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.
Sorry if I was unclear… those wines were definitely worthy of praise back in the day (and they are today as well), but they were not RECOGNIZED for the level of quality they had attained. The pedigrees of Burgundy, Bordeaux, et. al., reigned supreme and until journalists and critics gained momentum, that hierarchy of perception was, by and large, unquestioned. of course, quality CA (and other) producers knew they made good wine, but until RMP and others spread the word, the popular notion was clearly that if it wasn’t pedigreed, it wasn’t good.
Excellent point… critics will definitely not vanish in my lifetime, but they won’t dominate to level they do today. In addition to RMP’s/WS’s opinions, the “consensus” among CT or a collection of bloggers also carries weight. To varying degrees, I think the fact that Rhys, Tercero, Williams-Selyem, and others have a loyal following here despite mixed critical reviews, shows that there are more and louder competing voices.
The example I can think of are the Rivers Marie Cabs, which I don’t believe have been reviewed by any major critics. The 2006, 2007 and 2008 vintages all have median CT scores of 92 or 93 and all have over 50 reviews. Anyone have an example that tops that?
Exactly my point, Rick. My series of (rhetorical) questions about CT was in response to the guys in this thread saying wine critics are obsolete and have been replaced by CT.
I am familiar with Rhys, and this winery has recieved a huge amount of critical acclaim and high-point reviews. So you need to take that one off your list IMO.
I guess I may be one of the guys and CT is just one source (for cases that Rick pointed out). Also there are retailers and the wine boards in general. If you confine this to your case of new releases and futures, then you can choose to use a critic, but to me personally they are obsolete for a myriad of factors. In the end there will be critics as new people get into wine and start exploring, but will they wield the influence and pricing power that they have enjoyed in recent years? Don’t know the answer to that, but if a large group of a new generation of wine drinkers enters the market (like USA baby boomers) and a critic catches on, then lather rinse repeat I suppose. It will be interesting to observe the influence of wine boards, blogs, and other social media on newbies to the wine world.
indeed, Bob, it will. I’m somewhat skeptical of all the talk about how Millenials are so special and different. Every generation says that. The thing is, though, that the sources of information aren’t really changed by social media. it’s still 1)friends 2) merchants, 3) critics, 4) trusted communities. The advantage of friends is negated by the fact that for most 20-somethings they won’t have wine geek friends in their age cohort. Merchants have the issue of being suspect as motivations, limited in stock on hand and true expertise, and not available everywhere. Communities… perhaps. But wine boards tend to be very geeky. CT? Certainly a way to research a wine, but for new releases you generally won’t see many notes. Critics offer, for new releases, two things that the other sources don’t - notes on a lot of different wines (so you can find specific information on the one you want probably) and context for the basic “how was 20xx in $REGION?” question.
The issue is less “is broad critical coverage of wine useful” and more "what are it’s uses, what niche does it serve in an information landscape with more options, and is a periodical newsletter format with a summary and hundreds of short notes the way to deliver the information?
After all, the flip side of saying that the vast coverage of the hundreds wines means that you can find the wine you want is that you have to wade through hundreds of notes to find what you want. More simply… how many of the wines that are in TWA, IWC, etc do you even really care about? 5%? The reviews thousands of wines a year. You might buy a few dozen, probably less. The problem is that it’s a different 5% for everyone… so just covering 5% (or 25%) of the wines wouldn’t work.
Maybe one thing everyone can agree on is - There are many different sources for wine information now and the WA/WS duopoly that drove the wine styles of the '90s and '00s is over. In fact, I think wine criticism will never again have the same power to shape wine styles due to the diversity of opinion that will be available to consumers.
That said, the WS remains in a very powerful position with casual and new wine drinkers. The format and distribution of the publication insure that it will continue be the largest wine publication.
Arcadian (kinda … not reviewed by WS or WA, but reviewed and well-received by IWC and BH)
Dover Canyon (largely, if not completely, ignored by professional critics, but has many wines at “CT 90+”)
Cabot
Denner (would have made this list as recently as a couple years ago, but WS, in particular, has started to catch-on)
![[thumbs-up.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f84c5acc11486ee4baba6dee6cf61dbd133abb18.gif "[thumbs-up.gif]"){kind=small}