WA 193: discuss

WINE TALK
41

So all this talk about Cali coverage and no attention to anything else. Hmm.

Nobody cares about Northern Rhone 2009 ? Barolo 2007 ?
Both seem to get good coverage and both appear to be great vintages.

42

I liked reading about “ze Germans”… went shopping online after the issue came out, but decided to hold onto my limited funds for a rainy day (look, its raining)

43

Roy, a frickin men. I am done with all the mags and publications that score wines, that includes Wine Spectator and Wine Advocate. When the subs run out on each this year, I’m through. The business of points, of one person making or breaking the career of another is more than tired for me and despite how much I understand the presence of the impact in the wine business, I think the whole culture of it blows. Not sure what I will do with my Burghound sub but if I am going to be consistent, I oughta drop it, as well.

Points suck, and relying on one person tasting 100s of wines and then impacting an entire business and the consumers and point freaks that chase it, to hell with it all.

44

Lots of merit to what you say, FM III. I dropped my WS subscription in 1997 or so, and my WA subscription shortly thereafter. By then I felt fairly comfortable with my own palate and not chasing the next best thing. While I cannot say that I have been “unswayed” by points, I am much more circumspect in my purchases, and where I can, try first, buy thereafter. Now we have tools like CT and this BB that allows us to cull information from many sources. I still buy some things blind and have total “whiffs” or “misses” but heck, that is part of the fun.

45

Well, FWIW, after I posted Robert, I thought my reply was kind of weak. When my wife had walked into the room, I told her to take 193 and throw it in the recycle bin, along with the new Wine Spectator–she did. I am done and when I can get some time, I will cancel both subscriptions and move on. I’ve bitched long enough about points, about the role of the critic and how much I dislike it, blah, blah, blah…I’ll just close the circle on all that now.

46

[cheers.gif]

47

I agree with you and Matt. What a snore of an issue…I can’t help but think there’s crazy bias going on with both high and low scores.

48

The toppling of despots in the Middle East as the serfs rise up and cast off the status quo is metaphorically happening in the wine world. People are tired of the BS and the singular palate setting trends and prices. I used RP for many years - back when the tan booklet was snail- mailed. When that booklet arrived I went through it with vigor and appreciated the three holes punched on the bound side, as they went into 3-ring binders (still in the wine cellar). Yet even back then I would read the TNs and of course was drawn to the highest point scores, by some Pavlovian response, I am sure. Upon reading the various TNs, it became clear that there were not great differences in the flavor descriptions between the high score and lower score, so that dichotomy set some questions stirring in my brain. It took a lot of years to really become independent as one needs to try many wines and try them over many years to see how they change to finally get a sense of what you like and some ability to understand how wine evolves.

RP opened the door and most followed adopting his palate as their own - until they felt they could define their own style I suppose. That appears to over or in decline now as RP has become a marketing vehicle used to drive wine prices ever higher and his style is no longer “the” style as palate diversity is exploding due to the many wine boards and CT and as an aging group of former RP disciples render him no longer relevant. Blind tastings can be an epiphany as high scoring darlings with equally high price tags are rendered mortal and even lacking when the bags are removed. Then the rationalizations begin because no one wants to have spent large coin on wine that is bested by wines that are a fraction of the cost. Then it is decision time – either continue the current paradigm or test another path that does not place point/price above personal palate preference/style. Hey, it is a brave new world and always remember there are no great wines, only great bottles.

Drink well and drink what you like, not want someone declares you must like. [berserker.gif] [cheers.gif]

49

Gawd, I hope for the latter.

50

I could not agree with you more, Roy. Ouch! This Parker giving up Cali thing is gonna.... - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

51

Well-put. In my simple way of thinking, I see three eras in wine information: (1) pre-RMP, when many wineries rode on reputations, all well-enforced by the British wine elite, and no one called (some of) them out for mediocre product; (2) the scoring era, when the 100-pt. scale grew to dominate, when wines were more “objectively” reviewed (pleas note the quote marks), and when new wineries began to have a chance to be recognized for good quality; and (3) the community era, when online media allowed more diverse voices to emerge. The pre-RMP days were stable, if nothing else; everyone “agreed” that Bordeaux and Burgundy ruled and that New World wines were plonk. Then journalists, like RMP, came along and called-out the mediocre and recognized the New World producers who were making quality product even without the benefit of centuries of pedigree. I really believe that the era of the critic did a great service to break the monopsony (how’s that for economic-speak?) that was held by a critical few producers and allowed quality New World producers to emerge and thrive. Now, as many here have observed many times, the community of winos has an easier way to express more diversity of opinion, and the era of critics’ dominance may be coming to an end. Sure, they did a great deal by focusing the audience on what was in the bottle and not just the pedigree, but they also had a tendency to gravitate to a single taste profile, mistaking conformity to that profile with quality. The era that is emerging is exciting, but we will all have to struggle with the noise and confusion that comes from many voices discussing wine – some of whom are much better at it than others. That being said, this could be an incredible time for the unusual, artisanal, and creative winemakers to come out from under the critics’ thumbs.

Whew – I guess I was in an academic mode… thanks for humoring me! [thankyou.gif]

52

There are plenty of legitimate complaints about Parker, and even more about how the industry has responded to his influence, but IMO label bias is not one of them. There is no more consistent taster or rater than Bob Parker. He likes what he likes, and does not need a label to tell him.

There is more label bias on CellarTracker than anywhere. I have a hard time understanding the value of CT regarding new releases, so perhaps those people in this thread saying CT is the new RP could enlighten me on just how that might work. MTIA.

53

Then he should taste blind. There’s no way to say whether or not tasting at the winery influences him (or anyone - note that most critics don’t taste blind). If a critic is all about what’s in the bottle and insists that they’re not influenced by the label or the fact that they’re in the winery, then eliminate everything else. Taste blind at a neutral location.

There is more label bias on CellarTracker than anywhere. I have a hard time understanding the value of CT regarding new releases, so perhaps those people in this thread saying CT is the new RP could enlighten me on just how that might work. MTIA.

Not only label bias but many of the reviewers on CT are influenced by knowing how critics rated something. Plus people aren’t consistent in even the definition of what a rating means.

CT isn’t the new RP… but it has two values that no critic can touch. First, it lets you know what’s happening with wines over time. It was very educational to watch notes of the 95 and 98 Beaucastel over the years as people opened bottles. Even if some notes were better than others the trend from “Closed hard” to “beginning to open” etc was obvious and very valuable. When you consider that you can get notes on the wines you have, automatically, that’s a killer feature that a critic can’t touch.

Second, a feature Eric JUST launched is the ability to see a median of the scores of the people you follow. THink about that… my main criticism of the overall CT score was that it was too broad and included people who carefully thought about how they score, people who tossed out a score with no real thought, people who shared your palate, people whose palate is antithetical to yours… Now, you can pick a group of people on CT, follow them and see the average score that THOSE people give a wine. That’s as close to a personal critic as we’ll ever get I think.

54

I’m sorry, but I can’t quite agree with those statements. As someone who got into wine BEFORE Parker really came along, there were a number of CA wineries making quality wines that were recognized in the wine biz. Examples include Chateau Montelena and Ridge Monte Bello. It certainly is true that RP’s reviews raised the profile of certain CA producers, and helped create several “cult” Cabernets that would probably have not gotten the same visibility otherwise.

Bruce

55

There are TNs on CT as I recall and on many wines the Mullah of Monkton does not review. I don’t look at scores in CT or from wine critics. Scores just tell me which wines will be priced too high to even consider, so they do offer some value. neener

56

At the risk of repeating myself, exactly how do you suggest one should or could use CT for new or upcoming releases?

57

Barrel/bottle sample from people that make regular pilgrimages to wine regions. I tasted many Napa 2008s before they were released and tried to spread the gospel that they were/are better than 2007. Granted, I posted no notes in CT.

58

I think Lewis makes a good point that has been made before. CT has its strengths but there are also weaknesses just like relying on one reviewer is problematic. If you follow a reviewer who has access and experience in tasting a regions wines early one, that can help with buying decisions before the wines get to market or are offered. CT is scattershot on that subject. Pretending it solves everything and is a lot better than following experienced reviewers is folly. That is not a defense of RP before anyone tries to go that route.

59

Bill, let’s assume for the moment that you had posted TNs on CT. How many wineries would have been covered? And could one think that the relative handful of wineries you visited were among your personal favorites? And how many other CT users have posted TNs on those same 2008 wines? I ask this last question because we often hear that the power of CT is the aggregation of many different opinions.

There is an active thread right now about the Scarecrow 2008 offering. I just checked CT, and there are no notes on this.

60

Lewis - the issue you’re talking about is why I think critics will never go away. There’s real value in getting a consistent opinion about new releases. Not for everyone (if you always buy the same producers year in and year out etc), but for many. CT and other crowdsourced solutions won’t ever replace this. They’re a complementary thing… critics are notorious for not revisiting older releases usually justifying this by the relatively difficulty of doing so for many of the wines and time pressures. That’s where CT steps in and offers value. Not, “How’s the Scarecrow 2008 on release?” but “Hey, it’s 5 years post vintage, how’s the Scarecrow 2008 drinking?”