Interesting Situation - Your Thoughts?

[Subu_Ramachandran]

@Chris Seiber

The right thing for the winery to do was to have hired Michel Rolland to make the wine, then happily pour it for Neal Martin to give it a high score.

Hehe…good one!

Anton, agree with you. Wine critic’s job is to critique the wine, not to tell the winemakers what do to do. They somehow assume they are wine consultant.

Jean Marie Fourier discusses how Parker tried to influence the wine-making and when they didn’t budge, he gave awful reviews.

I don’t read/follow most of the wine critics. I’m not renewing my subscription at Vinous as well (nothing to do with Neal Martin). Just finding in the digital age, there’s so many ways to get information for free!

[GregT]

Hunter thought he was one of them until they showed him that he wasn’t.

As to which it was, there are apparently a lot of people on this board, Facebook, and elsewhere who are interested enough to talk about it and try to suss out who it was and who are likely to remember the incident. I think in the case of wine, perhaps not all publicity is good publicity but when it comes to critics, most probably is. People still mark their palates against Parker’s and he hasn’t written reviews for Burgundy for a long time. When the winery is outed, watch for the posts agreeing or disagreeing with Neal’s score.

[Charlie_Carnes]

@john stimson

Here’s Neal’s response on the Vinous board:

“Well, actually two producers. To be honest, given I’m been doing this a long time, I can think of only 4 producers that refused and one of them had nothing to do with me. I won’t name them. In fact, I completely respect their right to do so, even though it’s easy to just taste them elsewhere or buy them. It’s part of the territory of this job. It’s just frustrating when you hold no agenda and maybe have some constructive criticism that who knows, might help them. They don’t have to heed what I say. But when you stop listening (winemakers and wine critics alike), then the only party that loses is yourself.”

That thought process is why I have very little use for wine critics.

[Jeb_Dunnuck]

Well said, Anton. It’s this type of bullshit and arrogance that gives wine critics a bad name.

[Mike_Evans]

@Jeb Dunnuck

Well said, Anton. It’s this type of bullshit and arrogance that gives wine critics a bad name.

This is the kind of arrogance that gives critics a bad name? I guess my tolerance level for arrogant bullshit is still so high from years of exposure to Robert Parker’s that Neal’s comments don’t even register as such.

Your disdain toward your former colleague raises some questions, though. Do you believe that producers of wines you review would receive any benefit from reading your reviews of their wines? Are there any wineries that have barred you from tasting their wines when the wines were right in front of you and available for tasting by everyone else in the room? Any wineries that otherwise bar you from tasting? In either case, have you publically mentioned your exclusion?

[john_stimson]

Yeah, I really don’t get the vitriol. I don’t see anything offensive in what Neal is saying. Wineries can certainly ban or refuse to serve reviewers they don’t like. Reviewers certainly can pan wines they don’t like and explain why. Do reviewers know more than the producers? sometimes. Do producers know more than reviewers? sometimes. the worst situation from my standpoint is when reviewers don’t give enough of an opinion for you to know whether they like or don’t like a wine–just sort of bland and middling, or high scores to everything.

And lastly, my original point, is that I still think in general it’s a bad idea for producers to ban reviewers.

[Jeb_Dunnuck]

Hi Mike,
Everyone has their trigger point… a wine critic showing up thinking they’re going to tell winemakers how to make wine, then publically complaining when they’re not listened to, is one of mine. Barred from tasting? Absolutely. Publically complained? Absolutely not.

[Anton_D]

@john stimson

Do reviewers know more than the producers? sometimes. Do producers know more than reviewers? sometimes. the worst situation from my standpoint is when reviewers don’t give enough of an opinion for you to know whether they like or don’t like a wine–just sort of bland and middling, or high scores to everything.

I guess some people regard critics as tools, while others view them as tools.

[Brian_Tuite]

@Anton D

@john stimson

Here’s Neal’s response on the Vinous board:

“Well, actually two producers. To be honest, given I’m been doing this a long time, I can think of only 4 producers that refused and one of them had nothing to do with me. I won’t name them. In fact, I completely respect their right to do so, even though it’s easy to just taste them elsewhere or buy them. It’s part of the territory of this job. It’s just frustrating when you hold no agenda and maybe have some constructive criticism that who knows, might help them. They don’t have to heed what I say. But when you stop listening (winemakers and wine critics alike), then the only party that loses is yourself.”

I would call that quite a self-inflicted foot shot.

“Constructive criticism?”

“Might help them?”

“They don’t have to heed what I say.”

“But when you stop listening…then the only party that loses is yourself.”

I was a fan of the old Connoisseur’s Guide, so instead of puffs, I will give that statement three BS emojis.

1. Dude, you are a critic, not a consultant, so quit with the “constructive criticism” and “I’m only trying to help” bullshit right now. Buy a dictionary and look up some definitions.

2. Correct, they don’t “have to heed” what you say. It is not your job to tell them their job. It’s a sad and narcissistic thing when critics in any field of appreciation think that the artisans should heed what they have to say. That lack of personal insight is very telling. Really? Winemakers should “heed” what this person has to say? Welcome to the modern world of selfies making someone think they are important.

3. What does the critic think it is the job of a winery or winemaker to do, and why should the critic be allowed to insinuate himself into an endeavor by virtue of being able to pull a cork out of a bottle? After that craptastic self-defense self-promotion, I hope more wineries tell him to bugger off.

At first, when I saw that a winery had denied a taste to a member of the wine press at a large public event, I though it was a petty move by he winery. After reading his self aggrandizing mewling about it, I am sorry the winery didn’t graciously give him a large pour…right over his self absorbed head.

Maybe if the winery can buy him a mirror and have it delivered to his home we’d be spared having to hear from him again and we’d all be done with that sort of critic as consultant crap.

A pox upon that sort of attitude.

Bloviator.

[Brian_Tuite]

@Eric LaMasters

@D@vid Bu3ker

@john stimson

As you know, there has been a rash of wineries uninviting Vinous reviewers, primarily Antonio (Giacosa, Aldo Conterno). Perhaps he just wanted to indicate what the reality is in general for reviewers. I think there is a value for a reviewer to show now and then that they aren’t just there to keep the winemaking estates happy and sell their wines for them. Of course who the reviewers’ primary audience is is another question.

A rash of wineries? Got any other examples besides Martin’s anonymous EP snub and the two Galloni issues? As has been said, this is nothing new for critics.

Maybach, Schrader, Realm.

@D@vid Bu3ker

Any wines worth drinking?

[larry_schaffer]

This discussion has certainly gone off the tracks.

So for those who feel that critics should not ‘give constructive criticism’, please tell Laube that he should not have told Hanzell or Montelena about their TCA issues (no one else was saying anything whatsoever).

At the end of the day, I may not agree with how reviewers view my wines but it is my choice to have them taste them - or not. I know producers who may, for instance, have Laube taste their wines but not Galloni because they feel one will give them higher scores than the other.

I know too many winemakers who make their wines ‘in a bubble’ and oftentimes develop a ‘house palate’. For instance, I remember at a recent HdR trying a ‘top rated’ wine from Paso poured direct from the winemaker/owner. He opened the bottle and did not try it before pouring for me. I thanked him, walked away to let others in, and then tried the wine - and was blown away at how much VA the wine showed. I actually had a couple of other winemakers try it - not telling them what wine it was or who poured it - and they confirmed what I had smelled. I brought it back to the winemaker, explaining that he did not have a chance to try it before pouring it, and after he smelled it, he exclaimed that it was ‘spot on’ to him . . .

Heck, I’ve reached out directly to reviewers who had less than stellar things to say about my wines to get further feedback - and none of them were willing to give me ‘constructive criticism’ when I asked. Did I feel I had to ‘listen to what they had to say’? Not necessarily - but I wanted to understand why they had to say what they did - especially when the same wine reviewed by others was looked upon ‘differently’.

I do not envy reviewers - they oftentimes have a ‘no win’ situation with regards to how they view specific wines. That said, I do not think I would ‘refuse’ to allow a specific reviewer to try my wine at an ‘open tasting’, but heck, maybe that’s just me . . .

Cheers.

[john_stimson]

Sorry, I really don’t get the last several posts on this thread, except Larry’s. Are wine critics really not supposed to be critical? Imagine a movie critic that doesn’t have an opinion about whether a movie could be better. I’m not interested in a wine critic who’s goal is to keep producers happy. I want someone who is more aligned to serving the consumer and telling what they honestly think. Yeah, they don’t have to show-boat about which producers have shut them out, but that’s almost beside the point.

[Brian_Tuite]

@larry schaffer

This discussion has certainly gone off the tracks.

So for those who feel that critics should not ‘give constructive criticism’, please tell Laube that he should not have told Hanzell or Montelena about their TCA issues (no one else was saying anything whatsoever).

At the end of the day, I may not agree with how reviewers view my wines but it is my choice to have them taste them - or not. I know producers who may, for instance, have Laube taste their wines but not Galloni because they feel one will give them higher scores than the other.

I know too many winemakers who make their wines ‘in a bubble’ and oftentimes develop a ‘house palate’. For instance, I remember at a recent HdR trying a ‘top rated’ wine from Paso poured direct from the winemaker/owner. He opened the bottle and did not try it before pouring for me. I thanked him, walked away to let others in, and then tried the wine - and was blown away at how much VA the wine showed. I actually had a couple of other winemakers try it - not telling them what wine it was or who poured it - and they confirmed what I had smelled. I brought it back to the winemaker, explaining that he did not have a chance to try it before pouring it, and after he smelled it, he exclaimed that it was ‘spot on’ to him . . .

Heck, I’ve reached out directly to reviewers who had less than stellar things to say about my wines to get further feedback - and none of them were willing to give me ‘constructive criticism’ when I asked. Did I feel I had to ‘listen to what they had to say’? Not necessarily - but I wanted to understand why they had to say what they did - especially when the same wine reviewed by others was looked upon ‘differently’.

I do not envy reviewers - they oftentimes have a ‘no win’ situation with regards to how they view specific wines. That said, I do not think I would ‘refuse’ to allow a specific reviewer to try my wine at an ‘open tasting’, but heck, maybe that’s just me . . .

Cheers.

They can tell you what they liked or didn’t like about your wine. That’s what criticism is. If they start telling you how to make your wine they have overstepped their boundaries. A winemaker that isn’t aware that Syrah is prone to VA and/or does not know how to detect it by smelling the wine is another story altogether.

[Brian_Tuite]

@john stimson

Sorry, I really don’t get the last several posts on this thread, except Larry’s. Are wine critics really not supposed to be critical? Imagine a movie critic that doesn’t have an opinion about whether a movie could be better. I’m not interested in a wine critic who’s goal is to keep producers happy. I want someone who is more aligned to serving the consumer and telling what they honestly think. Yeah, they don’t have to show-boat about which producers have shut them out, but that’s almost beside the point.

Actially that is the point if you read the OP.

[TomHill]

@larry schaffer

I know too many winemakers who make their wines ‘in a bubble’ and oftentimes develop a ‘house palate’. For instance, I remember at a recent HdR trying a ‘top rated’ wine from Paso poured direct from the winemaker/owner. He opened the bottle and did not try it before pouring for me. I thanked him, walked away to let others in, and then tried the wine - and was blown away at how much VA the wine showed. I actually had a couple of other winemakers try it - not telling them what wine it was or who poured it - and they confirmed what I had smelled. I brought it back to the winemaker, explaining that he did not have a chance to try it before pouring it, and after he smelled it, he exclaimed that it was ‘spot on’ to him . . .

Awwwww…come on, Larry. Name the wnry…we want names!!!
Tom

[J_a_y_H_a_c_k]

I think it was a very useful and informative post without being too snarky. It let’s the reader know that reviews are skewed in favor of reviewers who like a particular wine without appearing to be vindictive or punitive. It also lets the reader know that there is a not so subtle attempt to influence individual reviewers into biasing their review to favor a particular wine to avoid being blacklisted. Anyone who really wants to figure out who it was can wait until Martin’s reviews are published, check what is missing, and go back and look at prior reviews to see who he panned.

[Jayson_Cohen]

@Anton D

@john stimson

Do reviewers know more than the producers? sometimes. Do producers know more than reviewers? sometimes. the worst situation from my standpoint is when reviewers don’t give enough of an opinion for you to know whether they like or don’t like a wine–just sort of bland and middling, or high scores to everything.

I guess some people regard critics as tools, while others view them as tools.

If it walks like a tool, and it talks like a tool, …

[larry_schaffer]

@Brian Tuite

@larry schaffer

This discussion has certainly gone off the tracks.

So for those who feel that critics should not ‘give constructive criticism’, please tell Laube that he should not have told Hanzell or Montelena about their TCA issues (no one else was saying anything whatsoever).

At the end of the day, I may not agree with how reviewers view my wines but it is my choice to have them taste them - or not. I know producers who may, for instance, have Laube taste their wines but not Galloni because they feel one will give them higher scores than the other.

I know too many winemakers who make their wines ‘in a bubble’ and oftentimes develop a ‘house palate’. For instance, I remember at a recent HdR trying a ‘top rated’ wine from Paso poured direct from the winemaker/owner. He opened the bottle and did not try it before pouring for me. I thanked him, walked away to let others in, and then tried the wine - and was blown away at how much VA the wine showed. I actually had a couple of other winemakers try it - not telling them what wine it was or who poured it - and they confirmed what I had smelled. I brought it back to the winemaker, explaining that he did not have a chance to try it before pouring it, and after he smelled it, he exclaimed that it was ‘spot on’ to him . . .

Heck, I’ve reached out directly to reviewers who had less than stellar things to say about my wines to get further feedback - and none of them were willing to give me ‘constructive criticism’ when I asked. Did I feel I had to ‘listen to what they had to say’? Not necessarily - but I wanted to understand why they had to say what they did - especially when the same wine reviewed by others was looked upon ‘differently’.

I do not envy reviewers - they oftentimes have a ‘no win’ situation with regards to how they view specific wines. That said, I do not think I would ‘refuse’ to allow a specific reviewer to try my wine at an ‘open tasting’, but heck, maybe that’s just me . . .

Cheers.

They can tell you what they liked or didn’t like about your wine. That’s what criticism is. If they start telling you how to make your wine they have overstepped their boundaries. A winemaker that isn’t aware that Syrah is prone to VA and/or does not know how to detect it by smelling the wine is another story altogether.

Maybe I missed it, but where did Neal state that he wanted to tell winemakers how to make their wines? And you are right in general about what criticism is - but if a reviewer is ‘out of step’ with your perceptions about a wine, what’s the crime in reaching out to discuss?

Cheers.

[Brian_Tuite]

@larry schaffer

@Brian Tuite

@larry schaffer

This discussion has certainly gone off the tracks.

So for those who feel that critics should not ‘give constructive criticism’, please tell Laube that he should not have told Hanzell or Montelena about their TCA issues (no one else was saying anything whatsoever).

At the end of the day, I may not agree with how reviewers view my wines but it is my choice to have them taste them - or not. I know producers who may, for instance, have Laube taste their wines but not Galloni because they feel one will give them higher scores than the other.

I know too many winemakers who make their wines ‘in a bubble’ and oftentimes develop a ‘house palate’. For instance, I remember at a recent HdR trying a ‘top rated’ wine from Paso poured direct from the winemaker/owner. He opened the bottle and did not try it before pouring for me. I thanked him, walked away to let others in, and then tried the wine - and was blown away at how much VA the wine showed. I actually had a couple of other winemakers try it - not telling them what wine it was or who poured it - and they confirmed what I had smelled. I brought it back to the winemaker, explaining that he did not have a chance to try it before pouring it, and after he smelled it, he exclaimed that it was ‘spot on’ to him . . .

Heck, I’ve reached out directly to reviewers who had less than stellar things to say about my wines to get further feedback - and none of them were willing to give me ‘constructive criticism’ when I asked. Did I feel I had to ‘listen to what they had to say’? Not necessarily - but I wanted to understand why they had to say what they did - especially when the same wine reviewed by others was looked upon ‘differently’.

I do not envy reviewers - they oftentimes have a ‘no win’ situation with regards to how they view specific wines. That said, I do not think I would ‘refuse’ to allow a specific reviewer to try my wine at an ‘open tasting’, but heck, maybe that’s just me . . .

Cheers.

They can tell you what they liked or didn’t like about your wine. That’s what criticism is. If they start telling you how to make your wine they have overstepped their boundaries. A winemaker that isn’t aware that Syrah is prone to VA and/or does not know how to detect it by smelling the wine is another story altogether.

Maybe I missed it, but where did Neal state that he wanted to tell winemakers how to make their wines? And you are right in general about what criticism is - but if a reviewer is ‘out of step’ with your perceptions about a wine, what’s the crime in reaching out to discuss?

Cheers.

The thread has expanded a bit so my comments were a bit more broad than focused. This excerpt in particular had me going:

“It’s just frustrating when you hold no agenda and maybe have some constructive criticism that who knows, might help them. They don’t have to heed what I say. But when you stop listening (winemakers and wine critics alike), then the only party that loses is yourself.”

It’s not his job to help them or consult as Anton put it. Taste the wine, give your impressions and score. In my earlier post I mentioned where a critic tasted two identical wines with different barrel treatments and disagreed with the winemaker saying they were not the same base wine scoring them nearly 10pts differently. You want to take advice from that person? Does that somehow help the winemaker make a better product?

Without knowing what was written, what the winemaker disagreed with or what set him off it’s really hard to be definitive on this

[larry_schaffer]

The wine industry in many respects remains a relatively ‘small and intimate’ one - at least in the US. Most of the key reviewers know many of the wineries and winemakers pretty well. It is not uncommon for certain reviewers to have meals with certain winemakers when in an area - and even to stay with specific ones when in the area. And it is not uncommon for them to taste with some winemakers personally while others are left to have their wines tasted either in mass tastings or perhaps not at all.

It is also not uncommon for a winery to ‘question’ a reviewer’s notes and scores - and I know in a few cases where they have been ‘successful’ at having the wine re-reviewed.

As I mentioned, if there was a ‘problem’ with a wine that a reviewer pointed out, perhaps the winery can look at this as ‘beneficial’ rather than ‘harmful’ or ‘trying to tell them how to make their wines’.

Without knowing the specifics of what Neal said about the wines in the thread, we are simply guessing . . .

Cheers.