Reviews of reviewers

Inspired by the WA thread, I’m wondering if we can get a compendium going of your thoughts on various professional wine reviewers (ie you may love Keith L on CT, but that’s not the subject here). Particular items of note: Do you find their notes/reviews useful in terms of understand what the wine will be like and/or whether you will like it? Do you find their service/website/app to be particularly user friendly (or not)? Do you have specific examples of wines they reviewed highly (or not) and you did/did not agree? If you don’t like professional wine reviews, that’s fine, then this thread is not for you. There’s also no need to bash any individual publications/tasters here, although as I noted above saying “She gave X wine a 97 and I did not care for it at all” is a useful comment in letting us know where each of you stand.

Don’t have much of an opinion here, I think I subscribe to WS, but only got that via some credit card promotion and only read the articles, don’t even really look at the scores/reviews. I do find their free app useful for vintage scores, as ratings aside, I find there’s a reasonable level of consensus (at least as is possible to achieve among the various curmudgeons/wine geeks) about the relative quality of vintages between regions (although I still like 2007 Oregon).

I have to say I enjoy Mark Squires’ writing, despite him not being exactly a sympathetic figure on this board. I get the feeling that his palate is somewhat similar to RMP’s but he goes out of his way to be balanced and impartial in his assessments (although his enthusiasm is more palpable when the wine is big and juicy).

+1

People here hate him but I always found him a good reviewer and he’s really a pretty funny guy in person.

That said, I haven’t read one of his reviews in a long long time. Or anyone else’s really, unless John highlights it on the bingo thread.

But Joe Cz is a solid down to earth guy and his reviews of the Rhone were always pretty informative and I tended to agree with him.

I haven’t relied on a reviewer since Parker told me 2007 Rhones were the best vintage ever from anywhere.

That said, I’m becoming a bit of a William Kelley fanboy. Hope he sticks around. I also like John Gilman and Jasper Morris’s contributions to my favorite region.

I mostly trust my palate at this point.

The only critic I like is whoever gives everything a 93 on WB.

Is this still art philosophy or is it a entirely new category of wine philosophy?

I like reviewers that are not afraid to knock the top producers off their pedestals if wines are mediocre.

It’s not enough to tell which wines are good. Reviewers need to tell which of the expensive ones are bad/gone backwards.

So, Antonio Galloni wins on this point.

I give this thread 88 points. It’s got some acid, but is a bit unbalanced and the finish is all over the place.

But…YOU were the last post [wow.gif]

(oh no, now I’m the acrid, unfocused finish)

There was a thread a few months ago on this topic where people rated critics. I’ve searched but I can’t find it.

Buy on JG; sell on JD.

Found it! Here’s the earlier thread, which started with this post:

Funny you say that, but I saw last night a review by Mr. 93 where he gave the wine a 98. He actually closed the 3. The note was riveting. I am seeking the wine now. He palate is exceptional. [cheers.gif]

Which wine? (After you find it.) I looked on CT and Adrian actually has a lot of 98 pointers there. More than I expected. Mostly German wine, which makes sense and is perfectly reasonable whether or not you go in for the points thing.

I really enjoy Neal Martins notes and writing. Although his palate doesn’t always quite line up with mine I look forward to seeing his writing.

Long ago before all the current crop of reviewers, only Steve Tanzer and Clive Coates were reliable for Burgundy. Rovani’s brief tenure wasn’t taken seriously. Coates gave great historical background but was a strict hierarchist, grand cru always better than premier, etc. My palate always aligned w Tanzer but I stopped reading when print became electronic, as I also quit buying young red Burgundy.

If you haven’t seen it, I remember reading an email circulated by someone in the French wine business “rating” various Bordeaux critics, with accompanying notes. I can’t find the post through search, although I know it was discussed on this forum.

I’ve found one or two reviewers that line up with my palate - I like Brad Baker for Champagne - but for me consensus on this board/CT is usually better than any single published reviewer. WS is one of the least reliable for me.

Is Brad Baker still publishing? Website says currently letter is something from 2017

I’ve always liked Mark personally, despite the fact that he was complete ass*&^e to many on this board. His actions catalyzed the creation of Wine Berserkers.

Mark does study his subject matter thoroughly and writes well. I really like David Schildknecht…such a geek and so studious. I can’t understand him sometimes…which is kind of fun. I actually like most reviewers who take their time, study and communicate well about a region, history, background, producer profiles, insightful details etc.

When it comes to tasting notes, I’ve kind of given up on all professional reviewers. They have their tastes and I have mine. Years of blind tasting…and we used to play match the descriptor to the wine. Amazing how infrequently the answers aligned.

I followed RP religiously for several years until running in to one dead end after another. Did his tastes change? Did mine? Both at the same time but differently? It’s taken a long time to figure out and trust my own palate. I’ve been happier since.

RT

For Piedmont I agree completely. If you’ve tasted a post-2007 Bruno Giacosa wine and looked at reviews from almost any other critic, it’s like you are in an alternative universe…the other critics appear to have literally been drinking a different wine, while Galloni was reporting on what’s actually in the glass. And obviously it has cost him the ability to taste those wines and visit the winery, so you see why other critics drink the kool aid.

One ‘fault’ as others have mentioned other times I think is not sufficiently providing tasting descriptors or detail on oak usage. He seems to clearly prefer traditional Barolo but be open to more oak than some prefer. But it’s pretty easy to find out the oak regime a producer uses so I don’t see this as a problem.