How would I know which wine critic to follow? Let’s say I’m a complete newbie to wine and I’m interested in developing my own personal preferences, where should I start? Is it possible to compile a list of the major wine critics and describe their palates and/or their preferences? For example:
Robert Parker- “powerfully concentrated fruity wines.” If you like x winery where he recently rated it 99 points then you should follow him going forward.
I’ll add more as they occur to me.
The Suck: things that are expensive
John Gilman: tasteless dirt water
RMP: 15.5%+ CdP (en magnum)
CellarTracker: crowdsourced nonsense
Full disclosure: I subscribe to Gilman
You already have part of it listed. It used to be Parker for over the top wines and Laube for restrained old world style wines, but I for one believe their palates are changing with age. Laube is moving towards fruit forward wines and Parker is now all over the place. Galloni has more of an old world palate at this point.
I have a subdued palate and weak sense of smell due to age, allergies and smoking. I followed Parker until 6 years ago when his top wines were over the top for me, with a few exceptions. WS is rating closer to my palate now on Cali wines, but not on European wines. But on the other hand, wines I love when I’m here in Napa, don’t taste good when I’m in Myrtle Beach and I find old world wines go best with Carolina grease and humidity.
You might find a few people posting scores in Cellar Tracker are more realistic based on your palate. Follow them.
That is a great freaking topic!
I have never related to Parker’s palate. The above comment about fruit forward high alcohol wines seemed an apt pair of descriptors for him.
Laube seemed on track in the 80’ and early nineties, but I think his palate changed with age and he flipped to the big fruit party - much like an older person needing a hearing aid in order to experience what he used to experience. Now, Laube needs more stimulation from a wine than he used to, pushing him in his current direction.
Was thinking about this tonight… This evening I opened a 2012 Bevan EE to follow the Ontogeny I had a week back. Both were outstanding and very enjoyable. That being said, to me they are a bit singular in profile. Both are very much fruit forward, polished and finish long. But they don’t have the complexity and depth as for example a 2005 Chateau Bellevue Mondotte I downed a couple weeks ago (also a 99 WA Point wine). So while I enjoyed the Bevan bottles I’m left wondering if the scores are a reflection of style bias vs. substance? The Bevan wines are more my to my liking at this point (approachable and fruit forward). But I can parse that as my own subjective bias vs. rational assessment of quality. The Bellevue was maybe not quite to my personal taste, but the complexity and depth in that bottle blew my mind from a quality standpoint. I use the analogy of cars, I drive an Audi because I like it. I don’t like Bentley’s but there is no denying a Bentley is a better built vehicle.
What is also very important when discussing critics is whether they are consistent or not. RMP is very useful to me (even though I hate almost every wine he likes) because he consistently rates wines of the same style highly. This gives me a big red flag to avoid the crap to which he gives high scores.
I find that certain people on CT who have similar palate profiles to me are the most useful source for a list of wines to try/buy.
The true idiot is correct exactly 50% of the time.
I’m surprised that people though James Laube is in the old world camp. His top wines are consistently very fruit forward.
Galloni - I’m not sure I think he used to be in the more balanced camp, but he’s been giving some really good scores to fruity wines, so I’m not sure anymore.
For me at least, I’m pretty old-world, AFWE on reds. On whites, I am very different, as I prefer full bodied whites with no oak. With sparklers I have a rather weird palate, I prefer full bodied, mature wines, but I do love alot of the fuller bodied low dosage wines. So i have no idea who to follow on that.
I have liked a lot of Parker favored wines. But "Parker"isn’t one guy any more. I agree with Dunnuck on a lot of wines. Wine Spectator and Parker seem to have gone different directions on California wines, especially Napa Cabs. They seem to be polarizing, a bit like our political parties, with no middle ground.
At the end of the day we all have different preferences. Find the critics you agree with.
Major critic???
I like whatever wines I like. I’m the only major critic for me, so that’s that.
As far as those other guys go, I guess Lisa Perotti Brown likes, well . . . I don’t really know. She runs the WA these days right? But does anyone know her palate? Oh well, moving on. . .
Suckling, he’s major - he has a scarf and longish hair so we pay attention to him - his palate is, um, 96 on something or another.
Jancis, her palate is is, well, British and not Parker so if we can only define him, we’ll have something.
Parker - he’s into 2007 CdP and old Barolo, so that categorizes him.
This is just too hard.
Your questions assume that settling on a particular wine critic or critics to follow is a good way of developing your personal preferences. The reality is that it’s a terrible way of developing your personal preferences. Sure, that’s where most of us started. But the usual result is that people spend years trying to follow in the footsteps of someone else’s journey rather than making their own, only to realize (after much time and money wasted) that there is nothing special about wine critics. They do not have mutant superpower palates capable of ascertaining facts about wine that elude you and me. Nor do they have the power to manipulate time and space such that the mere act of uttering their approval of a wine somehow transforms it into something else, transmogrifying what was a mere wine before into A 95-Point Wine ever after. To be sure, you’ve acknowledged the subjective element here and allowed that different wine critics can be of use to different people. That’s good, and it’s more than many people under the spell have managed to realize. But it doesn’t really negate my general point. Whether you think a wine critic is an infallible guru or whether you just figure you’ve got closely aligning palates, once you sign on to the idea of using them to lead you, you’re handicapped in finding your own way.
The critics can be a great help, as long as you don’t take them too seriously. But the best tool for exploring wine is a glass. And it always, always helps to visit the regions and producers.
Goddamn truth right there.
I’ve got a slightly different take on Parker. I agree that he will praise and give high scores to over-ripe, low-acid, fruit forward, high alcohol, highly concentrated, heavily oaked wines. But, I disagree with the notion that he is consistent. I believe Parker’s palate is pretty wide. He will also praise and give reasonably high scores to wines made in a more restrained and/or traditional style.
Good examples, IMO, can be found in Chateauneuf du Pape.
If you enjoy traditionally made wine and you note his high scores for Pegau Cuvée Reservee, you might think your palate aligns with his. Based on this, you might go out and buy other wines he scores highly only to find that you’ve scored some very modern, oak influenced high octane rocket fuel. You would also be led to avoid lower rated vintages of Pegau such as 1999 and 2004 only to eventually find that these are actually more to your liking than, say, the more highly rated 2003.
If you note his reasonably high scores for Charvin, which is made in a more elegant, restrained style, think your palate aligns with his, you might go out and buy something else to which he’s given a high score only to find you’ve scored some very nice pancake syrup. Or, you might load up on 2007 Charvin, since this is the vintage in which he’s rewarded Charvin with its highest score, only to find this is the vintage where Charvin is highest in alcohol and least restrained.
In Bordeaux, you have similar examples. Parker can appreciate a slightly more feminine style like Pichon Lalande, but if you take that to mean your palate aligns with his and buy based on his scores, you’ll be quite surprised to find his scores will lead to some real head scratchers.
I don’t believe Parker scores or reviews will reliably lead anyone to anything other than wines he has scored highly. In fact, that’s my reading of both Parker and his fans - the message is don’t concern yourself with style or anything that has been done to the wine on its road to a high Parker score, all you need to know is that it has received a high score from Parker - scrutinizing your wine purchases any other way is silly, egg-headed, trendy, fascist, anti-pleasure, etc.
If you have a preference for certain styles of wine, Parker’s scores and reviews are a mine-field.
The wine-boards are loaded with people who’ve puffed on too many Parker exploding cigars.
What? ![[scratch.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/4/42a16863a8714da3c1604419e3eb9206bb87aa50.gif "scratch"){kind=small}
I mostly agree with this. I actually think a critic can have more utility after a person becomes experienced and has developed a clear sense of their own palate. At that point a person truly can align their palate with a critic and use the critic as a source of discovering new producers or get a heads up about a stylistic change at a producer. But Keith is 100% correct that the worst time to “follow” a critic is when someone is beginning to explore and flesh out their own palate preferences.
Personally, I like the approach of Gilman with his emphasis on domain profiles. I much prefer “wine writing” over lists of numbers and adjectives.
I think this oversimplifies the case for critics greatly. A critic can’t tell you what you will like. A good critic can give you enough information to decide what you might like to try. Secondarily, a good critic can also give you some information on vintage variation on a wine you know but haven’t been able to taste yet. They get to taste more things sooner than you will or can. That makes the information they provide potentially useful, if you think they can communicate what they’ve tasted in a way that makes sense to you. That does not mean that you must follow lemming-like to buy and drink things in the order of points given.
Wine critics are no more or less useful than music critics, who can’t make you like zydeco but can turn you on to a new band. And wine lovers who read them are no more or less “handicapped” than music lovers who read NME or Gramophone.
TBH I would say first and foremost follow your own palate. Following a famous critic, in the way many did in the past with Parker, just means you are chasing the same wines as too many others. This often results in higher prices for wines that suit his palate, not yours.
However in the spirit of the post:
Jeremy Oliver (Australia): Supposedly he has a ‘cool climate palate’ but that’s really just a matter of degree. He still has a high proportion of big South Australian reds that score highly.
Geoff Kelly (NZ): He likes mature, fully mature & over mature wines. Runs plenty of comparative tastings that make for interesting reading, and always mixes in ringers to ensure he doesn’t have a blinkered ‘locals’ palate
Michael Broadbent (UK): Unashamedly old world ‘classics’ preference, and doesn’t feel as open to new wines as others. Concise and sometimes pithy notes that aren’t filled with hyperbole.
regards
Ian
Except one Aussie critic who was part of Jamie Oliver’s ‘posse’, who managed to publish a tasting note on a wine he hadn’t yet tasted.
Back in the day, all the wines I ever tried, with huge points from Tanzer, tended to taste very strongly like distilled spirits [gin, vodka, etc].
And Josh Raynolds’s recommendations also had a predictably homogeneous flavorless sameness to them.
It’s possible that those two are “super tasters” and that they can’t tolerate any character in their wines.
If you’re looking for someone who appreciates [or once appreciated] off-beat wines, then you might take a look at Clive Coates. For instance, he nailed the 1996 Rene Engel Grands Echezeaux - he gave it a perfect 20/20 as I recall - and I can’t imagine Meadows or Tanzer or Sanderson or even Schildknecht saying “I’m 100 points on that!” to such an austerely eccentric style of Pinot Noir with a strong streak of rotten-green fruit in it.
Also, back in the day, Pierre Rovani did an outstanding job with German Riesling, as did Per-Henrik Mansson with Burgundy Chardonnay.
If you can, grab his first California cabernet book. Published 1990. Very different than his current palate, I think.