Jay Miller, Wilfred Wong, Johnathan Newman (although I’m not sure I would call the last 2 “critics”).
Well since EVERYONE’S a critic I have to go with Dan Posner. He doesn’t know a good wine from a bad one and a corked wine from one that isn’t.
JMHO
Ya think? By the way I wouldn’t trust me so I nominate me. Hell, I like ‘Fruit Forward Pinots’ and NO ONE WITH ANY KNOWLEDGE OF WINES does.
Steve Heimoff of Wine Enthusiast.
His scores seem ridiculously high on most wines and I cannot figure out his palate.
There’s a Canadian writer that calls themselves a critic and runs a for profit website with works of writing and reviews. Seems to have a very good relationship with one of the liquor boards here as well. This person has been accused of and given cease & desist orders by several independent sources for plagiarism. I think that qualifies this person for the finals at least.
Technically none of the 3 are critics.
Jay Miller doesn’t rate wine any more.
Jay Miller
And no, I’m not being modest 
I agree that this is the only reasonable interpretation.
Based on that, I don’t think Parker is even in the running. I find his reviews consistent, and his tasting notes generally give me a good impression of whether or not I will like a wine, even though we have wildly different preferences in some respects. Of course, I can’t say that about 100% of his reviews, but I can with the vast majority from what I’ve seen.
Nah. London Symphony Orchestra with Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir…
They all suck!
No, not really, just most of them.
It is really the whole system that is flawed, and some practitioners are more flawed than others. Assuming that a megatasting of hundreds of wines can tell you anything other than which wines are flawed or truly stink, let alone be able to rank wines with mathematical precision and predict their aging curve! This system only “holds weight” because the critics do not retaste the wines over time and publish “recaps” and reassessments, so their “precision” is never questioned. And to think that the practitioners of this flawed system hold the fate of the wine industry in their hands…oh boy!
Nevertheless, my quibble with Tanzer is over New World wines, as with Galloni as well…I would like someone to approach New World wines with their Old World palate, meaning an appreciation for restraint. Otherwise they are worthless, at least to me. Also feel that Galloni chimed right in and gave huge scores to those whom Parker gave huge scores to in CA, both while at WA and since…again, worthless to me. Wasn’t it Rovani that joined Parker and chimed right in and dissed the 1993 red Burgs? Hahahahahahahahaha! Ha!
The worst is probably someone whose name I have intentionally purged from my memory.
A couple of Js by a considerable distance.
JSuckling
JLeve
To Robert’s point, yes, the system is flawed, but RMP created the system, and it is markedly better than it used to be, which was essentially no system. It needs to be improved on, but there’s no rush to do so because the system - as flawed and frustrating as it is for people like us - still sells hundreds of millions of bottles of wine a year, effectively. Who, then, would have need to change it?
Parker is NOT a bad critic, definitely not, but I don´t rely on him with Burgs.
Worst IMHO is Mark Squires … (besides the ones you don´t even know)
“Nah. London Symphony Orchestra with Itzhak Perlman, Yo-Yo Ma and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir…”
- so playing Gershwin then
?
Really? from everything I’ve heard he’s done a good job with his limited portfolio.
Natalie Decants of course . . .
Have you tried a linzer torte? The currant flavors in a classic linzer torte remind me of some wines.
I feel James Laube has an unsophisticated palate when it comes to Pinot Noir. I also disagree with him stylistically.
Laube gets my vote too. Even though I think Suckling is a douche and has gone score crazy, I can calibrate off of his notes. Laube is just all over the place.
Jonathan Newman (even if he’s not a critic by some people’s definition). He posts many TNs on WTSO and I find them singularly uninformative (and not to mention that almost every score is from 90 to 93–so it’s a four point scale).
What I look for in a critic is (1) consistency and (2) enough information so I can tell whether I will like the wine or not. Beyond that, a style that combines detailed analysis (eg what “notes” are present) with some more poetic language. RMP fits (1) and (2) very well, even tho I don’t agree with his tastes. Jeremy Holmes, Lisa Perrotti-Brown, Neal Martin, Antonio Galloni fit all three criteria. Daniel Posner, of course, is off the chart .