And I shared my opinion of yours, its a website dedicated to opinions and sometimes those gnerate discussion and discourse.
If you don’t expect or want others opinions of yours, perhaps not posting is a better option. There is a reply button for a reason so we can share our points of view.
I simply said I disagree, I never said you are wrong or anything insulting about your opinion as its yours.
No argument here!
This would be my guess as well.
Well, they say it’s anonymous, yet every restaurant owner I know who has been rated by Michelin knew perfectly well in advance who the reviewers were.
That would be problematic for me as a buyer, I definitely didn’t align with RP, though I read many of his vintage reviews and found plenty of insight. I just felt that he liked bigger wines than I did. Red wines with a Parker score above 94, I generally left alone (this is 25 years ago) as I felt there was a high probablility of them not being my preferred style. That’s not an absolute statement. I am sure I missed the boat on many wines I would have enjoyed.
But with anonymous reviews, it’s more limiting. And not just to match my palate. With anonymity, how do you know who’s tasting and writing the review and what are their qualifications (more salient than ever with AI in play).
Nobody has said this will occur, but anonymous reviews would be a cold stone killer. I would be completely out of of any publication that does it that way. That’s why I love this website, real names only.
My guess: Michelin might draw on WA personnel and work product for their foray into wine ratings but won’t alter WA tasting and reporting protocols. It is a concern because Michelin makes more money from promotional activities than ratings.
It’s interesting to go back and taste some of those wines now.
Many of them are still, big.
The way Michelin reviews restaurants bugs me. I live in the twin cities and think there are some restaurants here that meet the quality threshold to be included in Michelin ratings. But Michelin requires the city to pay them substantial $$ in order to visit their city and rate their restaurants. Michelin seems very “pay to play”. Maybe they should buy Wine Spectator instead?
There is an obvious difference between restaurant reviewing and wine reviewing. While one can publish a restaurant review under one’s own name (newspapers do it all the time) that means the reviewer must wear disguises and book under aliases, because if the restaurant knows who you are, you can no longer be sure you are getting the same service everybody else is (indeed, you can be pretty sure you aren’t). In the case of wine, despite stories of special cuvees given to Parker and perhaps others, it is pretty easy to taste what everybody else will taste even if your name is known. Wine critics have plenty of opportunities to have their objectivity compromised, but merely knowing their identities doesn’t do that.
The problem isn’t just between anonymous and known reviewers. It’s also the centralisation of anonymous reviews under the presumed legitimacy of the Michelin brand. I personally prefer the confusion produced by a cacophony of wine critic reviews. It puts the impetus on the consumer to define their palate. I’d go so far as to say that it’s democratising.
As someone who buys few new vintages I really look to CT mostly. There is value ion the group speak. weeds out the outliers.
Press release out today: The MICHELIN Guide expands its expertise in the world of wine | Michelin
Selected, 1-grape, 2-grape. 3-grape ratings, specifically around producers, coming in 2026, starting with Burgundy and Bordeaux.
swapping stars for grapes…
From the criteria:
The quality of agronomy
The assessment evaluates the vitality of the soil, the balance of the vine stocks as well as the care provided for the vines. All essential factors that directly influence wine quality.
I know it’s a leading indicator, but if the wine is good I really don’t care whether the vines look like they just came out of a wood chipper or an english topiary garden…
I think you are looking at that wrong. I would say this means you aren’t using really bad pesticides and herbicides, and your land isn’t suffering from erosion, and so on.
It’s not entirely clear to me what value this new rating system provides, as there are already plenty of wine reviewers (subjectively) quantifying the quality of wines produced by wineries around the world.
It seems like this has the potential for thrusting under-the-radar wineries into the spotlight, resulting in higher prices. That would be good for those producers, but potentially bad for the neighboring wineries of those producers and certainly for consumers who have supported those producers for years.
And there will be ample work for reviewers, to be sure, as they will have to taste (and rate) every single wine on market? Woof.
There isn’t any 
There are over 1 million different wines bottled for sale every year. I do not think Michelin will be covering them all.