Are you getting irritated by James Suckling's scores?

[Mike_Zimbric]

@Pat Burton

Yes, because many retailers use his top score as the only score indicated in an email. It takes multiple clicks to find out if anyone else has reviewed it and what their thoughts are.

Completely agree.
A JS score gets ‘top billing’ because it’s always highest, and then you have to dig to figure out if a credible critic has reviewed it.

[Mike_Zimbric]

@R_Gilbane

So if you were to assign a tasting note and score to Sir Suckles, what would it be?

“This comes across as rather predictable, somewhat pretentious, combining wafts of cigar smoke, hair gel, and tweed. Leather too. I like the unabashed pandering to the 90±worshippers here, and with the horrific pile-up of scores over 95, it does succeed in nullifying itself effectively. Best on the cash-inflected, shelf-talking, spoofulated finish, which features notes of far too many overripe, dried out 1997 Italian wines. Best ever from here? 100% Merlot, plus another 10% self-aggrandizement.” 86

[David_Glasser]

His pretentiousness is occasionally good for a laugh. I find his scores worthless, but not irritating.

[Marcus_Dean]

I secretly wish I had a cool case to carry my glasses in
Sadly I really do

[larry_schaffer]

What I find really interesting these days that many retailers, both online and brick-and-mortar, I’m now listings scores without giving reference to who gave that score. In fact I’ve seen wineries post scores without giving note of who the reviewer was.

What does it matter? Many say it doesn’t.

[Blake_Brown]

I do not get irritated at anyones scoring a wine. After all, its just another opinion. Most important for me is tracking a critic over time to determine if their palate is similar to mine and I can trust their notes to make an intelligent buying decision.

[Scott_E_Wade]

No, but I can’t credit them. I have noticed the same as the OP - they are everywhere. He is the Marines of wine. He is the first to taste and score. Then he is on a lot of the e-mail offers and shelf talkers.

I recall reading an article, I think it was published by the Cornell restaurant program or somesuch, analyzing the critics and their scores. The article validated my perceptions at the time, which is back when he was at Wine Spectator. Suckling was 1.5 points above the mean average, which sounded about right. Parker was the highest at 2.5 above average, but that was before he scored the 2009 Bordeaux too. I recall Tanzer was either in the middle or point below average.

Anyway, now that Suckling is untethered, I’d guess mentally I’d bet he’s now 4-5 points high. I can’t even reconcile them. He is a fairly good writer and the notes can be helpful. His scores… not so much.

[A.Altman]

I don’t get annoyed by his scores. It’s literally everything else about him that bothers me.

[Howard_Cooper]

@Anton D

@Robert Alfert

And therein lies the annoyance. Points sell, and this buffoon sells points. Thus, many retailers use him for their daily email blasts. You and I might delete, but I suspect a fair number of people will bite.

With luck, the uniformed will spend all their money for those wines, leaving the good stuff for us!

This was for many years the value of Pierre Rovani and his Burgundy ratings.

[Marcu_Stanley]

His comedy value surpasses his irritation level, at least for me.

[Stephen_Robins]

Looking back through my inbox, I have been bombarded over the last fortnight by emails from numerous wine merchants with offers for:

Redigaffi 2015 - 100 points James Suckling!!!
Clos Apalta 2014 - 100 points James Suckling!!!
Almaviva 2015 - 100 points James Suckling!!!
Sena 2015 - 100 points James Suckling!!!
Renieri Brunello di Montalcino Riserva 2010 - 100 points James Suckling!!!
Yquem 2015 – 99-100 points James Suckling!!!

Against this background, Testamatta 2015, with only 99 points from James Suckling, seems like a very poor performer.

And Contino Gran Reserva 2010, with only 98 points from James Suckling, is even worse.

That’s all in the space of two weeks. It is beginning to wear a bit thin …

[J_a_y_H_a_c_k]

@A. So

@J a y H a c k

Answer to the OP - No, I have developed an equation. It goes like this:


JS = CT^i where i is the square root of -1. He is exponentially irrational.

You mean imaginary?

Oops. That last math class was 48 years ago. I should have said:

JS = ∏^i

His irrationality is exponentially imaginary.

[Subu_Ramachandran]

JS seems to target the Asian wine market and is throwing points at Chilean bordeaux blends, where wines like Almaviva, Chadwick, Sena are primarily sold…and of course every other vintage from his home Tuscany gathers the vintage of the lifetime praise.

However his tasting events (best wines of Andes, Italy) held across the US are pretty good. Reasonably priced and great selection of wineries pour their best wines.

And that’s a good one Jay Hack!!

[David_Cooper]

I find him wildly entertaining. I can,t help but smile when I think about him having a house in Tuscany, or his crazy hair.

I think 10 years ago, during the time where the WS was littered with Texans holding 6 litre etched glass bottles of Napa Cabernet, there was almost a personality contest to see who could become the most flamboyant. Kramer v. Suckling v. Shanken. It was a blow out with Suckling lapping the other two. The Suckling this created has only become bigger and better.

[Scott_E1]

Yes, I have to admit that I get irritated. However, it seems like RP, AG and JD are getting just as bad these days with handing out 95-100 point scores.

[David_Cooper]

I think Jeb Dunnick has found a way to neutralize Suckling. He was the first to taste the new Christophe Baron wine. He scored it 99 leaving Suckling only one place to go. Pure Genius.