It is often advised to find others with your palate, whether it be friends, CT trackers or critics. However, I have not found a palate guide of sorts for critics. There are some critics where I have read 50 plus notes and I still do not grasp what they are thinking upon reading their note (which I attribute mostly to not having had the wines in question myself, but also straining to understand at times the literal notes themselves).
Is it possible to stereotype the many writers/reviewers with a wine profile/style they tend to gravitate to (i.e. award more points or enthusiastic verbiage)? Perhaps it is possible to describe a critic in 1-2 sentences, along with a guide to metrics of sorts? Some hypothetical metrics below?
Preference for aromatics vs palate vs mouthfeel?
Any preference/bias for more/less concentrated wines?
Any preference/bias for wines that show purity of fruit?
Any preference/bias for higher/lower acidity wines?
What is tolerance of higher alcohol levels?
Preference for elegance vs power?
Preference for overall perceived ripeness vs tartness?
Tolerance of tannin?
Tolerance of oak?
Any preference/bias for prestige/hierarchy?
Ideal wine is modern or traditional?
Ideal red wine between Napa, Bordeaux or Burgundy?
I would like that very much also. I was in sync with Parker for decades. Now there is a patchwork of critics and its difficult to find that one critic. Maybe impossible.
Oh man this will be a great thread, bring the popcorn and Scotch. And could be a very helpful, interesting thread. I know I have some definitive views, lol, ranging from charlatan to savant.
William Kelley has, to me, a pretty classically informed palate. Definitely values the tense and vertical aspect of whites, especially when they are balanced with concentration, which I appreciate; ditto the reds when it comes to vibrancy and liveliness. I think he also likes floral notes in both colours. When he mentions oak - especially âtoastyâ oak - take appropriate notice. Score-wise, I appreciate the fact that he doesnât inflate them to the point of meaninglessness and doesnât just go âup the ladderâ of regional/village/1er/GC; when a Bourgogne receives an 88-90 or a Grand Cru gets a 91, that really means something. Anything 93 or above, especially if itâs well-priced, is something to take serious note of, even as someone who finds scores a bit bewildering as a concept.
I also generally appreciate that he takes wines as they come - when reviewing 2018s, it seems heâs able to judge them on their individual success and merit in the vintageâs conditions and not comparing them to X or Y year even though those may be more of his personal style.
Ditto. In Burgundy he is particularly helpful not only due to his palate, but his living on the ground there and his openness to discuss producers methods and style. It is particularly helpful that he just does not consider a GC superior just because of what is on the label. I respect Meadows, but his scores seem to be practically locked in to the hierarchy. I realize there are classifications for a reason, but come on nowâŠJasper Morris is also worth the money in my view, not least for the videos on his website and his really comprehensive knowledge of all the territory in Burgundy. Worth the subscription.
I find that Mark Squires has a palate much like RMPâs - his enthusiasm is palpable when he talks about âbig boysâ - but you feel he makes an effort to sound appreciative of more elegant wines, which he will usually describe as âBurgundianâ. I donât know if RMP ever did that.
The problem is not you. When all wines rate 92+ points and the descriptions are simply strings of superlatives and random flavors/aromas (which donât align with anyone elseâs perceptions), criticsâ notes are really meaningless.
I donât subscribe to any critics anymore but, from reading the tasting notes that retailers quote, these are the critics I find lean toward tauter, higher-acid, more aromatic, not-overripe wines:
John Gilman: Prefers aromatic wines with high acidity. Not at all afraid to give very low scores to wines he abhors; no sense of obligation to be catholic in his tastes (hurrah!). As a friend said, John is pretty far out on left wing in his preferences. I donât always accord with him, but I find his notes useful because heâs not guilty of grade inflation and his preferences are clear and consistent. Oh, and heâs very well-informed.
William Kelley and Luis Guitierrez: I donât drink a lot of Burgundy, Champagne or Spanish wine, but where I do know the wines, I find these two simpatico. They arenât keen on overripe monsters, and appreciate (and talk up) balanced, savory wines with good structure. They are also both extremely well-informed and they write well, so I learn a lot from their notes, even if Iâm not in the market for the particular wines. On their own, I think they likely would give lower scores in many cases, but I understand the need to align to some degree with the Wine Advocateâs inflated point scale.
Walter Speller (Jancis Robinson): Extremely well-informed about Piemonte, and pleasantly opinionated. He works to be open-minded, but has a strong leaning toward traditional wines that can be more challenging and demand patience.
Neil Martin: I always found his notes thoughtful and his enthusiasm doesnât seem to spill over into uncritical gushing (an occupational hazard these days). Within the constraints of Wine Advocate and Vinous, where all wines are waaaay above average, I can actually tell from his notes whether a wine is relatively good or bad.
I canât make any sense of reviews from Suckling or Galloni, or find any common thread among the wines they like (they donât discuss wines they donât like).
Critics are not just about a palate guide. Their true value comes from their ability to accurately describe the experience, so that when you tast the same wine, you can expect a similar experience. You can agree or not on how the good the wine is, or not, but if your experience does not match theirs, or your expectations, whatâs the point?
I find Mosel Fine Wines to have great reviews, although they only review a limited scope of wines. I think the reviews tend to be informative, adequately descriptive, and the scores often seem to be very accurate/reasonable in my opinion. I also appreciate how they seem to have an appreciation for both power/hedonistic pleasure as well as elegance and finesse.
I like Josh Raynolds notes on Rhone, Beaujolais, and Oregon. But while the notes are helpful, he also tends to rate heavily oaked wines quite high and has very low tolerance to brett/VA, which (in small quantities) I do not mind at all.
I align quite well with Antonio Galloni on Barolo/Barbaresco, but much less on Burgundy and CA.
The one critic thatâs a complete mystery to me is David Schildknecht. First of all, I have no idea what he prefers in wines and while our taste on some wines align quite well, there seems to be a lot of variability that I havenât figured out where itâs coming from. Besides that, I cannot stand his writing style on both articles and notes, plus heâs so late that his notes are irrelevant for any buying decisions.