He did start rating Bordeaux. Maybe that’s a transition and someone else will take over in Burgundy. Or, that would be a solution if there’s a conflict - just move to writing about regions he doesn’t make wine in.
Anyway, I greatly appreciate him having a much higher level of understanding about wine than so many other critics.
Thanks for the great review, @CFu ! Of the many lessons making wine myself has taught me, the emotions one feels when knowing ones bottles are going to come under critical scrutiny is one of the more ironic, given my day job. But that only heightens the satisfaction when the bottle performs!
I’m also grateful for @Matthew_King for raising the subject of potential conflicts of interests, as this sometimes comes up and I have never really know where to address the question publicly beyond what is already published in TWA.
From my point of view, there is no question that making wine has immeasurably improved my work as a critic, vis a vis with what I was doing when I started out reviewing wines eight years ago. Burgundy is a region that can only be understood intimately, from the ground up, and living each growing season with all its challenges; seeing how different sites, rootstocks and vine genetics perform; observing how different farming practices play out and seeing all the ups and downs; following how my own wines evolve in barrel to better master the art of barrel tasting unfinished wines—all this and much more has transformed the way I work. If I have dared to disrupt the traditional hierarchy of appellations and in some cases producers, it is surely thanks to the additional assurance this total immersion approach to wine criticism has brought me. I hope it also gives me more skin in the game: producers can see if I am doing the work in the vineyards that I praise on the page, or if my practices are incoherent with my discourse; and I see this as a form of accountability to both them and our readers.
From the beginning, my approach has been disclosure. My first vintage of my own production in Burgundy was 2018, and my 2018 Côte d’Or vintage report includes a paragraph about my experiences and a photo of me in a vat of wine. Naturally, I do not review my own wines. And, after a couple of weeks’ excitement at seeing people post photos of my bottles on social media, wisdom has prevailed and I have stopped re-sharing any content that features my labels on Instagram. My passion is really my two domaine parcels, which I own and farm, but I also buy some grapes for now, to explore other appellations and because my own vineyards are both Pinot Noir, so no Chardonnay or Aligoté. How do I handle that in the instance that the fruit source is a producer I review? We discussed this internally at TWA, and agreed to publish a disclosure in the producer note attached to all the reviews for the vintages concerned. In practice, this has so far arrived only once: those of you who have read my reviews of Gilbert Felettig’s wines from 2018 on may have noticed it, as I buy 660 kg of Chambolle fruit from him every year. With my 2022 vintage, you’ll see one more disclosure for another producer. As others have observed, such situations are not unprecedented: Robert Parker was the proprietor of a winery that he didn’t review; Hugh Johnson sat on the board of Château Latour; Jasper Morris owns a vineyard in the Beaune premiers crus farmed by Jean-Yves Devevey; Camille Rodier, one of the greatest French authors on Burgundy in the early 20th century, was even proprietor of Domaine des Lambrays. My approach has always been to consider sunlight the best disinfectant.
In practice, while it’s easy to talk of conflict of interest, no one has ever been able to explain to me exactly how it would play out. Would I be best served by talking up the region as a whole, or by disparaging my competitors? Should I give more generous reviews to my suppliers, or would doing so risk increasing demand for their wines, thus reducing or ending the supply? I have always tended to think that my reputation and credibility with our readers is worth much more than a barrel or two of wine, especially as it is so easy for anyone to put me to the test by simply opening a bottle.
it’s not that easy! Nothing even on wine-searcher. You don’t make enough! Great post, William.
Certainly the first on the west coast!
I’m curious to Donald’s take. 
In Germany, we went through this with Armin Diel, who had his own winery and was a reviewer for Germany with Gault Millau. This was, from start to finish, a disaster with so many conflicts of interest that, in the end, he had to go. Regardless of how noble William Kelley’s intentions are, the conflict potential is massive. Just alone, Mr. Kelley has influenced prices; does he have ulterior motives in doing this? To be honest, I am really happy Antonio Galloni is back on form. The points are deflated, and the coverage of grower producers is, from my perspective, top and balanced. I was skeptical of Anne Krebihl MW as I have participated in tastings in Alsace which she has moderated that were surreal, and I was quite surprised. But on the Vinous reviews, she is really good. As someone with 25 years in gastronomy, 15 of those in Michelin gastronomy, the last time I was tested, the tester said, “If you give me the meal for free, you will get a good review.” If I start on Michelin testers, then this will really take this thread in a different direction.
Wow. That surprises me, I was under the impression that the Michelin guide was paying for meals (reimbursing the evaluator upon proof of payment). That would entail falsifying a proof of payment as well if the evaluator wanted to pocket the money. Or, do you think Michelin is asking evaluators to get freebies to reduce operating costs and keep their jobs? Was that before the 2004 Rémy book?
I’m not a Michelin die-hard fan but I thought, maybe naively, the days of “copinage” and bribes were behind them.
After my apprenticeship I went to a 1 star michelin restaurant (1996) , the chef was desperate for a second star. Now this one tester, liked to put on parties and give the impression that he was a talented cook (by rights they are trained chefs, but it is a bit like the joke what do eunuchs and business advisors have in common? They both know in theory how it is done:) Any way we cooked for him a six course meal,. The following week, he brought back the dishes and the chef, said that makes so and so much. He trhew the money on the floor. The chef did not get the second star and another restaurant got it for providing free catering. When the chef asked him why he did not get the second star, he said the turbot was ten seconds to long in the pan.
Another good one is when I worked in Stuttgart. The owner had this thing that he did Dom Perignon by the glass, nobody drunk this as it was too expensive so he could display and never open the bottle, any way he open the Dom Perignon for the tester and offered the champagne for free, I think the tester drunk about half a bottle. The tester came on the 23rd of December, there was a Christmas group in and it was very noisy. The tester told the owner the restaurant was too rowdy, half a bottle of DP for nothing.
After they bring out the book, they then go around the restaurants hawking their wares. I think you were sort of expected to buy the red plaque and ten or so books. I rememebr one chef saying to the tester, if you can give us a set of winter tyres on the cheap , that would be better. Lost the star.
I worked up until 2010 in that sort of gastronomy and things never really changed. In 2010 I opened my own restaurant and hopen none of the buggers would ever turn up, sadly one didid. There is this really good dish from the south of Italy, swordfish with, olive oil, bread crumbs and oregano, the tester eat that and siad Oregana and swordfish does not work, it was commercially our most succesful dish. I asked him, if he had worked in Italy, no. I said on off I worked five years in Italy, so what makes him a judge of cucina casalinga.
It is as Pierre Marco White has said, one is being judged by people who have less knowledge than one does oneself.
Interesting, however there HAS to be any kind of producer info on the label, if it s to be legal !?
???
Good to hear that the juice is great. Can’t say I am surprised!
Sadly think it’s one of those domaines one will only ever see on Instagram or at insane prices (think they leave the domaine at about 200$ before tax, so hard to find in retail and restaurants below $400-$500). Says something about the wine world we’ve built for ourselves when the debut (village) wines of a debut winemaker sell for as much as a lesser Roumier 1er cru.
To be clear: I am not blaming William (he has no good options re: pricing), but what social media and bulletin boards have made to the fine wine world.
I think it should all be sold here on BerserkerDay 2024. 
Say, I just had an idea for the best de Negocé offer ever!
The bottle Charlie tried probably wasn’t a purchased bottle, but was a “shiner” from the winery. Based on the pictures on the internet, I suspect there is a back label that has all the requisite information. Remember as well that labelling rules are different in the EU than they are in the U.S.
As alluded to above, a critic’s world is rife with potential and/or real conflicts of interest. The critic will either act with integrity or not. I have followed what William has done to date and have gotten to know him a bit, and I have every confidence that he has acted and will continue to act with the utmost integrity. I value his insider’s knowledge and perspective on Burgundy, which only gets better by reason of his work as a vigneron.
Wine critics influence prices. To suggest that William held doing so as an ulterior motive to his winemaking career goes way too far and demonstrates disregard for a person’s character without any actual basis whatsoever.
It was pretty simple; he never reviewed, or allowed any other TWA writers to review, the wine. His interest (with his brother I believe) was open and notorious but the wine was never discussed in the pages of TWA
Professions in general are rife with potential conflicts, not just wine criticism. I don’t think a small negoce project which has been very widely disclosed by William previously creates particular conflicts; William mentioned the disclosure he has been providing regarding Felettig, and consumers are certainly free to consider that as they wish (it’s also not as if the Felettig wines have seen drastic price increases). I don’t see why this is a more significant conflict than, say, Jasper Morris’ interest in a wine bar/company in Shanghai, and I don’t think anyone has minded that too much here.
As my own disclosure, I’ve had the wines and I think they’re really good. Not sure if that’s also a conflict! 
I am surprised we are discussing conflicts, instead of the elephant in the room: a passionate fan of wine living his best life, in ways may of us could not even fathom. His reviews have won the endorsement of the most cantankerous Internet forum, and now his wines are sought after for hundreds of dollars. And both endorsements have been given on back of quality! Not marketing goobly gook. Has William ever even mentioned his wines are for sale here? Indeed, he would not even sell to me directly - despite knowing him for many years.
The only conflict is the reality of a person who has followed his passions with competence, and continues to reach new heights that are wholly unexpected - but not really when you think about it.
PS Typos attributed to mobile interface, not the 2019 Guyon that William turned me to!
I imagine the bigger problem for a critic is balancing time and maintaining consistency. When considering the enormous energy and time that producers, even those with very small holdings, invest to make high-quality wines, plus the added uncertainty of climate change, especially regarding vintages, it raises questions about how this aligns with the role of a critic. If a critic, like William Kelley, has personal responsibilities such as family and children, balancing life on the road, making wine, and working in the vineyard cannot be easy.
Michelin testers continually emphasize consistency, but unfortunately, this is not something we can confidently attribute to William Kelley, although his fan club might disagree. A pertinent example is Egly Ouriet. Last year, Kelley’s reviews in August, before the wine release, led Egly to delay the release and reconsider his pricing. However, this year, there were no August reviews for Egly-Ouriet. Despite the lack of points, Egly has maintained its prices. Egly and his bank manager might appreciate what Kelley has done for them, but that’s another issue.
Kelley initiated momentum with his initial 100 points, but, as Michelin testers often highlight, consistency is lacking. We see this with the millésime 2014, priced over 400 € but without points, making it difficult to sell. The price is unquestionably a direct result of the 100 points. Egly is undoubtedly one of the best producers in the Champagne region. However, this inconsistency raises questions: Is the critic doing a disservice to consumers through the lack of timely reviews and showing a lack of respect to world-class producers by not reviewing their wines in a timely manner?
I don’t doubt Yohan Castaing’s abilities, but I think he is to Kelley what Eric Guido is to Antonio Galloni. No one minds when Guido reviews wines from Sardinia or Puglia, but for more prestigious wines, people prefer Galloni. The same applies to Kelley: Castaing’s opinions on Krug 171 are interesting but lack influence. In the end, it may not matter much because one can still attribute 94 points from The Wine Advocate or Robert Parker. Outside of the fan club, as long as the name Parker and a score are visible, it seems to suffice.
I always believe you must finish what you start, and, sadly, this is something William Kelley currently seems incapable of fulfilling, especially when it comes to champagne reviews. His eclectic and untimely manner of reviewing creates distortions and wittingly or unwittingly results in the iconisiation of certian producers and other producers being ignored. An example of this is his Aube feature, Is it really possible to review this region and not cover Vouette et Sorbée or Ruppert-Leroy.
This is pretty risible, Donald. Last year, you actually accused me on UK Wine Pages of complicity in a conspiracy with Egly to raise prices by publishing my reviews in time for their August release. Several friends actually advised me to pursue you for libel for your comments. Now you complain that the reviews are not in time and it makes it hard to sell the bottles.
It probably isn’t, but it turns out he’s pretty damn good at it, and most of us here would appreciate it if you’d give your petty personal grudge against him a rest.