Any opinions on Tanzer as a wine critic?

WINE TALK
21

Nathan, I don’t get that. Josh gives some high scores to some bretty wines in CdP.

22

I think 96 Krug was a 99+.
alan

23

I find him very polite with US-wines actually he is my first to check when I get some unknown to me newhere

24

Welcome Ebbe!

25

I enjoy his reviews of red burgs and domestic pinots.

26

I haven’t noticed that. He certainly doesn’t come out and call ultra-Parkerized wines trash the way John Gilman does. Maybe he’ll give a Harlan a 95 instead of a 97. But in terms of standing for a different ideal of wine than Parker does, I simply don’t see it.

27

I agree with Kieth. I believe he agrees substantively with RP only just a more compressed rating scale.

28

Tanzer is a highly accurate taster. What I especially admire are his distinctive descriptors, which fit the individual wines to a tee (tea? t?). My only issue is that, like Parker, he is a disciple of the Too Big to Fail doctrine. Note, however, that the en-primeur Bordeaux tastings appear to have been outsourced to Ian d’Agata in o8 and 09. I don’t have prior experience with d’Agata, so I can’t really say about him. Josh does appear to be an easier grader than Steve, but I have known him a long time and he knows his stuff.

29

Sorry, I don’t have any experience with Raynolds and brett.

But back when I used to be kinda/sorta vaguely in tune with the critics and their scores - when I would go to tastings knowing what the Tanzer [or Raynolds] score was before I tasted the wine - I always came away with the impression that a high Tanzer [or Raynolds] score always meant an extreme purity of cleanliness [or cleanliness of purity, or whatever] which imparted a distinct sense of distillation to the wine.

And this held true everywhere from Australian shiraz [Raynolds] to Californian syrah to Alsatian pinot gris - it was really consistent across the board.

PS: Does anybody know what became of that guy [from SUNY-Stony Brook, maybe? or NYU?] who loved the 1997 Sesti Brunello? Did he ever write for Tanzer again?

30

Tanzer overvalues heft just like most of the others, IMHO. More will generally = additional points. I’ve come to the point where I just don’t trust anyone who assesses wine based on 2 oz pours. Cellartracker–excuse me, GrapeStories–is the most reliable source of information for wine I haven’t tasted.

31

I agree 100%.

32

GrapeStories is the just the URL until Eric finishes the CellarTracker! beta, as I Understand it. Then it’s back to Cellartracker.com
CellarTracker can be useful, especially to check the progress of an older wine.
But there’s many pitfalls there, too. Like the guy who rarely ventures beyond Bordeaux and Napa Cabernet Sauvignon trying to describe a Cour-Cheverny. He can speak with great certainity because he’s gone through thousands of bottles of cabernet sauvignon but may not have a clue about romarantin.
Another problem is that so many of the notes are generic. It seems the same note written for Burgundy could apply to a cotes du rhone.

33

Sticking with the “favorite tasters” will really weed out many of the bad or useless notes.

34

I think Tanzer is the best of the lot right now.

The only issue with Steve that I have is the same one I have with most wine reviewers. I don’t really want to know what the best wine is upon release. What I want to know is what will be the best wine in 10 years, or whenever the wine is expected to be mature. It’s often not the same. Most wine reviewers don’t do enough 5 year or ten year tastings to address this issue–the vast majority of their effort is focused on new releases. I think if they focused more attention on how wines age, we would have had an earlier consensus on the pox, and I think there would be more active discussion on how globally warmed wines are aging.

35

Welcome, Ebbe, nice to see you here!

36

Doesn’t the CT scores correlate with the WA/IWC scores to a very large extent? A lot of people buy wines because of WA/IWC scores and TNs and, surprise surprise, when people drink these wines they come up with pretty much the same scores/descriptors as the critics.

37

Yup… that’s why I think we amateurs (sorry Freemott, for absconding) should avoid using points, and just post a note.

38

I really hope this is true. I LOVE the Cellartracker tool, but the GrapeStories name makes me gag.


As far as Tanzer/Raynolds goes … I’ve found my palate to be more aligned with them than any other professional critic, although James Suckling’s opinions on red Bdx and Barsac/Sauternes are about equally aligned with my tastes. Usually, when I taste and score a wine and then later check what IWC had to say and what their score was our notes are similar and our scores are within 2 points.

39

Sure, but you can’t read CT notes indiscriminately. If I see a bunch of unfamiliar names posting 96 point notes with words like “ripe” and “gobs” that tells me all I need to know. If I see one or two familiar names and they like the wine, it’s going to be worth a try.

40

Thanx Ed [wow.gif]