Here is another old favorite for the RMP Bingo, “stunning/stunningly.”
They don’t have to. That’s just the format they chose.
I recently wrote some notes on a 10 bottle Thomas vertical. All of the wines were exactly the same, except the vintages were slightly different. It’s tough to write original notes that differentiate the wines in that setting, and that’s only ten wines.
Exactly, but nobody’s forcing you to write 10 tasting notes in order to write about your Thomas tasting. I’d imagine a couple paragraphs of “what I learned about Thomas from tasting 10 vintages” is going to be more educational and more fun to read than 10 mostly similar tasting notes. Critics go the tasting note route because it’s a lucrative gig for them, and because it’s something even a stupid person can fake his way through without being found out.
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned Antonio’s favorite of all wine description catch phrases: “Drop Dead Gorgeous”
1 Like
If their work is acknowledged to be a consumer buying guide and not educational material, then whether zealots such as ourselves, who waste an incredible amount of time on this nonsense think that it has any value, is really immaterial.
I’d take it one step further: If the ten wines tasted the same, then there is absolutely no need to find ways to differentiate. You are creating the narrative rather than the wines creating the narrative. The wines were what were they were. The reader would benefit from learning that vintage made no difference here. And therein is the essence of my issue with many of these critics: their narrative has become about them and how to hype the wine. Their work product has become less and less valuable to the real, discerning consumer.
All that said, I still read some critics’ work product, but it is only one piece of information, something I use less and less, by the way. I will also concede, writing 100s of notes per week, you are bound to see tons of similarity. But as Keith notes, it’s their chosen profession, they could use different formats and perhaps other ways of communicating the information in more useful terms. I will also concede, my notes are pretty amateurish and likely have many similar, repeated terms, partly as I tend to drink the same types and styles of wines, by and large.
Ultimately, this is a funny thread, the humor is worthwhile, especially if you turn it back on us, and note that our descriptions may suffer similar frailties and the silliness that we geek out on this stuff.
I’m 102 points on that!
Except that I never found that Coates really gave me any sense of the wine’s style or character. “Very fine indeed” wasn’t much better than a simple point score.
Best ever made at that estate!
I heard that the 2017 is 103 pointer
Frankly, I’m not sure why I continually jump into these tasting note and critic discussions–prob the same fixation that we all have with our wine geekiness. I actually no longer read the vast majority of critics’ notes as they really aren’t terribly useful to me (as I likely already know what I want to seek out, and I can often can predict roughly what the particular critic will say about a specific wine) I’m much more likely to be interested in the vintage descriptions and what various vintners have to say about their wines in a given year.
But when we write our own impressions of wines we’ve tasted and try to share them with others on boards like these, it can be difficult, and Keith’s points I might take to heart–maybe I’ll just try giving general impressions and highlights, with a list of wines sampled rather than trying to labor thru individual notes.
Yes but at least you don’t have to labor thru the effusive descriptors. Does anyone remember the minimalist thread I was referring to?
Miran, since my snorting ridicule immediately preceded your post, I suppose you are criticizing me … for criticizing the critics who criticize the people who are the ones who are really putting themselves out there, viz. the winemakers. I trust you’ve never posted an unfavourable tasting note anywhere? 
Anyway, I am in fact a subscriber of both the WA and Vinous (though I plan to drop one of them), so it is well within my rights as a paying customer to roll my eyes at certain phrases that have become hackneyed through overuse. Besides, I’m not one of those people that think that Parker (for example) is an unalloyed negative force in the wine world. Quite the opposite, he made fine wine seem a lot more accessible when I started on my wine journey some 25 years ago, and I am grateful to him for that. But, as often happens in many different industries, the young Turks grow old and settled in their ways, and this can show up as complacent and cliched writing among other things.
Can I have on my Parker card “gobs and gobs”?
Haha, all in good spirit, Ethan. 
But…the question remains. So the easy part has been dealt with - the wine critics have put in some considerable work and some people don’t like it. Now for the more difficult part (a question aimed at everyone): how would you do it differently and better?
It’s quite easy to stand on the side line and have opinions but I’d love to see anyone else doing the same amount of work, publish the same amount of tasting notes, providing the same amount of information and…do it better. Please try. I’d LOVE to see some attempts from those who ridicule. I’ll be the first one signing up for a subscription.
Absolutely. It’s easy to make fun of critics, but most of us couldn’t do much better when writing thousands of notes. There are the exceptions like Davy and Frank Murray, but it is very difficult and there are very few people who seem to have that gift.
Harvey Steiman - anything involving “linger” or “lingering”
James Laube - mocha
Suckling - “Best ever from here?”
Gilman - “upper register” “cedar” “nutskin”
RJ- tart
Burghound - deft, copious
Josh Raynolds- smoky minerals, pastille, bitter cherry
Parker - balls to the wall
- I smirk when I read these in their tasting notes, but I do have to say that I find (most of) their reviews useful. We all have our own particular olfactory vocabulary, I guess.
1 Like
I can’t think of any way I’d do it better.
I also don’t understand the implied challenge to try to do it better before criticizing. A consumer doesn’t need to be able to produce a product or even know how it is produced in order to determine if it is satisfying. That sort of knowledge can inform a more erudite criticism but it’s not necessary to have a valid opinion.
“You may abuse a tragedy, though you cannot write one. You may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table. It is not your trade to make tables.” --Samuel Johnson
Anyway, saying “I’d love to see anyone else publish the same amount of tasting notes” kind of misses the point. The attempt to publish large volumes of tasting notes is a large part of the reason the writing is so lousy. The solution isn’t to do the same thing and do it better. The solution is to do something different.
+1
Indeed. I have never agreed with the “you can’t criticize X because you couldn’t do any better” theory, because it just doesn’t make any sense. I am pretty sure if I tried to make a wine it would be garbage, but that doesn’t mean I can’t point out when I’m drinking a terrible wine.