Of all of the posts on the Berserker board, this one has always been my favorite.
Had a few laughs, but frankly much of it was ridiculous.
I was surprised to see Suckling near the top of the list. I guess people like you when you routinely score them higher than anyone else.
I think Jeff Leve should sue. He scored most wines as high as Suckling, and yet he is scored twenty two points less. All that effort to no avail.
They forgot to print the review on Gilman:
Critic X is referred to as the “Monk”. He appears not to be subject to influence, staying at road-side hostels and eating at fast food establishments. He is non-descript, dresses with little fashion or aplomb, so is difficult to spot when working. This Critic does not cultivate personal relationships with the Bordelaise, yet has a keen understanding of the region, its history, the various differences between appellations and the Classified Growths. Eschews barrel tasting, and generally prefers tasting and commenting on Bordeaux with ten or more years of aging. He also eschews the ubiquitous modernization occuring in Bordeaux, and has been known to rate some fashionistas, 50 and worse. The author sums up by scoring this Critic as “> (NR)> ” on the basis of lack of consensus. The established Chateaux making quality wines consistent with their traditions give him 95+ while the modern Chateaux slap back a 50 right on him. Rolland has allegedly filed an emergency restraining order against Critic X reviewing his works, or coming within 500 yards of any Chateau for whom he consults.
Very clever, except pizza is as lowbrow as he goes gastronomically. And if you have tasted those pizzas in Pauillac, you will understand his passion for them.
Quite the opposite of my opinion…
Scored wines with abnormal travel(to him) and no working knowledge of the growing region.
I appreciate that he stepped away from Oregon for not being able to actually “know” the region correctly, but that’s the extent of it. 80 points…
Is it only my first sentence you have opposite opinion of?