferences in mind. So I ask you, which wine critics and publications do you trust? And to what extent do you trust them across the board, and when not, how do you edit for individual predelictions? Can you roughly stereotype the major critics and their enthusiasms/not-so-much-categories for me? I am new to all this, and would appreciate a few pointers. Thanks a bunch!

[Really Nice!]

Not sure about California, but I know Parker and Burgundy do not see eye to eye.

Parker is big on Australian Cabernet Sauvignon. Especially if it has the sweetness and thickness of Port. Years ago I bought one Australian Cab based on his high score and found the wine to be sweet and thick. For me it was undrinkable.

A very very general stereotype can be summed up as: Reviewers from the New World favor New World wines; reviewers from the Old World favor Old World wines. Of course there will be exceptions.

I think most people who have been into wine for at least five years will say they don't trust anyone "across the board". I stopped my subscription to Wine Spectator a few years back. Never have suscribed to Parker.

I know Parker and Robinson have a spat going on that has been more entertaining than their reviews of wines. Parker attacks her in his latest Bordeaux book on pages 766-767; and there was some slinging from Robinson and Clive Coats when he reviewed the '03 Pavie with a score of > 95 points (I think). Their reply was something along the lines of anyone who likes this wine ought to have a lobotomy.

I look at Decanter.com from time to time. Wine-lovers-page.com has some good insights and wine discussions.

I think after five years no one will know your pallet more than you.

As for your customers it's probably just as important to know which reviewers they respect and trust as it is to know which wines they like.

my 2¢

[afn33282]

Wine-lovers-page.com has some good insights and wine discussions.

←

Thanks for the reply. BTW, wine-lovers-page.com is now wineloverspage.com It didn't automatically redirect, and I had to go through my browser's search results page to find this out. Best,

Chris

[JohnL]

I have subscribed to a number of journals/tasting reports over the years: Parker, Tanzer, Coates, Meadows (Burghound), Spectator etc etc etc.

I have also attended tastings led by Parker, Coates, Tanzer etc.

There are a lot of misperceptions about what the critics like and dislike ie "Parker only likes big over extracted wines" or "Parker doesn't like subtle wines with finesse."

Both these statements are patently false.

Critic's do have "approaches" to wine styles and tend to have strong and weak points. The only way to get a "feel" for a critic is the same whether we are discussing wine critics, restaurant critics or music critics. They are after all, human.

First--scoring systems:

We tend to place far too much emphasis on what a critic has "scored" a wine. The real key is to read the notes!

This is where the critic is describing what he or she (or they in the case of group scoring a la the Spectator). A score no matter what system (Davis 20 point, or 100 point scale) is a summation the real proof is in what the taster tastes. The notes are the reason for the score the explanation, if you will, or the "justification".

That said one should be able to recognize what standards the critic uses for his or her scoring system. For eg, Tanzer is a "harder" grader than Parker for the most part. He is usually a few points lower than Parker.

There are areas of expertise and likes and dislikes: for eg Coates (he is semi retired now) was stronger on Burgundy than new world wines. Why? Because he simply did not taste new world wines as extensively as say Parker.

Parker, on the other hand, has, for the most part, stopped reviewing Burgundy to concentrate on other areas. (Rovanni handles Burgundy for the newsletter).

We can get into all sorts of discussions here. "petty feuds", "Davis scale vs the 100 point scales", " Personal likes and dislikes", "group or panel tasting vs individual tasting" and on and on.

I would say, that it is important to "trust the tale, not the teller! (I think this is Shakespeare).

That is take the scores with a grain of salt and read the notes! This is the only way to explain why Tanzer gives the wine in question a 94 and the Spectator an 84. One should also remember tasting notes (and scores) are as parker says: "a snapshot " of where that wine is at the moment in time it is tasted." And as we all know--wine is very fickle stuff. Interestingly enough, I have not found that many instances of "wide swings" among notes and even scores, as one would expect. (the 2001 Laurel Glen cab is my current issue (Parker vs Tanzer or 85 vs 93). A professional taster should be able to identify flavor profiles and general quality of a wine and reflect that in the notes.

In the end--one has to trust one's own palate--it is fun to go back to the critic's notes and see where you and he or she agree or differ.

[LOS]

There are a lot of misperceptions about what the critics like and dislike ie "Parker only likes big over extracted wines" or "Parker doesn't like subtle wines with finesse."

Both these statements are patently false.

And the latter statement is also obviously true. It all depends on what these things mean to you:

"Parker likes"

"subtle wines"

"wines with finesse"

I doubt very much you can find a wine that Claude Kolm would call 'a subtle wine' that Parker likes.

Certainly "Parker only likes big, over-extracted wines" is indeed false. But what is true, is that given two wines of the same qualiity, Parker prefers the bigger, more extracted wine 99 times out of 100.

As to reading the notes and knowing your reviewer -- you're absolutely right, there. My only real quarrel is that you include the Wine Spectator in the list of reviewers worth learning to know. I've never seen any kind of consistency from them.

To answer the original question: you absolutely need to keep in mind the predilections of the reviewer. I could say that I think that Claude Kolm offers the best advice for Germany, but that doesn't really say anything of use to you. The thing is, Claude is looking for something different in German wines than Parker is. If what *you* want in a German wine is close to what Parker wants, then Parker will work better for you. For me, Kolm is better. The same thing applies to, say, Piedmont, to pick a red wine region at random. If you want your Barolo to taste like an Aussie oozemonster, follow the Wine Advocate reviews. If not, pick somebody else.

On a personal note, I find Claude Kolm's The Fine Wine Review to be the only printed matter worth spending the $$$ for. His coverage is pretty much limited to Germany, Burgundy, and Piedmont, but that's fine by me -- he sticks to the areas he knows well.

[Brad Ballinger]

Richard Juhlin for Champagne.

[MaxH]

I know Parker and Robinson have a spat going on that has been more entertaining than their reviews of wines.

...

As for your customers it's probably just as important to know which reviewers they respect and trust as it is to know which wines they like.

The "spat" goes back a while. Here's a reference I got from the public online wine forum active in 1988. Presumably there was much less history between them at the time (maybe this was its beginning). I have not read the Decanter story cited:

"There was a good article in Decanter by Jancis Robinson who was telling of a dinner she had with Parker. They opened some dynamite wine...a '66 Mouton or something...and Parker had just finished saying that he believed that a 1 point difference in his ratings really made a difference to his readers. So Robinson asked him what he would rate the wine they were drinking now, and he gave it a 90. She looked up the rating he gave it in his book, and there it was a 95."

As for the second point above, another contributor in the same long and interesting 1988 thread -- I happened to know this contributor, married to a wine merchant: "One thing Parker is definitely good for is predicting retail prices. Many retailers and consumers look at Parker's reviews and no further, thus you can count on a Parker-recommended wine being expensive and hard to find. / The best wine values are found those among items which Parker either mistakenly gave a low rating to, or didn't review at all."

[Florida Jim]

So I ask you, which wine critics and publications do you trust? 

None.

I used to subscribe to all of them but have not read any of them in the past several years. And I have no intention of ever reading or listening to them again.

For someone who is new to wine, this may not seem the best method of learning; I certainly understand that and point to myself as the best example of not believing in my own palate enough in my early days.

But I do think that the goal of most wine geeks should be complete reliance on one's own palate.

I am not saying that critics do not have enthusiaism for their professions or recognizable skills. But they have their own preferences and latent prejudices. Moreover, they usually taste wine in a "tasting" situation; that is, wine after wine after wine (whether blind or not) without the benefit of food. I think this makes for a system where only certain wines stand-out from the pack and one that does not assess how wine works with food.

That is not how I drink wine; I always have it with food. Hence, I want to know how any wine works with food and over the period of an evening - I don't want a thirty second snap-shot as to how it worked against fifty other wines.

Wine appreciation is highly subjective; once one gets past whether a bottle is organically flawed, it is completely subjective. The best wine in the world is the wine you like best.

And I don't know of a single person, let alone professional critic, that has my palate.

Best, Jim

Edited June 30, 2005 by Florida Jim (log)

[jparrott]

The only one I read is Florida Jim.

And I'm not kidding.

[Florida Jim]

The only one I read is Florida Jim.

And I'm not kidding.

←

"Danger, danger Will Robinson!"

Best, Jim

[GordonCooks]

So I ask you, which wine critics and publications do you trust? 

.............

Wine appreciation is highly subjective; once one gets past whether a bottle is organically flawed, it is completely subjective. The best wine in the world is the wine you like best.

And I don't know of a single person, let alone professional critic, that has my palate.

Best, Jim

←

Indeed...the advice I give novice friends is taste everything - drink what you enjoy until you don't anymore.

[JohnL]

I try to keep all this in some sort of perspective.

WHAT'S THE SCORE!?:

We are often fixated on scores in the form of stars, toques, points (100 point scale or twenty point scale), thumbs up or thumbs down--for everything from movies, books, restaurants, wine whatever--if it is purchased it is "rated" somewhere!

Most critics will practically beg one to read the review or tasting notes and put the final score in perspective. It is in the notes that one finds the information about a wine that is or can be useful-for eg a ninety point wine means nothing other than the critic liked it within whatever criteria that critic establishes for his or her system of rating.--it says nothing more nothing less. While scores may disagree--as they are based upon predjudices etc notes most often do not--tyhye will noter if the wine is tannic, big, rich, delicate, --all the information that really counts--thus the critic's notes will often agree while their scores may not!

I would bet that an awful lot of people who like to "criticize the critics" could not recount how the critic's rating system works and conversely, I would venture that many fans and long time subscribers of certain critics could not do the same.

WINE IS AN EVOLVING SUBSTANCE (the mystery and the history)

The Mystery

The "spat" RP had (or is still having) with Ms Robinson over a "score" ---"underscores" my point about...well....scores.

When, where and how a wine is tasted impacts the wine's impressions upon the taster. Every critic (and wine lover I know) will attest to this. Thus, those "scores" are very tenuous at best. So that wine Parker rates 90 at lunch was just that--in his estimation a 90 point wine and it was a 95 when he tasted it earlier. I have cases of wines that tasted differently depending upon when and where I opened a bottle. Parker was most likely miffed at the "gotcha" tone of Ms Robinson's piece.

It should be noted that Robinson shows a certain respect for Parker (though she has disagreements with his methods etc) as illustrated in her book: "Tasting Pleasure."

The History

I recommend Robinson's chapter on parker and critics and wine writing in general. One needs to be aware of Parker's raison d' etre before criticizing him. He sees himself as a Nader styled critic of a confusing and mildly corrupt European system/history of wine reviewing. He certainly casued a stir in the wine world when he began! (Robinson does a very good job of describing this).

In the end though--we do focus too much on scores--wine retailers are also very guilty of not doing a better job of selling the wine they have in their shops!

Thus they are at fault as much as the rating systems they often complain about. How many times have we seen the little scores posted on racks--Parker, WS, etc. How many times are the notes missing? The only information that would help us choose a wine for the Roast Beef we are having for dinner that night!!! How often are the scores for the wrong vintage of wine on the shelf! ENOUGH ALREADY! But even worse--how often does the staff in the shop know nothing about the wine they sell!?

as for us--the consumers, the geeks, the great unwashed:

I agree with FL Jim that wine is most often drunk with food (I don't like mass tastings). And in its proper perspective wine is enjoyed by the bottle (or two!) with food or a cigar or good conversation or with a sunset , alone or with a friend or lover or all of the above!

Having said this and also agreeing with Jim that one should always have a goal of total reliance on one's own palate, I must say that critics can be very helpful.

For eg-I simply do not have the time or means to taste a wide range of wines as they are released. Various newsletters and critics can help point one in the right direction. I have "discovered" many many wines I enjoy today as a result of a review that caught my eye/sparked my interest. Critics also provide valuable information as to trends in the wine world and helpp introduce us to new winemakers, new areas of production and growers as well as proividing perspective on vintages and historical references for wines.

How one uses these folks is often up to one's reliance on our own palates---even Jancis robinson admits to much self doubt when reviewing wine and (I sense) begrudgingly respects Parker's self confidence. (she also questions it).

In fact Robinson raises a good point here--can one be totally sure of one's own palate given the subjectivity and mysterious nature of wine?

I do enjoy tasting a wine then comparing my notes to those of the "experts" it is fun and informative.

I do wish that more retailers did a better job of selling their wine.

We are often victim to our own insecurities--I know few people will not pay ten dollars to see a movie without reading a review--at the very least to find out if the subject matter is of interest and yes--maybe even to see if someone they respect had anything good or bad to say about it. (we don't have the time or the money).

Imagine we are faced with a fifty dollar bottle of wine.

Do we have the time or money to "take a flyer?"

So critics can be a good thing, so can, wine retailers, sommeliers and knowledgeable friends. There's room for all!

it is just a matter of perspective.

[MaxH]

We are often fixated on scores in the form of stars, toques, points (100 point scale or twenty point scale), thumbs up or thumbs down--for everything from movies, books, restaurants, wine whatever

I wonder how much of this is peculiar to the United States. Paul Fussell the social critic, in one of his books (I think BAD, 1992) complains about insecurity in the US about "people's own decent tastes and instincts" and their need to look instead to Authorities all the time.

Also, scores are "easy" for their users. It's easier for a school to check a standardized test score than to really review the applicant. Easier for a university tenure committee to look at quantity of publications than quality. Easier for a moviegoer to look for awards or "thumbs up" than to read about it. Easier to look at a number than read a wine review.

Most critics will practically beg one to read the review or tasting notes and put the final score in perspective.

I've witnessed this as a phenomenon of the last 20 years mainly. I don't recall the thriving US wine-critic world before then (Tilson, Finigan, Olken/Singer, Vintage, etc.) ever having that problem; much less emphasis then on "final score." Finigan even wrote a diatribe (1981) against the county-fair medals that had filled some of the role then. (In 1981 the "100-point" system was virtually unknown in the US, RP who popularized it was still a new critic with a local following, he does not appear in the 1984 summary of national wine critics in ISBN 0520050851.) Edited June 30, 2005 by MaxH (log)

[Brad Ballinger]

Really, the only rating system is one's own answer to the question "Would you pay the retail price for the wine [again] or not?"

[JohnL]

Max--some really good points!

You can throw in those infernal "top ten" lists!!

It is probably insecurity coupled with competetiveness!

We should realize though that Parker sees himself as a Naderite styled critic who is attempting to demystify wine for American consumers.

The Europeans are much more tentative about their assessments.

Thus the populace is less reliant upon scores. Also wine drinking today is no longer segmented by class as in Europe (the titled drink fine old Bordeaux first growths and the masses the local plonk).

We don't have a heritage of local wine production and drinking habits to match--that is--we drink what is produced nearby-- --we have access to everything!

Sometimes I think that the more precise critics try to be-- the more confusing and less precise the resultant scores.

Also --I think there is a distinction between wine tasting/reviewing and wine writing.

In the end--wine is a magical beverage because it is so mysterious--not very easy to get a handle on and yet it can provide so much pleasure--and frustration!

Just what the hell is oriental saddle leather supposed to taste like?--yet we are talking about what a wine evokes and that is amazing! I have never actually tasted road tar but I have "sensed it" in a glass of wine!

[JohnL]

Really, the only rating system is one's own answer to the question "Would you pay the retail price for the wine [again] or not?"

←

Ya know-- In the end that's really what it all comes down to!

only problem is: how do we limit the times that the answer to the question you pose is no!

[Daniel Rogov]

Several small but important points:

(a) As often I remind my own readers, when based on a system of 100, a score is nothing more than two digits (and very rarely three) at the end of a wine review. The score may sum up a critic's feelings about a wine but says nothing about whether the reader will enjoy or despise any wine. For that one has to read the critique and details of the wine.

(b) The point in reading critics is not to find one who will tell you what to buy and what not to buy. The point is in finding the critic/s whose own palate gives you a sense of direction - that is to say, the ability to calibrate your own palate by what he/she/they write. Critics are guideposts, not gods.

© As to the necessity for scores: For many years I always assigned scores in my own tasting notes to myself but never published them. I only started publishing scores when readers (and my editors) began to demand them.

(d) No-one is more amused (that word used in its most pathetic sense) than myself when I stand in a wine shop and a patron comes in with a tear-out of one of my wine columns, the wines scoring 90 or higher being circled and that is what he/she orders.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Chris Amirault]

Daniel, Jim, and anyone else who does this professionally (forgive if I omit), how would you describe your "prejudices," if any? If none, how would you have us understand that?

[Florida Jim]

Daniel, Jim, and anyone else who does this professionally (forgive if I omit), how would you describe your "prejudices," if any? If none, how would you have us understand that?

←

Chris,

Just so we are clear, Daniel is a professional with years of experience.

I am not a professional in any sense of the word nor do I have the kind of experience that would qualify me to be considered a professional - rather, I am an enthusiastic amateur with opinions and the conviction to write about them. All of my experience has been in that capacity.

What I admire most about the pros; folks like Daniel, Jancis, Claude, Tanzer, Parker, et al, is that they are winelovers first and that they have found a way to make a living or supplement their livings through their passion.

As Daniel notes, they are not gods nor are they 'right;' but they can indeed be guides.

One thing that I think is extremely important here; there is no short-cut to wine knowledge, no way to take three semesters and be an expert - and this is a foreign concept to our fast paced world. Rather, experiencing wine and learning about it requires a lifetime; perhaps even more. It is vitally important to try as many wines as possible personally; the good and the bad; in order to have a true sense of your own palate and to understand that preference has nothing to do with price, other people's comments or anything else, save your own enjoyment.

Slow and easy, in the company of friends and in the spirit of conviviality, is the way to your own sense of wine knowledge, confidence and delight.

Now really, aren't you sorry you asked?

Best, Jim

[Daniel Rogov]

Chris, Hi....

Like all mortals, even critics have their biases. I will go as far as to state that the critic who has no biases, prejudices or personal likes or dislikes is a critic who ranges somewhere on the scale between simply stupid and out-and-out brain-dead. In my own case, for example, I adore all fine Champagne but above all I adore the vintage Champagnes of Veuve Clicquot; and among the things I do not enjoy are semi-dry wines made from Emerald Riesling grapes and, to paraphrase Will Rogers, "I have never met a white Zin that I liked".

The question is not what the critics like or dislike but about how they avoid letting their personal tastes (biases or prejudices if we like) interfere with what they write about the wines they are critiquing. Several safeguards in this - the greatest of which is the blind tasting (including doubling up on the same wine in the same or different flights) and another important one of which is re-tastings. A no-less important defense is a constant awareness that our personal likes or dislikes have very little place in our crits but if they are expressed they should be expressed with full openess and perhaps even with a bit of humor. As I say, I don't like semi-dry Emerald Rieslings but when I taste them I feel professional and competent enough to be able to evaluate them not according to my tastes but to a set of general standards.

A question that might be justifiably asked is what happens even at a blind tasting when one recognizes a wine that one particularly likes (as I will almost always pick out the Veuve Clicquot wines in a Champagne tasting) or dislikes. Simple enough - first to be consciously aware of one's own biases and to have the moral strength to (a) report them openly to one's readers and (b) as much as is humanly possible, to set them aside and again relate to standards. I have written on several occasions for example that "although the Veuve Clicquot wines are among my favorites, I would never dream of saying that they are better or the best", that decision falling on the shoulders of those consumers who buy and taste wines, for after all, they are the final critics.

As to the situation of "liking" or "disliking" a particular winemaker or winery for any reason and the bias that might build in to one's reviews - also no real problem for all it takes is the least bit of moral integrity to realize that the role of the critic is not to write about the winemaker but about his/her wines.

Hope that helps somewhat in clarification.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Daniel Rogov]

A Post-Script to my earlier coments. Because Jim and I posted so closely one to the other, I did not see his response until now. His point about critics invariably tasting without food is a good one and should be well taken as nearly all wines are indeed meant to be matched with food.

There is a double problem here for the professional, the first part being that eating anything other than very bland bread when tasting wines tends to dull the palate and the second that good food, especially when well matched with wines, almost invariably makes wine taste better, this in turn making it more difficult to use valid criteria in judging the wine itself. It thus falls on the critic to use his/her experience to estimate precisely how a given wine or set of wines will pair with various foods.

I do agree with Jim though and if this were indeed a best of all possible worlds would love to taste all wines twice - once during regular blind tastings and then again matched with food. Alas, considering the number of wines that I taste annually, were I to do that, it would require far more money for my meals than any publication could ever afford, would send my weight well into astronomical figures and would have me as drunk as a skunk twenty-four hours daily.

It is 01:28 in the morning where I am. To demonstrate the danger of this, even thinking about this and even at this odd hour has me lusting after a fine Meursault and a humongous portion of lobster Thermidor. I think instead a final sip of Armagnac will put me well to bed.

Edited June 30, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Chris Amirault]

What wonderful responses. Thank you both, gentlemen!