Really curious as to what folks think of IWC. Since they went to the web only format, I thought might enable them, or encourage them to add more stuff, but it seems to be business as usual. Their forum seems to be quiet as well. Also, not sure how much stock people put in to their ratings any longer.
Thoughts?
(Yes, I am a retailer, but this is purely for my own academic curiosity.)
I like both Steve and Josh’s writing, I find it very informative and approachable. I’m also finding that my Burgundy palate matches up closer to Josh’s than Allen Meadows’ (there are slight differences), though I do enjoy both.
It’s been awhile since I’ve subscribed to anything, but I used to take IWC and I think Steve’s as good as any in the business. You’ll find fewer over the top scores (a low 90s score is VERY good) and the notes are excellent. The forum is subscriber only so it’s quieter than most but the discourse is pretty good there and Steve used to jump in fairly regularly.
If I were looking to get a general wine reviewing publication IWC would be it. However, they don’t do many (any?) retrospectives and, of course, the don’t dive as deeply into any one area as Meadows does in Burgundy, etc.
I like it, Ian, although I am one of those guys who was newly-converted to electronic format when IWC dropped the print format, so I’ll see how that goes. For my own palate, I think Tanzer is money when it comes to both Chablis and Brunello. It was a big loss though, IMO, when David Schildknect left for “greener pastures”, as I really enjoyed his take on Austrian wines.
Tanzer writes great notes, from the perspective of being a skilled crafter of prose. But I stopped subscribing because however well-written the notes were, they didn’t seem to have any correlation to what was actually in my glass.
For my own personal purchases - I always like knowing what Josh Raynolds is raving about…I defer to him more than any other critic…
Tanzer and Raynolds like hyper-clean wines, bordering on sterile, or anti-septic - almost like gin or vodka, but a little more akin to something you’d encounter in a surgical suite or an ICU.
I often don’t find any nuance in the wines to which they award big scores.
On the other hand, I don’t know of any professional critic who finds nuance in wine - my theory is that these guys who taste 5,000 to 10,000 wines each year have palates which are so burned out that they can only taste the most extreme flavors in wine [Parker = extreme fruit, Tanzer = extreme distillation].
Did some tasting with Josh in Oregon a couple years ago, great way to calibrate. He’s more tolerant of riper vintage charateristics than I am. He’s remarkably personable, fair, talented with descriptors and has a fine palate. I don’t subscribe, although at times it’s been tempting. Funny how when tasting blind, it doesn’t matter whose notes your reading…the wines are rarely 100% as described and more often than not, a different wine is more like another’s descriptor. I’ve never found reason to doubt Tanzer’s points, to the extent I question those of many other critics.
RT
That sums up my to a great extent where I stand with the critic newsletters. I would qualify it by saying that they “often” don’t really correlate. As much as they were started on the premise of informing consumers, the notes and scores generated by the critics seem of much greater value to the trade. They are really the main marketing tool. I really think the barrel scores of wines from the top regions, which are seen as necessary and unavoidable in order to have reviews
ready in time for the pre arrival offers, are really not that reliable. Yet by virtue of the reviews being in print and coming from respected names, they get infused
with nearly biblical authority. In the past most Burgundy collectors I knew preferred the IWC, but since Burghound came along that has diminished.
I got converted to electronic by the IWC and I have to say it causes me to utilize the resource much less. The print version was handy and easily flipped through.
The electronic version could use a redesign. Burghound’s pdf is much easier to use. I have never been an electronic subscriber to the WA, so I haven’t seen that interface.
I blame the process of tasting as much as anything else. It’s simply hard to capture the depth of a nuanced wine with a 1 ounce sample. Given how much the wine and the taster can change as a bottle is open for a few hours, it’s not a reliable methodology. Tasting before bottling is another problem–a lot can happen to an unfinished wine.
I do think there are structural qualities that one can roughly assess quickly, like body, texture, oak, fresh/jammy fruit, obvious flaws. Notes like this are of more value to me than purple prose. Surprisingly, Wine Enthusiast’s reviewers Heimoff and Gregutt are quite good at this, though the scores should be taken with a grain of salt.
More generally, I perceive IWC to be more trustworthy than other sources. WE and WS take ad money, while WA relies on importers and consulting winemakers quite heavily. If Parker knows and likes the consulting winemaker, he will rate it highly. I think WS engages in the same practice. There are some serious conflicts of interest. IWC is likely not immune, but they seem to be independent enough that they aren’t spoon feeding consumers brands they want to see succeed based on relationships with vintners and winemakers.
I find most of the sites completely useless in terms of functionality. I use them non-stop on a daily basis, and clearly these guys were all sold package deal web sites (with few upgrades).
Lots of very interesting responses here. Lately, as I buzz through the online issues (I can’t say I have picked up a print copy of anything but WS in 4+ years) of IWC, I found a few things surprising.
Maybe my expectations are too high, or this is already in the works.
Ian, I’d have to go back and review, but if my memory serves Payne posts only scores for those wines that are unlikely to be imported into the US market. Which I guess must imply to some degree that Tanzer’s subscriber base is heavily weighted to domestic customers.
I forgot to mention it earlier, but I do like Ian D’Agata’s reviews on some of the lesser-traveled Italian byways from time-to-time. He’s no Roberto, but it is coverage beyond Piemonte & Tuscany.
Frankly, I subscribe because they are integrated with CellarTracker. While I agree with some other posters regarding the palates/tastes of the reviewers (I do not always agree), I like having the professional review at my fingertips. It offers some information that may not be on the CellarTracker page and it is sometimes nice to have another perspectice on a wine with few or no reviews (IWC seems to review a lot of wines).
Agree with you about D’agata.
To the point about Payne- Check the Robert Weil reviews. I know the importer has changed, but are they really bringing in that little amount of wine??? If that’s the case, they REALLY messed up, as Rudi used to buy most of the wines that contain no notes.
Also, with regard to Josh and 07 Rhone, the first report has more pessimism than the second one. The second report calls it a vigneron’s dream. I probably did read too much in to that though. Just b/c it’s a vigneron’s dream, doesn’t mean that everyone followed suit and made great wines.
+1 on the CT interface convenience. I do find my palate aligns more with ST and Josh to a large degree.
Thoughts on Rusty aka Prince of Pinot notes v. Meadows/Tanzer?
Tanzer and Raynolds are the best in my book(along with Galloni). They don’t have huge grade inflation and also don’t penalize wines excessively that are very acceptable. An example, Laube finds a lot of very good wines to be 81 points and then rates some mass produced, crappy wines of no character 88-90(advertisers in WS?). Jay Miller’s reviews for Spain and Aussie are of absolutely uselesss(and unless it has a confirm from Raynolds is completely ignored by me).
I say Galloni, Tanzer, and Raynolds are the most reliable. RP has a bit too much grade inflation, but a pretty good palate except for his proclivity for the overly ripe, low acid stuff.
i sure wish wine ratings provided for useful information about the acidity, ripeness, and oakiness on a more consistent basis. Some wines are sophisiticated and some are not and are just heavily extracted and oaked. I’m not sure if Jay Miller knows the difference.
Tanzer I seem to align with more than anyone. Raynolds suffers from point inflation issues and his notes leave me confused at times.
Agree with those lamenting the loss of Shildknecht. He’s great.
another vote here for tanzer and especially mr Josh Reynolds. I find my preferences aligning much more with then as well.
Plus, when they rate a wine over 92, I’m much more willing to believe it’s something special than any other publication, save Burghound.