There certainly is not another wine critic working today who has anything approaching his scarf game.
1 Like
One interesting thing might be that I suspect other professional critics might envy JS the most. He has carved out a fantastic, enviable life. Glamourous wines, clothes, Tuscan villas, drinking from Laliques, websites etc. And he seems to have the self awareness of how magical his life is too…
2 Likes
2 Likes
Other critics go up to ten, but Suckling goes up to eleven.
3 Likes
Sounds like “the Real Wine Critics of Beverly Hills” is his next move…
I’m not a wine critic, but I would envy Josh Raynolds BBQ skills and restaurant knowledge a lot more. To each their own though.
First of all, let me say that I’m 120 points on this question.
Some background. He is from Southern California. His accent is surfer-dude/weed-toker mixed with 80’s Sherman Oaks Galleria. At one time had the greatest gig in the world - cigar journalist for Cigar Aficionado (along with Wine Spectator gig). He is personally and directly and indirectly and somewhat partly responsible in part for the most famous stemware in the history of wine - the Lalique 100 point glass. He also likes Granacha. Believes that the best Nebbiolo (after Piemonte) is in Baja. After leaving WS, tried to stay relevant by pumping up his scores to ingratiate himself with the Bordelaise. Also, he lives in Tuscany.
1 Like
It reminds me of an interview that Michael Caine gave talking about one of the most abysmal movies ever made, Jaws 4. He was asked about being embarrassed at making such a crappy movie. He replied that he didn’t think much of the movie, but he loved the house he bought with the money he made from the movie!
This guy must be laughing all the way to the bank. He is experienced enough to know this is a grand hustle, and shameless enough to not give fivver about it.
1 Like
His accent / intonation is to strange to me. It doesn’t seem ‘American’.
I don’t see what the big deal is about Tuscany. I once had a manager who rented a villa there for a month and was always bringing it up in conversation.
I think he a pompous douche, but as a marketer I respect his approach whether it was intentional or not. By inflating his scores in a quantum leap of 3-4 points per wine, he leveraged the entire wine industry to promote his personal brand as all wines sites/stores/trade post the high score of a wine to sell it.
In his Top 100 Wines from 2020, he scored 22 wines 100pts and the other 88 no less than 98.
Nuff said.
A wine pourer told me that he rates wines in price groups - so the wines in the under $20 range, for example, may score in the 90s if they’re better than the others in the group.
He’s not the only one to do that - other critics have stated they score against the “peer group”, William Kelly said it here on WB IIRC. I’ll look for the reference
That makes the 100pt scoring system meaningless.
Heretic!
Here is what he wrote and the link to the entire post which should be read. I really like William, WB is better with him, but I also understand we run in different orbits and view the world differently. I prefer to taste wine blind if I’m serious about critiquing it. Probably 1/2 or more of the 3,800 notes I’ve written were blind but I’m writing for myself. If others are interested, good for them. BTW - blind tasting doesn’t imply some great level of quality of note.
https://www.wineberserkers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=3271012#p3271012
I have a Suckling conversion formula:
Take your rating, subtract 10, divide by 2.5 and then multiply by 3 to get the Suckling Equivalent. I have found that equation works better than using the “Suckling Constant.”
So: The Suckling Equivalent = [R (sub you) - 10]/2.5 X 3.
The Suckling Constant is typically about 1.1 R (sub you), so take your rating and multiply it by 1.1 to get the Suckling Constant rating. The Suckling Constant way of looking at his ratings breaks down if you score a wine below 85.
1 Like
That’s redundant. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
To his credit, I thought he nailed the 2015 Argentiera Bolgheri Superiore.
And I bet there are a ton of bargain basement Bordeaux guys here at WB who would secretly agree with his call on the 1995 Clerc Milon [even if they wouldn’t agree to agree with it publicly]:
These days, Suckling’s working with Stuart Pigott, who might actually know more about the Riesling grape than everyone on this board put together, and that’s saying something.
I get heap big envy of people who know more about Riesling than I’ll ever know.
[PS: Obviously we aren’t talking AFWE wines here…]
I bet there are lots of times where people here agree with Suckling.
Any time someone here likes a wine, odds are Suckling loved it.
Suckling only gave the 1995 Clerc Milon a 94 rating, so did he really ‘call it?’
That specific wine would fit with the Suckling rating = Parker rating + 5 way of converting scores.
Exactly. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
2 Likes
Yes. The problem I have with Suckling is not that I would never like a wine he likes. It is that I don’t like a lot of wines he likes. Thus, buying wines based on his recommendation is like buying wine with no recommendation - some are good, some are not.
2 Likes
Oh dear. RTP Richard Latham has risen from the dead/banned and has gotten hold of another login.