Who do you think is the worst wine critic? I was thinking about this in terms of the critic whose palate is least like your own, but I suppose it could also be interpreted to mean whose writing is least helpful/prosaic, etc.
I am excepting Parker because it’s almost too easy. I suppose Jonathan Newman should also get an exemption, though I don’t think he really qualifies anyway.
The thing about Parker, for me, (aside from the shitey biz at the old place) is that I often find his reviews useful. After reading a lot and drinking a lot, I can often figure out what I need to know. Often this is through reverse logic (many factors he praises are not for me). I have the first three Bx editions, and there is great info there.
James Laube’s style preference for Cali Pinot is SO different from mine and his Cab styles are hit and miss, but usually not in line with what I like. I would probably pick Laube for not a match with me, but it’s not always true.
Incidentally, I think the title of your thread is misleading…
Gilman would be very unlike my palate, but I find him very consistent and an excellent writer, so I would hardly call him a bad critic. I can read one of his reviews and know if I will like the wine or not. I happen to like Parker, but for those who don’t like his reviews, I would think the same is often true.
Not the intent. But I think who to avoid is almost as important/interesting as who to follow.
Suckling gets my vote. Does he still not score for wines rated lower than 90 points? I don’t care for his writing style and I think he’s a bit…generous with his points.
I would have thought the “worst” wouldn’t be someone you merely disagree with - we all like different flavours - but someone who is inconsistent, completely misses drinking windows, and where whether they liked something or not gives you no information at all. My nomination: Jeremy Oliver