I believe I understand your point just fine. I just don’t see a problem with a critic calling it like they see it.
On some level you are right, if a critic is 100% predictable and you have access to his/her past data then there is no use to keep following that critic. But in the real world there is nuance. We know that Gilamn is highly unlikely to enjoy the majority of modern style Aussie-Syrah so even if I was interested in the genre I wouldn’t bother to read the reviews. But with genres of wine we both like it is helpful for me to know the producers and vintages he particularly does or doesn’t like because it helps my buying decions where my personal experience is limited. In the hypothetical scenario above it would be meaningful to me know that a movie reviewer I follow and agree with doesn’t like Woody Allen movies if I myself had never seen one.
And even with a critic that he has a consistent opinion with its not like every reader knows every score/note he has ever written. Just because something is repetitive to you doesn’t mean it is for everyone.
Regarding the specific situation in this thread, a problem I have is that you are taking one extreme example and erroneously extrapolating it out as if it was a general pattern to his writing. As a general pattern we know that Gilman tends towards acid and elegance in his preferences but he is hardly binary. If you read his writeups and reviews for 2009 Red Brugs for example you will see there is alot of nuance in his opinions. I personally thought he would have disliked the vintage compared to 2008 but he was generally balanced and careful with his approach.
If someone’s palate preferences don’t match Gilmans and thus they dont find him useful thats normal and obviously perfectly fine but I think the caricature that is being painted of him by you and a few other people simply doesnt match reality.
BTW, I think you missed or have ignored my question above: Do you get upset with critics who consistently love Pavie? Are their reviews useless and unnecessary?
I don’t think most people slam Parker and Laube for having an obvious stylistic preference. I think the (IMO valid) criticism of Parker is mainly that (1) Parker occasionally claims/pontificates that if someone doesn’t share his stylistic preference, they are wrong, closed-minded, inexperienced, and unsophisticated; (2) Parker’s influence is such that he has prompted some winemakers that used to make balanced wines to now make over-the-top, unappealing wines; (3) the style of wine often touted by Parker and Miller is not as ageworthy as their drinking windows suggest; (4) Parker is unwilling to debate the merits of various wine styles; and (5) Parker’s formerly pro-consumer attitude is no more, given that he seems to rate in a way that only fuels massive Bordeaux price inflation.
On the topic of Gilman’s stylistic preferences, I think some stylistic preference is unavoidable, and that ultimately rating wine completely objectively–without consideration of style–is ultimately impossible and foolish. If a critic does not like a wine, he should tell us that, and then over time we can gain an understanding of the critic’s preferences and view his ratings accordingly.
I think what people like about Gilman is that he’s willing to say that an expensive, prestigious, highly sought after wine is utter crap—not only that it’s in a style that he doesn’t like, but that it’s flatly a bad wine. I don’t know any other critic who does this so brazenly, and I find it refreshing.
I can only speak for myself but I don’t feel that way. I think Parker and Laube are certainly entitled their opinions. Espercially Laube since he rates wines tasted blind. But this doesnt keeping me from lamenting that the dominant critics don’t like the same style of wine I do since they have influence in the style of wine produced.
My one issue with Laube is that I feel his honest opinions might be influenced by a declining palate. He used to be more nuanced in what he liked but he seems to be in a mode when he only likes thick and rich wines. I think age is catching up with his tastebuds and every year he needs the wines to be bigger and bigger to even register for him. Maybe I am wrong though.
I find John’s writing incredibly useful to me and so I subscribe. First, my palate aligns with his pretty well - while he does hate some wines I like, I almost always love the wines he loves. So, if I pay attention to the wines he rates highly, I am pretty safe.
Second, he specializes in Burgundy and German wines, which are the wines I buy the most. I have also learned a lot about regions like Beaujolais from his reviews and really have liked a lot what he recommends.
Third, for Burgundy, I also subscribe to Burghound, which provides me a more objective view of Burgundy. Allen does a great job and so I don’t really need an echo in a second newsletter. I like getting to see both the objective views Allen provides and the subjective views from John.
With respect to Bordeaux, I love Bordeaux but don’t drink nearly as much Bordeaux as I do Burgundy. I don’t taste that much young Bordeaux. Today, Bordeaux is made in a variety of styles. I only like some styles, generally more towards the wines John likes. I don’t keep up that well on which producer still makes the style they used to and which have gone to more modern styles. If everyone gives objective ratings, how am I supposed to find the wines I like? I don’t really care if on some “objective” scale a wine is a 93.45285 wine. I can if I will like it. Who will give me this kind of information other than John.
I don’t really believe in the one all knowing critic theory of wine writing where one wine writer is right and all others are wrong. Different wines are made for different palates. Find the writer whose palate follows yours (or at least that you want to expore).
Neal, I ask you this. If I don’t subscribe to Gilman, who will give me the information I desire?
By the way, Gilman trashed the 2009 Cos in very harsh (and very funny) terms. I was surprised, but he rated the 2010 highly. So, he is not always predictible.
For the record, I believe John liked (didn’t love) the 98 Pavie. It was blind and I believe he guessed Cali Merlot before he went to modern (ripe, extracted) RBm, but he felt it was somewhat balanced. One thing about John is he isn’t afraid to taste blind publicly, and I’ve never seen him change (up or down) his opinion when wine revealed. He might have extreme opinions, but I don’t know anyone who knows him who doesn’t believe they are genuine.
Parker used to be exactly the same way, in the early days of The Wine Advocate. Lots of scores in the 50s and 60s. Lots of incisive, scathing text.
A nasty, brazenly negative review from a critic who is still relatively unknown – like early '80s Parker or like John Gilman today – serves to inform the reader, without also hurting the livelihood of the people who make the product. Critics with small megaphones can be brutally honest. But critics with huge megaphones can put people – families – out of business. So, once the megaphone grows too large, it’s human nature to write in code, hedge, or even stop publishing sub 85-point reviews altogether. It’s not just wine criticism where this happens. Read through the restaurant reviews in your local newspaper. How many times do you see the reviewer (accurately) eviscerate a terrible mom-and-pop restaurant?
I am curious if he said as much to their faces when he tried the wine? If not, then he probably shouldn’t say it in print. At least one time was apparently in front of them.
I like Gilman’s writing and I find him very consistent (maybe that is Neal’s point) so that I can use his reviews. But I do think he could have shown more manners. This review seems to ba calculated at getting publicity and attention more than helping his subscribers (I suppose that Andrew’s point). Still, there are certainly a lot of people who really like these wines. It seems over the top to review a wine like that.
I think either 00 or 03 were the last Pavie vintages I could/would afford, so I can’t really say who is right as to the wine.
Read the bolded sentence. Then read the reasons you state. All five specifically relate to why people do in fact slam parker for having an obvious stylistic preference. Do they also slam him due to his attitude toward consumers and trade members that don’t agree with him? Yes. But his stylistic preference has drawn a lot of attention and criticism. I recommend “The Emperor of Wine” by McCoy to shed some additional light.
I think John Gilman has a place in wine criticism and I find his take refreshing. It is nice to hear an honest, visceral reaction to wine instead of a lathered up pseudo-review of a wine from another given critic on a wine he/she doesn’t like. It helps that I often agree with him though.
What an interesting little world we live in here at WB. John Gillman just wrote me a message offering to share some of his bordeaux reviews so I could test my theories based on the full articles and not just the bits that inflamed the discussion. His email was temperate, polite, and reflected the literate, entertaining style shown in the snippets I have seen posted here and elsewhere.
So after I have a look at what he has actually written in context, I may be back to eat crow. As I said above, my reactions were based on a small dataset selected by others to make a point. If I have been unfair to him, I will be the first to admit it. Well, second, as Berry seems to be determined to be first in that regard. We shall see.
Howard, I think you missed my point. I surely never said that Gillman should be exiled or that no one should use him. And given the fact that the two of you are generally in agreement, it seems to me to be kismet – a match made in heaven.
And my comments above had nothing at all to do with burgs or German wines, as I am ignorant (OK< more ignorant) of the former and utterly disinterested in the latter.I was simply commenting on the publically available comments JG had made about recent bordeaux wine.
Finally, my point was really this and this only: JG seemed to have made his position clear on a certain type of wine. He dislikes them intensely, so much so that he is willing to use the most vivid and caustic terms. Once you know that, it really doesn’t serve much purpose to keep coming back to him for his views. It is like calling Glenn Beck every morning and asking him what he thinks of Obama today. Yesterday, today, and tomorrow, the answer is going to be “antichrist.” Not much educational value in that.
I tasted this wine and I don’t see how this can be a sub 50 point wine. The wine is too big at this stage but there is nothing out of balance. I suppose subjectively one can say whatever but I find this particular TN neither refreshing nor honest as it really doesn’t clearly convey how the wine actually taste. I enjoy his Burgundy notes however.
2010 Château Pavie- France, Bordeaux, Libournais, St. Émilion Grand Cru (4/3/2011) 2010 Bordeaux En Primeur; 4/3/2011-4/4/2011 (Bordeaux): More civilized than the Bellevue, complex fruit expression, polished black fruits, exceptional concentration, silky tannins and long length, the tannins are noticeable but much more civil than the Bellevue 97-99 pts (98 pts.)
I have no problem with the quoted language, assuming that it accurately reflects the critic’s evaluation of the wine in question. Since I haven’t tasted the 2010 Pavie, I don’t know if I would agree with it. I suspect the points may be exceedingly low in order to reinforce the negative review.
I think the more interesting question is whether one should trash a wine on stylistic grounds based on barrel samples. Since wines can and do change drastically before they are bottled, I personally would not be inclined to completely trash a wine based on a barrel sample. I instead would indicate that I have major concerns.
Isn’t this true of any consistent wine critic? I think you could figure out the scores about 80-90% of the time by virtually any wine critic in virtually any region (at least whether they are higher or lower) by what that critic thought of the wines in prior vintages.
And, what if you don’t know what he thinks of a particular winery and want to find out? Certainly JG and Pavie is a pretty extreme and easy example, but the issue is about 150 pages.
I don’t think so Howard. Parker (just to pick an obvious example) loves Pichon Lalande and frequently gives it very high marks, but he gave it an 86 in 2005. That tells me something about that wine, and it tells me that there is value in assessing his notes on the wine year over year. If he loathed PL because of a religious affiliation, I would never learn from him what distinguishes vintage A from vintage B which is, after all, what I look to critics for.
It is true that Parker’s 100 point scale has become, for all intents and purposes a 15 point scale, which is not something that pleases me. So if I guessed that Parker will rate the 2013 Pichon Lalande a 92 I would almost certainly be no more than a half a dozen points off.
Skimming through these posts it’s interesting to note that people have an issue with Gilman trashing Pavie consistently, but not with Parker consistently praising it. Why is that? Both are equally guilty of the offense that bothers Neal, predictability. Isn’t is simply that some wines are made in a polarizing style and that people who like it will always like it, but people who hate it will hate it? Neither is incorrect and to damn Gilman for predictably trashing Pavie while giving Parker a pass on predictably praising it is, well, not consistent.
If Parker can lavish praise and high 90 point scores on barrel samples, why is it out of bounds to trash a wine when tasting those samples? We don’t ask Parker or other critics who love a wine to “indicate they might like the wine.”
The more serious issue is whether Gilman’s palate reflects what others will taste. If he’s ultra-sensitive to oak for example, and any noticeable oak causes him to rip a wine to shreds then his notes won’t be useful unless someone shares that extreme sensitivity.
I feel safe in assuming that this review and score was not the result of a blind tasting, but can anyone confirm that?
It would be interesting to see what score he would give this in a blind lineup, particularly if he had done so before tasting it non-blind. It would be even more interesting to see how he scored a 2001 in a blind lineup against its peers, particularly if it were double blind.
Recall how Jancis Robinson on multiple occasions rated Pavie very highly in blind lineups after crusading against it previously. I wonder if that would happen to Mr. Gilman.
Neil, just FYI it is Gilman with one L and not Gillman.
He is a fantastic writer. His tastes in higher acid wines are fantastic. I struggle a bit with some of his CDP and Bordeaux reviews at times, but I respect that he calls it as he sees it.
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}