I can’t think of a respect in which his opinions are not “different from everyone else on the planet.” Honestly, I have never been able to get a fix on his palate. I have enormous respect for him and his approach; he takes his job seriously and calls them as he, but no one else, sees them. This isn’t a new world/old world thing, not a fruit bomb/AFWE thing; his views just don’t plot on the same axes as everyone else’s.
That’s not a bad thing. It is refreshing. But I have had difficulty figuring out how he and I align. Sometimes I feel as though he had written a note for me we are so closely aligned; others – even if we are talking about the same kind of wine, from the same vintage – we might as well have been drinking different wines.
I do encourage people to check him out; he is unique. He was also very kind to me a couple of years ago and fixed me up with a free issue to examine in detail.
By the way, forgetting the wine notes, John’s long form writing is really good. His (often several page) intros to highlighted wineries are even more interesting to me that the notes/scores/drinking windows.
I recall you being quite critical of John and how he rated certain wines, including Pavie, questioning whether his scoring was more of a polemic than a review. I can see how a 2010 Pavie rating of 50 or so could be viewed as such, unless that style of modernism is anathema to you. I’m glad he calls it this way, rather than most critics that vaunt the modern style as much if not more than a classic style. Yea I can understand how a critic can play both sides and give supposedly “objective” reviews on distinct styles, but I prefer staking positions that align with your palate. It’s why I am an arbitrator not a mediator. When I read a note from a Cheval Blanc that is close to indistinguishable from a Pavie, that critic is utterly worthless to me. While I understood your point that most of us can guess how he will rate a Pavie or an Angelus, what about Chateaux you’ve never heard of, or those that have just brought on one of the modern consultants or are transitioning a bit in style like Carmes Haut Brion? I’d like to see that refreshing opinion, something we are not seeing at all from the current crop outside of Gilman [actually, while not a critic in the sense we use it, but Leve does this very well, he just goes to the opposite spectrum to my palate]. Just look at John Morris’ thread criticizing the critiques of the critics quite critically. He has laughable examples where Galloni uses identical phraseology to review different wines from different grapes made in different styles.
BTW, how has Gilman reviewed Carmes Haut Brion 2014-16? Curious.
I find Gilman’s reviews quite consistent on Chinon and Riesling, though his scores on Kabinetts tend to be rather high for me. He clearly has a zeal for them.
My recollection is now that screwcaps with variable permeability which more closely mimic oxygen transfer of cork are widely available that he is reserving judgement.
I don’t remember that post at all, Robert, and I certainly wouldn’t criticize John G or anyone else for taking a strong position on Pavie or any other wine, and I totally understand how polarizing the wine can be (it isn’t a fave of mine either).
My problem is not that he hates the Pavies of the world. Indeed, if his worldview were predictably AWFE, or if he wanted to raze every producer who has allowed Rolland to visit heir property, like someone else I know, I would be able to make more sense out of his View From the Cellar. But that hasn’t been my sense of things. Maybe it is because I don’t subscribe and his notes are less often used by retailers (so I don’t get enough exposure). So maybe my view is calumny.
But as it stands, I have never been able to get a fix on his palate to the degree necessary to decide whether we are likely to agree or not, and every indication suggests that he finds things in wines I don’t that lead us to part on an unpredictable basis. That makes him less than useful to me as a guide.
(Leve, on the other hand, is very “predictable” in a positive sense. I can read a Leve note and know pretty accurately whether I will like it. Sometimes we both will; other times we don’t agree. But I can almost always tell ahead of time. Not so with John).
I find John pretty consistent and not that hard to figure out. Contrary to what Neal said, I think he is pretty firmly in the AFWE camp. He has a tremendous aversion to new oak (I am much more agnostic) although he relents some with respect to wineries where after he has several years of experience with the winery he finds that the new oak integrates into the wine well.
I don’t agree with John about everything. As I said, with respect to wines that are otherwise traditionally made, I am more tolerant of new oak than he is. And, he loves the wines from Corison and there is just something about the flavor of her wines that does not appeal to me. Also, I am not as wild about Beaujolais as he is. That said, I agree with him an awful lot. His palate aligns with mine more than that of most critics. And, when I am reading a wine review, alignment with what I like is most important to me. I don’t really care if in some objective sense (whatever that means) a wine is good or not, I care whether I would like it.
John has been especially helpful in pointing me to California wineries making wines I might like (“causing” me to spend too much money on Stony Hill, for example). I find Bordeaux today to be a minefield, as I don’t keep up enough with which producers are still making wine in a traditional way and which have gone (literally) to the dark side. I have enjoyed John’s writing on Bordeaux and my only criticism is that he does not cover Bordeaux enough. Fortunately, I have Mr. Alfert’s reviews here on Bordeaux to keep me on the correct path. But, I think his strong suits are Burgundy, some Italian wines and Champagne.
I should comment that I have met and drunk with John on several occasions (although I am by no means the close friend that several on this thread seem to be) and bought wine from him when he was a broker before he started the newsletter.
I have read many interesting articles by Gilman, and he was once personally very kind and helpful to me. But, I must say, I ran into an article of his on Beaucastel Hommage a Jacques Perrin and I was shocked about how unknowledgeable it was about all things CdP, even to the point of being surprised that he liked an 01 Hommage since 01 was a famously weak vintage. That must have been 01 in some parallel universe. To be clear, he wasn’t registering a distaste for a hot solar year (even if he were, 01 is hardly the poster child for such vintages). I would guess he was confusing it with what he may have heard about 02. This is only one example. Now it’s OK with me if CdPs and particularly special cuvee CdPs aren’t Gilman’s thing. And God knows I’ve tasted too few Hommages to have opinions based on more than hearsay myself. But if he’s going to write about the wines, he ought to do basic research. I think this may be the exception that proves the rule, but it was shocking.
Was it here or the old place where he and Jeff Leve had quite the exchange? Classic Internet wine.
Anyway, I like Gillman. I rarely agree with him but he is so consistent for me (sorry Neal) that I know whether I will like the wine or not after reading his reviews. There are time we agree but its usually an area where our palates overlap. But, what do i know, i like the 2001 Hommage.
Hey, I am perfectly willing to put my impression down to lack of exposure.
Given how often Envoyer uses JG in their offers, maybe I will have a greater opportunity to get a fix on him.
Yes I am seeing that as I read through the two complimentary issues I got for subscribing. I will also say that another thing I like is that he explains his scores in more detail than most others (at least in my limited experience). It is what I appreciate about some tasters on CT – I am more impressed by an 89 with a detailed note than a 97 with no note. As I say to my students, the answer (in this case score) is not the important thing; what is important is how and why you reached that answer (score).
John stopped reviewing pre-bottled Bordeaux around vintage 2013. I don’t quite recall why, or what his plans are or Bordeaux. Recently, I see Chateaux verticals or vintage horizontals with age - which I like.
As Pee Wee Herman used to say, “Prepare to be astounded.”
The review is readily available by Googling. It is on p. 100 of issue n. 63. Here is the quotation in question:
2001 Châteauneuf du Pape “Hommage à Jacques Perrin”
Château de Beaucastel
2001 is another vintage in Châteauneuf du Pape wher
e I never anticipate seeing an
example of Hommage bottled, as this was the year wh
ere the skies absolutely opened up late in
the summer and flooding in the region was rampant.
Maybe he just doesn’t care for Beaucastel? Seem to recall he lambasted the '00 as well and scored it in the 60’s. It’s no 100 pointer but hardly plonk. To each their own.
I love his road kill notes as well – wish he would do more. I value his notes as I find him fairly consistent and willing to take a stand against the modernist bullshit styles, unlike most other wine writers. He writes his opinion and not kumbaya nonsense like Galloni and his ilk.
I do find him too enthusiastic regarding Beaujolais, Loire, and new wave California, and I think he blew the call on 2011 red Burgundy bigly.
Still, he is the only critic I read and subscribe to.
