Interesting thread over on the Vinous board. A fellow I know, a passionate collector of Nebbiolo and Burgundy, came up with a great idea, and posted it there. He, like many others, laments the loss of Tanzer’s input on the Piemonte and Brunello, and Ian d’ Agata’s coverage of Tuscany, particularly his always-excellent Chianti coverage. Thus, he came up with the idea that perhaps Tanzer, d’ Agata and Galloni could all assemble now and then and taste together for a day or two, tasting a number of, say, 2010 Baroli, and then sharing their impressions with Vinous readers. All would be tasting at the same time from the same bottles of wine, so the vagaries of tasting the wines at different times from barrel and bottle would be eliminated. He proposed the same for Tuscany and Burgundy as well. He believes that it would be a “fun, interesting and enlightening exercise”, which indeed it would. (And he even proposed that John Gilman be invited, which, while extremely unlikely for obvious reasons, would surely goose up the “fun” component!)
At first, Galloni brushed off the idea with a terse “thanks for the suggestion. I will see what we can do.” Then the board’s # 1 poster (by volume, not by weight) chimed in with his support for the idea, and went so far as to suggest that the approach could shed some interesting light on wines like the 2008 Clericos and Giacosas and the 2010 Monprivato, all wines that Galloni has taken considerable heat for having misjudged (at least from me!). And then Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. Transparency, turned Mr. Defensive, as follows:
"As always, we are grateful for the feedback and all the ideas that come out of this board. The idea of getting a two or more of our critics together to discuss a subset of wines is interesting. I did this with Bob Parker a few times in CA, and we filmed it, so this concept is not totally new.
At the same time, I want to make it clear that Vinous will has [sic] no intention of doing the following:
-
Consensus reviews, team reviews, whatever you want to call it.
Every review published by our critics is the result of a lifetime of experience in wine. I can fully appreciate that that may be hard to glean when you are looking at a few sentences that describe a wine, but that’s just the way it is. What you are getting is one person’s point of view based on a considerable amount of experience. I can watch Roger Federer rip a forehand down the line. It looks so easy. Right? Anyone can do that, right, I mean how hard can it be? Well, try and you will find out. -
Send out multiple critics to review the same region
The world of wine is increasingly complex. There are more better new wines to review pretty much everywhere. Being even more comprehensive is our focus. It makes no sense to send out two people to cover the exact same wines. Wine reviews are not music, the news, movies or sport where you can get a panel together to discuss a small, focused subject. Our team now reviews tens of thousands of wines each year and growing.
To me, there is nothing controversial about 2008 Clerico, 2008 Giacosa, 2010 Monprivato etc. Why? Because in many cases I tasted those wines from barrel years before they were released. [The 2010 Monprivato was re-tasted from bottle.] That’s not to say everyone here has to agree with me, far from it, but I can guarantee you every word I and our team writes is carefully considered.
Lastly, I think some readers are seeking perfection from critics. Guess what…even the best athletes miss shots, make mistakes etc., even in the most crucial of moments. Same of world-class musicians, investors, CEOs etc. Critics are not infallible. What we offer is opinions built on years and decades of tasting and visiting the world’s top estates."
Uh-huh. First, I note that nobody suggested that there be reviews by committee or multiple reviewers sent to the same region. Galloni’s overreaction and misdirection in that regard is embarrassing. Let me parse his commentary for you:
“Every review published by our critics is the result of a lifetime of experience in wine. I can fully appreciate that that may be hard to glean when you are looking at a few sentences that describe a wine, but that’s just the way it is.”
Indeed. And the original poster is justifiably interested in the “lifetimes of experience” of Tanzer and d’ Agata, both of whom have been at this for decades, vis a vis Galloni, whose “lifetime”, by his own admission in his Vinous biography, is all of a decade long: “Antonio Galloni’s career as one of the most trusted and respected wine critics in the world spans nearly a decade.” I understand that limitation. I understand why he does not want to facilitate head-to-head comparison with two established reviewers whose credentials eclipse his own. However, would be hard-pressed to argue that doing so is not in the best interest of his readers. Did he not merge with IWC to buy an archive of quality reviews that Vinous could obtain no other way? And if he was comfortable going head-to-head on tape with The Emperor of Wine (well, SCRIPTED, methinks), what would be the problem with doing that with your own talent?
Surely he is right that one can glean little or nothing from “a few sentences that describe a wine”, especially his empty “ironic, epic, drop-dead gorgeous” hyperbole, but what are we to make of it when the same fellow who has told us repeatedly how important it is to read the tasting notes and not just look at the scores is now telling us that the tasting notes are hard to glean anything from and “that’s just the way it is.” WTF? “That’s just the way it is”? WHY is it “that way”, and why cannot Vinous take the lead and do better? His point 2 answers that. For no good reason, his team is reviewing “tens of thousands of wines each year and growing”, instead of saying something meaningful about a smaller number of wines. That does not serve subscribers. That serves retailers and reviewer egos. It shows a distinct lack of judgment as to how wine reviewing should be approached. Vinous is not alone in that, but it has fallen into the same old WA and WS trap of believing that more is better. It is not. More is not even more in wine reviewing. More is less, and less is more. And not only that, but we are now seeing holes in important coverage, Barolo, Burgundy, Brunello, potentially everything but Bordeaux and CdP at the Wine Advocate, while reviewers are in Timbuktu seeking out yam wines.
As backhanded as it is, I was at least pleased to see him offer an explanation, or an apology, or SOMETHING, in response to the Clerico/Giacosa/Monprivato trifecta. Of course, not a single poster in the thread made the slightest suggestion that wine reviewers are infallible. Indeed, the core idea goes quite in the other direction…no one reviewer is infallible, all come at a given glass of wine from different paths of experience and perspective, and sharing perspectives is at the heart of the enjoyment of fine wine, is it not? Well, at least it is if one’s insecurities and need to preserve a certain self-image do not get in the way, as they have for Galloni in this instance. Nobody has ever expected wine reviewers to be perfect. We just want them to man up (or woman up), re-taste and admit it when they have made mistakes. Neither Parker nor Galloni has that gear, apparently.
Let me close with, well, perhaps the most thoughtless thing that the uber-defensive Mr. Galloni has ever said:
“Wine reviews are not music, the news, movies or sport where you can get a panel together to discuss a small, focused subject.”
Really? Are not the tastings that an overwhelming majority of participants on this board live for “panels” who get together to discuss a small, focused subject"? Do wine reviewers not sponsor events where they sit at the same dais sipping the same wine and giving their impressions? Is Neal Mollen’s Asylum thread not that very thing for music, and are a lot of people not doing exactly that with the news, sports, movies and everything else under the sun in the Asylum? No answers to these questions required. They are, of course, rhetorical…
