Alot of possible one liners in this thread but I’ll hold off. I think the bottom line is people who read JG don’t always agree with him but respect that his opinion is honest and in your face. His historical and factual info is unparalleled. I also agree I don’t see a difference between John’s dislike of modern wine and Parker’s embrace of it.
I pretty much agree with your stance in this thread Neal. No doubt Gilman and a review like this wouldn’t be a negative issue to those whose palates align very closely with his. The (IMO) heperbole and agenda are more of an issue if one perhaps does not align as closely with his palate and think Pavie is a decent or even good wine. Being in that camp, the over-the-top review, makes it tough to garner much information as to a realistic comparison to other vintages or wines. I would also question, as Kevin does below, whether the taste of the wine could be that bad to warrant a 50. IIRC he called the 09 Cos one of the worst wines he had ever tasted, and had it in the mid 60s. In that case, Jancis who shares his criticism of Pavie but has seen her scores higher lately, gave the Cos a mediocre 16.5/20? Fwiw, I’ve not tasted 09 Cos or 10 Pavie.
Gilman hates the style of these wines. It’s just very hard to get a grasp of how bad they taste on a sensory level, when he (IMO) dicounts them additionally based upon his belief in tradition. Again, that probably works for those that share his palate and belief set.
I don’t buy much into the comparisons to Parker. Most people have issues with Parker, so the fact that he displays a potential “bias” does not make it any more acceptable for others to. I also believe that there is a difference between the tendency to praise a wine and going to the extent of trashing it as Gilman did with the Cos or Pavie.
And wouldn’t it be interesting if Parker* tasted wines blind? Would he rate his standard favorites as highly? Again, the demand that JG justify his opinion because it’s negative while letting critics who go overboard in their praise of the same wine off the hook is inconsistent.
*Or Tanzer or Wine Spectator or… I’m using Parker here simply because of his praise of Pavie in the past. The point’s general though - we attack people who write very negative views of a wine but don’t hold people who write positively to the same criteria.
Thanks Eryc. ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Interesting. I have the same issue with Parker you have with Gilman.
I agree 100%, I wasn’t trying to take up for Parker, or Pavie. I didn’t address that issue because I was just responding to John Gilman’s rating of this wine, not to Parker’s.
Tanzer gives all the vintages 1998-present high scores (all 92 or higher), though not as high as Parker’s scores (though maybe closer when you factor in that Tanzer is a tougher grader in general?). WS has more variable scores, roughly tracking the vintages, but also not overall as high as Parker’s.
Suckling’s barrel tasting note for the 2009 is interesting, giving it a high score but definitely flagging the stylistic extreme to put both lovers and haters of that style on notice: “Blackberry, black cherry, licorice and mineral. Full-bodied, with a big core of velvety tannins and rich fruit. Full throttle, and all there. Really massive. Blockbuster and more. Could be a tad overdone. But we will see in bottle.”
I would be interested to know how many people who are criticizing John’s newsletter have actually read an entire issue all the way through. Whether you agree or disagree with his reviews, it is the best to read newsletter around. He does not review as many wines as many others do, but makes up for it with in depth estate profiles that are fantastic.
You know, for a bunch of folks who have proclaimed themselves to have moved beyond critics - there still seems to be a great deal of concern about what critics are saying about wines.
Of course it wasn’t blind, it was a barrel sample. I was just pointing out that John is pretty consistent, and when he does taste blind, he doesn’t change opinions (as someone was implying that he was posturing in a post above). And believe me, I’ve seen him hand out sub 60 pt scores blind.
Can John replicate the Pavie and the TM scores blind? I seriously doubt it and it is not just John.
Aw, isn’t that cute? Someone again tries to act all superior and stuff…
I don’t use critics for my own purchases, but they affect the market and the wine environment, so I sometimes hop into these discussions. This is, in case you’ve not noticed, a discussion board. You know… for… discussing things? I wasn’t aware we all had to get approval for what we talked about.
Mineral. Hilarious. Such a useless, mean-nothing descriptor. And I’m guessing only moreso in the case of a wine of that size.
Admitting that the Pavie score is hyperbole–after all, this is a guy who regularly includes a section in View from the Cellar called Roadkill–I am 100% supportive of critics giving honest negative reviews, including if they just plain don’t like the style. The Tanzer/Parker/WS/Burghound model of scoring all “well made” wines in a very narrow B+ to A range is just not very helpful.
Kevin,
I don’t think he would have a problem replicationg the notes. The Pavie showed plenty of alcohol, fructose and little real character, the Troplong admitted to around 15.5% of alcohol, and was pruney. Easy to know that these wines were not going to get many plaudits from him.
As for post Perse era Pavies, I think John gave the 1998 around 93 points.
Finally, why should John score wines this low? Wouldn’t it be easier, not to rate them? The answeris, I think, that Pavie has some of the best vineyards in St. Emiliom, and making wines in this anonymous style is not a good use of the property. It does need to be said clearly that Pavie does not show its terroir any more, and just not scoring the wine, would be a cop out.
Mark,
Do you think John will be able to reconize the wine and rate it at sub 50, tasted blind?
I am with you here Steve. I know his low scores irk some people, but his feeling on Pavie has equaled mine for the last few vintages. Anything other than his write-up and score and I would be questioning if the wine had gone through some changes. As it stands I know exactly what the wine is, and that it is * in my opinion* and his, an abomination. Thank goodness I will never have to try the 2010 now that I have read his review.
I only read Gilman when his notes randomly show up somewhere else, so I don’t have a broad opinion as to his palate or approach. His writing is undeniably well above average. In any case, in all these debates I come to the point that what I look for is giving the wine in front of you an fair shot. As long as this happens, I am fine with whatever the writer thinks, and prefer he or she call it like they taste it.
The flip side is when the writer calls it like they wanted to taste it, letting their preferences write the tasting note. At that point, it’s no use to me if it’s a style I like, and minimal use when its a style I don’t. The writer has gone to far to please (or in search of) an audience. You get the feeling that even if they actually liked the wine (or didn’t like the wine), the wouldn’t admit it.
In one of our threads on the various subjects the dovetail into these debates, one of Keith Levenberg’s notes of a bigger CA pinot was discussed (R-M Suma?). His notes were moderately favorable, noting from the get go that this was a big wine, and the score was 85 or 87. I should look up the thread or note, but I’m feeling lazy. While 85-87 is by no means a bad wine, it would not be what you’re expecting for the bottling, which someone took issue with.
I was of two minds at the time, but the more I thought about this, that note is a prime example of what I think should happen – the note indicates this is good for the style, and not a terrible wine, but not really the writer’s style. Any reader with a brain would pick up on the latter, even without references to Vick’s on the finish, blueberry syrup, chewing on oak or Kool-Aid.
Obviously, which writers or notes fall into which category is not possible to delineate with anything approaching certainty, and I have hard time describing any sort of criteria. It’s more of a writer-by-writer thing for me. Use of hyperbolic language and insulting descriptions is a something of a tip off, but there are wines that deserve it. – if you’ve haven’t tasted wines you thought were really terrible, you don’t get out much; so a grenade every now and again makes sense.
I don’t see much of a point in rattling off the writers whom I think are the wine versions of Glenn Beck and Keith Obermann, but I think Terry Thiese is pretty solidly in the “fair shake” category. I often don’t share his preferences, but if he likes a bigger wine, he has no problem saying so, while noting it is pretty big.
I think this particular Gilman note is borderline, but I’d have to read him more to have a opinion. Off the top of my head, I haven’t usually found him to be a blowhard, so I’d be inclined to think this was a particularly over the top wine that even I might not love (it is a barrel sample). The note is undoubtedly meant to get our attention, which is fine now and again. He would not give it 47-52 blind, but then again I didn’t take that score as literally as others.
All I’m really trying to say is there are options between attempting to evaluate each wine as it would stand against its stylistic counterparts and blasting every wine that’s not really your cup of tea to begin with. The lines are hard to explain in words, but relatively easy for people to interpret for themselves, and since it’s not banning avant-garde art as obscene, “I know it when I see” it is good enough.
I was going to say takes one to know one, but…oh what the hell…I’ll say it.
I agree with others that feel that John’s need to continually bash BDX wines that he does not like is over-the-top and completely unnecessary. Clearly John does not like certain wines on a consistent basis. Instead of assigning what appears to be an arbitrary and attention seeking low score on a wine, why not just indicate that these objectionable wines do not merit a score above 75? People are lauding John for using the entire 100 pt. rating scale, but what does that really achieve? Is there anyone that buys on John’s advice that is really going to make a buying decision on a $300 wine based on whether it got a 74 or a 52? There is no need to score (or even fully review) high-priced wine below 75 other than to (i) draw attention to yourself, (ii) attempt to debase and embarass winemakers or (iii) provide the equivalent of smut to like-minded people (that is, those who are militantly opposed to modern wine making in BDX). I can just picture all of John’s subscribers giggling as they read his prose about how awful all these “spoofilated” BDX wines are. It’s like twisted porn for wine geek BDX/RMP haters. ![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
I get that people get all flustered when strongly-worded opinions show up outside of their comfort zone, but you are dead wrong that John does this to ‘seek attention’ or other nonsense. I think that is projection of a too common Internet troll mentality which is about seeking attention. I can say with certainty that those are truly John’s opinions about the wines. He will tell you in person. He tells the producer. I can also say with just as much certainty that he writes what he does because his readers will enjoy it and he enjoys communicating what he experienced.
I enjoy it. I don’t automatically agree, but the pleasure of seeing a wordsmith skewer an aesthetic target is a staple of our literary heritage. (see Wilde, Oscar) There is way too much attachment of wine buyer’s ego to what they like and such hilarious insecurity. (In the most brilliant move, Parker leveraged that insecurity into an empire.) Enjoy the ride. The difference of opinion is fun. There are times when I love wines like El Nido or Brian Loring’s triute to same and I would love to see a tasting note from John on those wines. Hell, the dialogue and the interaction is the social glue that binds and makes us more than just pretentious alcoholics. Who has not taken a “controversial” wine to a tasting?
A.