More Reviewer Changes at the Wine Advocate

I’m an 80 on this whole subject.

I think William Kelley’s writing on Burgundy is exceptional and worthy of a subscription to The Wine Advocate based solely on his work. His input on the board here is second to none.

Two words:

  1. So
  2. What

I am so ashamed this caught me by surprise…but well done!

Fake reviews! :wink:

It would be a real shame to give someone new a chance, huh?

+1

Me too. I organized a tasting seminar for the NYS Bar Association Business Law Section once. Does that mean I have to put ITB in my sig line?

Without ratting out anyone, I was told by one of TWA’s principal reviewers about 7 years ago (when RMP was still in charge), that people who reviewed wines for TWA were forbidden from posting here. I hope that rule has been rescinded because I agree with your assessment of Mr. Kelley’s posts. Since I see that he posted here yesterday, it looks promising.

I think this must make the two of you “wine presenters,” so you are on your way to a TWA gig!

”The Wine Country Lawyer” sounds pretty good. And “The Wine Hack.”

The latter position is already filled.

Too easy?

+1

+10 Need to keep the wine Illuminati happy

In the spirit of Bill’s post, I got a hoot out of the fact that they brought in someone who knows Napa inside and out and tell us all about his marvelous Napa connections and then give us the punchline of he’s going to review Washington and South Africa.

It’s like hiring a GM mechanic to work on Teslas

[snort.gif]

You guys crack me up about the SQN ratings, etc. This board freaks out if any of those wines gets below a 97, regardless of reviewer. I remember the uproar when the WS gave some of the wines low 90’s . . .

Yep, I do believe there are some ‘sacred’ producers who will continue to get some crazy high scores regardless of reviewer - begs the question of whether they are universally loved or if no one is willing to go ‘against the grain’.

Will Lisa handle folks like SQN and Saxum moving forward? That will be interesting to see indeed . . .

Cheers!

[quoteYou guys crack me up about the SQN ratings, etc. This board freaks out if any of those wines gets below a 97, regardless of reviewer. I remember the uproar when the WS gave some of the wines low 90’s . . .

Yep, I do believe there are some ‘sacred’ producers who will continue to get some crazy high scores regardless of reviewer - begs the question of whether they are universally loved or if no one is willing to go ‘against the grain’.

Will Lisa handle folks like SQN and Saxum moving forward? That will be interesting to see indeed . . .

Cheers!][/quote]
I don’t get how on a pop and pour SQN wines would be good. Don’t they need long term aging or a massive decant?

This subject made me curious whether the WA/Mark Squires bulletin board stll employs a filter to prevent anyone from using the word Beserkers on their board. So this morning I asked, without actually using the offensive word. Squires himself responded: stll filtered.
I have always been a fan of the WA, particularly when Parker was writing most of it. But less of a fan now. They never should have banned nonsubscribers; a poor business decision. And then when (as noted above) the new management casually commented (without thinking first) that wine reviewers are a dime a dozen (after one of their best quit). Not something they teach in business school. After all, the reviews (and the reviewers) are what they sell. And what we (I) buy. And pay for.
I still subscribe. But I wonder.
Phil Jones

Larry, do scores still resonate with the buying public and move wine?

You must not have been paying attention, as Mr. Kelley was hired by TWA over a year ago and has continued to be a valuable member of this community since he started there.