Interesting read and thanks for sharing. I happened to be there in October at the same time he was in town. I heard some of the same feedback he mentioned in the article about his personality. I tend to align to his palate so usually his reviews are pretty helpful for me. He also seems to have an incredible tasting memory.
assuming they didn’t like scores he gave. Its provided in the context of the article about how wine critics earn their keep during tough vintages and when there are times that top estates just don’t perform.
He did provide Realm scores in this latest article but I believe they were self sourced bottles. He’s been playing up a retrospective article of their wines that he says will release soon. 2017 came from winery and 2016 were self sourced
In one of his Levi Dalton podcasts he talks about how some producers don’t let him taste anymore or visit due to his reviews and scores. He states that the integrity of the review and honesty to the readers is more important than being in good favor with the producers. He mentioned Giacosa won’t let him back after the 08 or 09 write up he published and he just sources the bottles himself. I sensed some melancholy in his voice when he brought it up especially since earlier in the episode he talks about his love for Bruno’s wines and the fact that he has been a buyer for decades.
For historical background, back in the 90s there were a number of Burgundy producers that wouldn’t see Parker. (His Burgundy reviews were always kind of bizarre and hard to make sense of, and Faiveley – with Hubert de Montille as its lawyer – brought a defamation suit against Parker for suggesting that the winery might be sending inferior lots to the U.S.) That’s one reason Parker hired his first additional critic, Pierre Rovani, who covered Burgundy for several years.
I never got the full story, but Bruno Giacosa wouldn’t let Galloni visit a few years back. I think Galloni had panned one vintage. I dimly recall that he can no longer visit Aldo Conterno, either.
If a wine critic with whom my palate aligns pans a particular vintage from a winery, that’s helpful information to me as a consumer. If the winery finds that intolerable and cuts off access to the critic in future years, I probably wouldn’t have much interest in continuing to purchase their wines.
I don’t think a critic’s job is to act as an advertiser for the producers whose products they review. I expect more even handed coverage than that, especially if I’m paying for it.
The Eisele one makes no sense. He gave massive scores to the 2015 and 2016, so what gives?
What I found most intriguing of the article was how much he learned from speaking with winery owners, and putting a spotlight on real live issues that exist in Napa. It’s not a pretty picture. I have a lot of friends in Napa, and I hear these kinds of issues all the time, but I don’t have the sounding board that Galloni does, and it’s important to know. Great job by him on reporting. Maybe people shouldn’t be so quick to “take their ball and go home” when Galloni comes to town.
Wow, lots to digest here. The role of a wine critic is unique in a lot of ways. If you rate a restaurant, you go there, buy a meal, and write. Limited financial outlay. If you are denied access to many wineries, buying independently sourced bottles of wine to rate them can be costly, and influenced by the sources. Wine writers depend on access for information and to get the best material to rate. I do tend to agree that blind tasting is overrated, at least in the context of writing pro reviews. Honesty is still the greatest commodity in any critic, but if you cannot easily get the item you want to rate (barrel samples, component parts of a pre-release blend, production decision information) then your ability to accurately assess the product is diminished. Informed wine criticism is getting THE STORY, not just swishing and spitting and breaking down a flavor profile. Obviously for the wineries that cut off access, getting a full picture of the wine and its’ production details is going to be impaired.
What rubs one a bit wrong about Galloni is the transparent grandiosity of his self assessment. Yes Antonio, Bob did want to anoint you as the next king, but we all know that he is not actually a deity. It seems he may be wrestling with the fact that wine critics just do not hold the influence they once did. The core audience for wine collecting may be actually diminishing, despite the obvious commodification of wine as a perceived precious metal and the ludicrous prices now commanded for this beverage. Perhaps this is what some producers are picking up?
This I don’t agree with though. I don’t think he feels anointed. I actually think it shows humility, especially coming of the comment about not being allowed to taste at some places. He describes his nervousness, and wanting to get it right, and absorb the process that made Bob successful.
Historical footnote: In the early days of the Wine Advocate, when Ralph Nader was still his model, I believe Parker said he bought all his wines and didn’t rely on free samples. Of course, in those days, he wasn’t reviewing that many wines.