Help Me Understand A Wine Critic: Allen Meadows (Burghound)

The goal of this thread is to better understand a critic’s palate and how to interpret their wine tasting notes. These are related, but not the same, questions.

Instagram @ N/A
[u]Abbreviated bio from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Meadows[/u]
Allen Meadows is an American wine critic and publisher of the Burghound.com quarterly newsletter and website. He was a financial executive and private wine collector until a profile published in Wine Spectator in 1997 led him to decide to follow his passion for wine. By 2000, Meadows had left his role of CFO at a publicly traded insurance company and launched the Burghound.com site, which offers subscribers newsletters with reviews of Burgundy wine and California and Oregon Pinot noir wines.

I can’t afford to try a lot of the wines he reviews, but of those that I have, I align pretty well with his views. Especially on heavily reviewed wines in which his score is very different than others, he and I are in closer range.

Wishing that he were able to taste and review more California Pinot, as this could be extremely helpful in finding which producers that I don’t yet know of to pursue. His scores tend to be lower across the board than most, but to me, a 90 is a 90 across regions. I appreciate that quite a bit.

He is a structuralist and I respond to that. I buy his newsletter. I think it is very good.

I would say that he, generally, prefers a more restrained style. (For contrast, Robert Parker, for example, preferred a more exuberate style although, to be (overly?) generous/fair, that may be related to the wine varieties/regions these respective critics tend to prefer as well).

Meadows also, I would say, tends to be a more restrained when it comes to score/grade inflation (For contrast, James Suckling on the other hand …).

agree 100%. he is the only reviewer I do put some stock in the actual rating number for. if Burghound has scored a wine highly, you know its gonna be good.

1 Like

I think Allen is the encyclopedia of Burgundy. He’s the reference point. But his writing is a little dry. The background information he gives on the vintage is second to none. He gives little insights.

1 Like

Consider if credibility is as important as informed palate, for understanding a wine critic.

He never met a Burgundy he didn’t like. Scores hierarchically, up the ladder, so you’ll never see a villages at a 1er cru level. Also, tends to recycle tasting phrases: “woodsmoke” anyone?

1 Like

I’ve subscribed for years. I remember when he was a regular poster on the old AOL boards. My palate aligns well much of what he tastes. However, I do agree somewhat with Marcus says about scores and hierarchy. I also like the fact that his scores are not inflated as many other writers/critics.

A very good taster and good (but not exceptional) writer, however very knowledgable about Burgundy.
My feel is that he strictly hangs on the classification/hyrarchie … which detracts from the value, rarely is a GC weaker than a 1er cru … and ratings usually differ only slightly from vintage to vintage.
Seems to prefer acidity over fruit … and
a slight tendency to arrogance … maybe …
but who else for Burgs?

My palate works out to taste much like his. He is predicting that most wine he writes about will not be ready to drink for a very, very, long time. He has a long time experience with Burgundy. I think he now lives in Burgundy. Lots of good information on the smaller wine labels.

Rates every wine via the Burgundy hierarchy. I used to put stock in his reviews then wised up. That said, maybe he’s of value if you’re spending $100s on Grand Crus and you want to know whether Rousseau or Amiots CLDR is better. If you’re looking for diamonds in the rough/value, worst Burg critic in my eyes. YMMV.

2 Likes

I like how conservative Allen is. A 90 point score actually means something.

Only if it’s a village wine, otherwise if 1er & above, it’s either heavily reductive or is just plain mediocre (see Peter’s post above).

1 Like

The two books Alan has written are both excellent, I have both of them on high rotation (Pearl of the Cote and his History of Burgundy vintages)

In response to your last point, how about Jasper Morris and Bill Nanson, both of whom focus exclusively upon Burgundy? There are others too, such as William Kelley, who, whilst not writing exclusively about Burgundy, does provide pretty extensive coverage. I like Morris and Nanson. Both write clearly and well and cover the whole spectrum of Burgundies, often highlighting the less well known producers, who have excelled in a particular vintage. Morris lives in Burgundy and Nanson, within close range, so have established strong networks across the region, which perhaps provide them with additional insights.

I am not disputing your view of Allen Meadows but simply highlighting that there are other very decent options for the region. Based upon what you and others are suggesting, in respect of Mr Meadows, perhaps, being too attached to the classification, Jasper and Bill are both polar opposites, so possibly more helpful for some.

1 Like

I know Jasper’s Burgundy book which is fine … but don t know his wine reviews … and follow Kelley at TWA and here … I think less comprehensive than Burghound … but good.

Friends,

What someone said :“he never came across a Burgundy he didn’t like” is simply aping Parker who once claimed that. Meadows is a very good critic on Burgundy and from time to time he will lead you to new discoveries (MILLOT for example). He is an expert on the region. At first I was not at all enthousiastic about his second book. But when I found it in BEAUNE and took a peak I was impressed. What BURGHOUND does not do is to publish sufficient tasting notes on vintages 3 and 10 years on like Coates did. It is not always that interesting to go through notes and notes and notes on so many wines. Also, stylewise, there are better writers around (Neal Martin) but Meadows is extremely comprehensive when you are looking for expert general inside info on each new Burgundy vintage.
SINCERELY JOHAN

Several years ago when I subscribed, he made tasting notes available online to subscribers for wines that I don’t think were in the newsletters. So although this wasn’t like Clive Coates’s comprehensive vintage retrospectives, you could still find notes on older wines that were useful.

I have subscribed to Burghound since his initial issue, and surely respect his knowledge and palate. Since I am no longer pursuing the newest releases, I have maintained my subscription solely to have access to the personal tasting notes on older wines that are on his online database and do not appear in his quarterly issues. Unfortunately, these tasting notes have become less frequent over the past couple of years, and my days of subscribing may be numbered.

No one else is publishing notes on older Burgundies to any great degree, and this is regrettable. Tanzer did a few on Vinous some years ago, but that is over. William Kelley does some on Up From the Cellar on the WA, but they do not appear very frequently. John Gilman had so many great retrospectives and verticals early on in his View from the Cellar, but these are rare now and the emphasis seems to be on new releases. Neal Martin has said that he has many notes on older Burgundies ready to publish on Vinous, but I have been waiting not very patiently for them to appear. Jasper Morris will occasionally publish tasting notes on Burgundies 10 years out, though at a smaller scale than Clive Coates used to.

Many of us would love to see notes on older Burgs…retrospectives, verticals, producer articles, reassessments of earlier reviews as the wines have aged, etc. Unfortunately no one out there is consistently providing this information, and I suppose this is not what sells subscriptions. People want a buying guide to the new releases. One would think that enough people are buying Burgundies on the secondary market and at auction or even just wanting to read recent tasting notes on the wines in their cellar that there would be a market for this type of information.

2 Likes