Any opinions on Tanzer as a wine critic?

I’m thinking about doing the trial offered through CellarTracker! for Tanzer’s Web site.
This is in no way a shot at Parker, by the way. I just like how it’s integrated with CellarTracker!
I have to say I’ve had bad luck with Tanzer in the past, particularly with Spanish wine less than say about $25 a bottle.
And his descriptions of California pinot don’t seem to match my impressions.
I wonder what others think.
By Tanzer, by the way, I mean everyone who publishes under the Tanzer umbrella.

I like the Tanzer team - the notes are well written and I don’t find the scores as inflated as other tasters with RMP and WS. I think the most conservative taster may be Allen Meadows, second to me is Tanzer. IF I read a note and Tanzer, et al or Meadows rave about a wine, i usually will search it out (if it’s my style) whereas many at WS and WA…not so much

Tanzer is one of the reviewers that I seem most in line with. Like Zach says, when he raves you know it’s good. Raynolds scores seem inflated to me.

Steve, Here’s a thread that discussed this topic at some length - for the record, I like IWC.



International Wine Cellar- Your thoughts? - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I like the fact that 87-89 is still a very good score from IWC. I think he is very adept at fair reviews of wines from here in Washington and doesn’t add ridiculous drinking windows to them.

My only issue with him is he focuses more on flavor than structure in his notes. But he seems to like the same kinds of wines I do.

Not a subscriber to IWC, but I have purchased wines based on TNs and I have about the same success rate with him as with RMP, about 60%. For me, professional wine reviewers are just not worth it. But it could also be because I am a poor judge of “good wines” and I like what I like.

For me, matching my palate to other people has more value. But if you find a match in palate with a pro reviewer, then consider yourself lucky and the subscription fee well worth it.

I was an IWC subscriber before I found CT, and the integration is one of the factors that got me hooked on CT. I rarely go out to Tanzer’s web site anymore (he went to web only last year, no print anymore) unless I’m researching something as in an entire region of recent reviews. Most of the time I go to CT when I’m looking up a new wine, and it is great seeing IWC notes right there.

I think what sold me on Tanzer was the one time I wrote out a TN in CT on a wine I had just drank, and when I glanced after the fact at the IWC note it was 90% identical to what I had just written. I find my palate and that of ST and Josh Reynolds just align better than with any other reviewers.

I will second the comment on the scores, an ST 89 is a pretty good wine, likely a value. For Parker to give a wine an 89, it is the kiss of death. Generally, I rarely see scores of 95 or greater from IWC, and when I do I really take notice and if the price is right, I pull the trigger.

FWIW

been reading him for two decades–even when it was The NY Wine Cellar (loved that Wine Finder option). For me, his palate aligns with mine better than any other critic. He’s pretty stingy with scores and, if he likes it, it’s damn good–I’m talking red and white Burgs. Can’t comment on other genres.

alan

I’m with Alan on this one. Well, not that I’ve been reading him for decades, but the fact that he is stingy with scores and if he rates a wine in the mid 90’s, its damn good.

I am not sure I have ever seen a 96/97 ‘pointer’ out of him as a matter of fact.

I actually like their coverage of Cali Pinot, and WA coverage is a nice bonus for me.

Big fan…

Let me get it straight, if you score everything in the 70’s you will be god. Keep everything consistent and everything will make sense.

+1

I know that If I see anything his team has scored above 92+ pts it will usually rock and if it is 88 - 91 pts it is a solid solid wine!

I just got the email today from Cellar Tracker and now definitely considering paying for his site. Since I am now off ebob.

I have subscribed on and off to IWC for many years. He has a distinctly different palate from RP. I often find it interested to read both reviews and can often better triangulate the wine using both.

As others have said, he tends to score significantly lower than Parker, so when he scores higher, it is notable. One recent example was a Wind Gap Syrah. That led me to believe that Pax is trying to make a more subtle wine now at Wind Gap, so I bought some. I still have lots of the old Pax.

Not a big fan. And I know several others that feel the same way. I mainly focus on Italian wine.

I think Tanzer does a very nice job with Burgundy and Bordeaux. I like Josh’s reviews of the Rhone quite a bit with the caveat that I consider Josh a friend.

I’m a happy subscriber.

I don’t read enough of his reviews, but those I have, I do find that (like some others on this thread) he’s in my wheelhouse as far as likes and dislikes for Burg and Spanish. I do love the precision with which Allen writes, but I don’t always like the wines he does. And for me, I consider Tanzer a tough grader, which is a good thing…

I bit and thanks Eric. I subscribed years ago so will be interesting to try ST again. He’s a pretty tough grader which I appreciate.

I find Tanzer is the critic with a palate closest to mine. Can’t comment on burgundy though. I avoid most anything Parker highly rates from cali, unless Tanzer rates it highly as well (unusual). Raynolds is right on the money for me and the Rhone.

[quote=“K V a s t o l a”]I have subscribed on and off to IWC for many years. He has a distinctly different palate from RP. I often find it interested to read both reviews and can often better triangulate the wine using both.

Ken, I agree, the triangulation method is interesting and usually beneficial for me. I feel that as I have gotten a little more wise, the highness or lowness of scores from any taster doesn’t matter to me as much as how they calibrate with my palate. I do like Tanzer’s take on Burgundy since 2005. That’s not a knock on anything pre-2005, I just wasn’t paying attention to his reports as much back then. I was on and off with subscriptions back then as well.

Charlie

Tanzer likes hyper-clean wines [as does Raynolds], almost to the point that the wines start tasting like distilled beverages.

If there’s some weird, eclectic impurity in a wine, which gives it that little extra je-ne-sais-quois [which you can’t quite put your finger on], then don’t expect it to get big points from Tanzer or Raynolds.

Which is not to say that there is anything wrong with the wines which they recommend - just be prepared for extreme purity [almost to the point of sterility (asepticity?)] in their recommendations.