What do you look for in a reviewer/critic or a review?

[Julian_Marshall]

@Andy_Sc

What I would love to see more in critics notes is context. That would be most helpful but beside people on CT, this is almost never done.

I don’t get why critics won’t reference one wine to other wines in other vintages, compare it to the same wine in other vintages. That would be more helpful than all of those descriptors they rely on. Look at Will’s comment on the 2020 Figeac below. That information will be more helpful than all the critics tasting notes on this wine that are/will be published.

@William_Kelley

2016 is super classic, but quite youthfully shut down and will demand some patience. 2020 for me is more typically Figeac than 2019: it’s very deep and incipiently complex, a touch less extrovert than 19 without being austere, and its oak is more completely integrated. 2016, 2019 and 2020 are the three best vintages of the Faye era so far, but 2020 is my favorite.

I couldn’t agree more. In my own way, I try to do this, but with neither the ability nor the range of experience of a wine critic. When I read a critic’s work, I look for context, so comparing with other vintages, but also with other wines, because these are reference points which speak to many people. Also, I look for style references. I used to be a big fan of Neal Martin and still enjoy his work, but I’ve become increasingly frustrated by his notes as they do not tell me enough about the style of the wine.

I had a minor example this week with a Brillette (Moulis) 2016 - Neal described the “crisp tannin” and “fine acidity”, plus the “fresh and tensile finish”, all of which prompted me to buy it, but he did not mention the lush, voluptuous fruit which sends it dangerously towards spoofy land. So for me, job not done.