Has the Wine Advocate basically given up at this point?

[Steve_Crawford]

JD > WK

[Jason_T]

JD > WK

If that means what I think it means…

[Ian_S]

Ha, damn man, what a hater… Just so I understand, what cocktail did I like that so offended you?

My comments were unduly rude and I retract them with my regrets. Sorry.

I’m sure only because the person they were directed at saw them.

Yes, he’s only sorry that Jeb actually caught him. If it were a regular bloke, and not a professional boffin, he would have stayed on the blitz and fired another salvo!

[Ian_S]

So what I’m wondering is whether anyone will really buy or not buy based on a review. All of the people on this thread have opinions on the various wines. Take Realm for example. If you know it and like it are you seriously going to avoid it because it got a few points less than last year? Or are you going to buy it because it got a few more points than last year?

Alternatively, since people profess not to care about points and prefer to read the reviews (see John’s Bingo thread), will anyone make or decline a purchase based on the presence of cast iron pans or whatever in the verbiage?

There are some decent writers and I can understand reading someone for his insights or comments on a region, vintage, etc., but that wouldn’t make one more or less relevant.

Sure, there are a myriad of people who buy based on reviews as long as those reviews are printed on the shelf talkers in their local liquor store.

[DougS]

For many of the most avid wine collectors, ratings are not overly important but for the market in total, they’re highly relevant. Ask the retailers…

Unless the score is in the 98-100 range, or the wine is Very inexpensive, pounts don’t seem to matter much anymore. I’ve been out of retail less than a year; I doubt that has moved back the other way in that time.

[GregT]

Sure, there are a myriad of people who buy based on reviews as long as those reviews are printed on the shelf talkers in their local liquor store.

Yeah but they’re buying on the points, not the verbiage!

I was thinking more about the people on this board, or at least this thread. I’m aware that points from anyone in the world will help on shelf talkers. But on this board, there are these posts about when this or that release will be out and it seems like the reviews are more to validate the purchase than to determine the purchase. Especially when people are already on various lists and they’re going to buy anyway.

For imports there aren’t lists that I’m aware of, but there are fans of various wines and I don’t see the reviews really mattering. Again, for people on this board.

[David_Baum]

A lot of people are saying that Greg

[Adrian_Huntington]

William Kelley is spot on when it comes to Red and White Burgundy and he is writing great articles. Good wine producers make good wine in bad vintages. If your buying wine to drink, buy what you like and don’t worry about the press. If your buying wine to speculate thats a different story, but as far as I can tell the market is flooded with SQN.

[markjchambers]

Did this turn into an SQN bashing thread? There have been lots of big scores given to Napa cabs that make SQN look cheap. I guess those wines deserve their 99+ scores.

WA lost it’s mojo for me when the BB died. But the final straw was JD leaving.

[Andy_Sc]

Like with any critics publication I read the WA mostly to learn about wines, vintages, regions, development in these regions, etc. The scores are not that important to me (although when everybody says that this or that wine is special this year, then it certainly influences me. But it’s always more a consensus than a single critic that would influence me).

With more writers and more regular (and more focused) articles vs a few large whole region covering articles before, the WA is better and more valuable these days compared to where it was a few years ago. So many articles, so much insight. There is not just Will Kelley, which was a great addition, but Gutierrez, Larner, Reinhardt are great as well, both incredibly hard working and providing so much context in the articles and notes – even though I found my palate not really matching with these three. I have little exposure to the others (less interested in their regions).

[Ian_Dorin]

You know its bad when you can predict Lisa’s scores (within a point or two) just by knowing the name of the wine!

I disagree here, but will add some context. I think a critics scores SHOULD BE predictable. Use Realm as the example, shouldn’t 2018 BTK or Dr. Crane get somewhere between 98 and 100 points if it’s a great year?

I also get Alex’s point, what if something went wrong and the wines weren’t that good? Would certainly be crazy given how consistent Realm is, but that’s part of wine criticism too.

Another +1 for the William Kelley fan club, and Luis Gutierrez too! I’m just starting to get see what Erin Brooks brings to the table, and liking most of what she’s rating.

[Monica_Larner]

Like with any critics publication I read the WA mostly to learn about wines, vintages, regions, development in these regions, etc. The scores are not that important to me (although when everybody says that this or that wine is special this year, then it certainly influences me. But it’s always more a consensus than a single critic that would influence me).

With more writers and more regular (and more focused) articles vs a few large whole region covering articles before, the WA is better and more valuable these days compared to where it was a few years ago. So many articles, so much insight. There is not just Will Kelley, which was a great addition, but Gutierrez, Larner, Reinhardt are great as well, both incredibly hard working and providing so much context in the articles and notes – even though I found my palate not really matching with these three. I have little exposure to the others (less interested in their regions).

Thanks, we do work hard. Covid-19 and the challenging logistics of gathering huge sample groups has encouraged us to write smaller, more focused reports. It’s a welcome editorial change because it frees up the publishing bottleneck we faced with the print edition.

Thank you for reading.

[GregT]

Monica - We want the big long confusing reviews that provide material for the bingo thread!!

[Matt_Mauldin]

Like with any critics publication I read the WA mostly to learn about wines, vintages, regions, development in these regions, etc. The scores are not that important to me (although when everybody says that this or that wine is special this year, then it certainly influences me. But it’s always more a consensus than a single critic that would influence me).

With more writers and more regular (and more focused) articles vs a few large whole region covering articles before, the WA is better and more valuable these days compared to where it was a few years ago. So many articles, so much insight. There is not just Will Kelley, which was a great addition, but Gutierrez, Larner, Reinhardt are great as well, both incredibly hard working and providing so much context in the articles and notes – even though I found my palate not really matching with these three. I have little exposure to the others (less interested in their regions).

Thanks, we do work hard. Covid-19 and the challenging logistics of gathering huge sample groups has encouraged us to write smaller, more focused reports. It’s a welcome editorial change because it frees up the publishing bottleneck we faced with the print edition.

Thank you for reading.

Monica, I’ve been in the wine doldrums this year with Covid and the general turmoil of the times. Your recent Barolo article was a breath of fresh air - thanks, and nice work!

[Alan_Rath]

You know its bad when you can predict Lisa’s scores (within a point or two) just by knowing the name of the wine!

I disagree here, but will add some context. I think a critics scores SHOULD BE predictable. Use Realm as the example, shouldn’t 2018 BTK or Dr. Crane get somewhere between 98 and 100 points if it’s a great year?

I’ll leave the insanity of giving young wines such high scores for another discussion, but what you describe is exactly why I have little interest in almost any review publication. The reality is that wines, no matter their reputation, can (and I hope do) change significantly from vintage to vintage. I can’t count the number of times I have tasted the range of a producer’s wines, and found distinctly different preferences relative to other vintages. If a wine is so “consistent” that it changes little from vintage to vintage, its probably not a very interesting wine. More importantly, I would hope a good reviewer is very open to changing hierarchy and preferences based on how the wines actually show in any given vintage. There are one or two well known reviewers who are so predictable, it’s completely unnecessary to read their reviews, outside of general comments on the vintage character.

[Robert.A.Jr]

You know its bad when you can predict Lisa’s scores (within a point or two) just by knowing the name of the wine!

I disagree here, but will add some context. I think a critics scores SHOULD BE predictable. Use Realm as the example, shouldn’t 2018 BTK or Dr. Crane get somewhere between 98 and 100 points if it’s a great year?

I’ll leave the insanity of giving young wines such high scores for another discussion, but what you describe is exactly why I have little interest in almost any review publication. The reality is that wines, no matter their reputation, can (and I hope do) change significantly from vintage to vintage. I can’t count the number of times I have tasted the range of a producer’s wines, and found distinctly different preferences relative to other vintages. If a wine is so “consistent” that it changes little from vintage to vintage, its probably not a very interesting wine. More importantly, I would hope a good reviewer is very open to changing hierarchy and preferences based on how the wines actually show in any given vintage. There are one or two well known reviewers who are so predictable, it’s completely unnecessary to read their reviews, outside of general comments on the vintage character.

I’m with Alan here. I find that statement quite a surprise, and if your premise is correct, we wouldn’t even need critics. The wine gets 98-100 in great vintages, so why would we need some to ratify us and tell it as has a black forrest chocolate cake note in it?

[Ian_Dorin]

You know its bad when you can predict Lisa’s scores (within a point or two) just by knowing the name of the wine!

I disagree here, but will add some context. I think a critics scores SHOULD BE predictable. Use Realm as the example, shouldn’t 2018 BTK or Dr. Crane get somewhere between 98 and 100 points if it’s a great year?

I’ll leave the insanity of giving young wines such high scores for another discussion, but what you describe is exactly why I have little interest in almost any review publication. The reality is that wines, no matter their reputation, can (and I hope do) change significantly from vintage to vintage. I can’t count the number of times I have tasted the range of a producer’s wines, and found distinctly different preferences relative to other vintages. If a wine is so “consistent” that it changes little from vintage to vintage, its probably not a very interesting wine. More importantly, I would hope a good reviewer is very open to changing hierarchy and preferences based on how the wines actually show in any given vintage. There are one or two well known reviewers who are so predictable, it’s completely unnecessary to read their reviews, outside of general comments on the vintage character.

Funny enough, I do agree with your first premise about rating wines so highly out of the gate, and agree that’s another discussion.

My point was less about the critic and more about the winemaker. Given what I’ve heard about 2018, and how good it is, it should rate similarly to other top vintages like 2013 and 2016. I’m not saying the wine are total clones, and wines really SHOULD take on the identity of the vintage, no doubt.

If I change tracks slightly, and make it about Barolo for a second, one would assume that certain wines are going to score between 98 and 100, yes? So if Bartolo Mascarello wasn’t one of those wines (which ironically it is, but let’s play along), wouldn’t people start questioning the quality of the wine? But if it does score in that range, I think most would react and say “I figured as much”. Classic example of the “alarmist score” was 2010 Monprivato that Antonio rated 89 points. Pretty sure there is an entire lengthy thread on here about it.

Having said, if we tasted 2015 and 2016 Bartolo Mascarello side by side, they are probably both great examples since they are both highly touted vintages, but the weather was different enough that you will get two unique wines. You and I might even have a clear preference for one vs. another too. I’m sure both the critic, and the winemaker both have their reasons for why they think both wines are truly special though.

[Ian_Dorin]

I disagree here, but will add some context. I think a critics scores SHOULD BE predictable. Use Realm as the example, shouldn’t 2018 BTK or Dr. Crane get somewhere between 98 and 100 points if it’s a great year?

I’ll leave the insanity of giving young wines such high scores for another discussion, but what you describe is exactly why I have little interest in almost any review publication. The reality is that wines, no matter their reputation, can (and I hope do) change significantly from vintage to vintage. I can’t count the number of times I have tasted the range of a producer’s wines, and found distinctly different preferences relative to other vintages. If a wine is so “consistent” that it changes little from vintage to vintage, its probably not a very interesting wine. More importantly, I would hope a good reviewer is very open to changing hierarchy and preferences based on how the wines actually show in any given vintage. There are one or two well known reviewers who are so predictable, it’s completely unnecessary to read their reviews, outside of general comments on the vintage character.

I’m with Alan here. I find that statement quite a surprise, and if your premise is correct, we wouldn’t even need critics. The wine gets 98-100 in great vintages, so why would we need some to ratify us and tell it as has a black forrest chocolate cake note in it?

I hear you as well. I used the 2010 Monprivato example below as something that dropped well below where some would have assumed it should have ranked, but how often does it happen? Not saying it doesn’t, but one would hope that the critic is doing it’s job and pointing out when a wine has dropped in quality. I would say the winemaker is probably going to be looking for new work too!

[Marcu_Stanley]

Concur with Alan above that critics (and not just one or two) are extraordinarily predictable based solely on producer rep and the general vintage characterization. More than is justified based on the wines themselves. It’s not simply a matter of producers “screwing up” on occasion, wine styles and production technologies can change significantly over fairly short periods

[Alan_Rath]

Ian, I guess I’m saying I think the notion that assuming a particular producer will always make a great wine in good vintages, and that they can automatically be placed in their spot in the hierarchy, is questionable. While I agree that good producers will almost always do good things in good vintages (and often even better things, relatively speaking, in more difficult vintages), there are nevertheless wide enough swings in how individual wines, and producer lineups, compare vintage to vintage. A long history of tasting through dozens of wines at events like UGC or La Paulee confirms that, for me at least.