Help Me Understand A Wine Critic: Antonio Galloni (Vinous)

[Andy_Sc]

His points may have gotten a tad generous, at least as of late. Cheers

A tad?

When I look at the Bdx ratings of the major critics, his average ratings (for a representative basket of the top 80 wines in each vintage from 2015 to 2020) are in the bottom half or third of all critics. At least in Bdx, he doesn’t seem one of the excessive critics. It would be interesting to make these checks for Champagne, Napa and Piedmont too.

[Markus_S]

… I know this is beating a dead horse but scores are merely a reflection of a critic’s enthusiasm for the wine. Scores just give you an idea of whether they were ambivalent on a wine, liked it, loved it or thought it was epic. Subtract what you think will get you to those categories for you, but its just an impression not a science.

Uh, but we’ve been led to believe that the 100 point scale is a scientifically endowed platform of measurement, stated so by RMP himself. What use is a “number impression” if that is all it is? So…use less in other words.

Where did RMP state it was “scientific”?

If you read some of his early writings (say mid-late 1980’s), he didn’t say scientific per se, but would go on about how rational his scale was based upon his ‘golden palate’.

[David_Bu3ker]

Uh, but we’ve been led to believe that the 100 point scale is a scientifically endowed platform of measurement, stated so by RMP himself. What use is a “number impression” if that is all it is? So…use less in other words.

Where did RMP state it was “scientific”?

If you read some of his early writings (say mid-late 1980’s), he didn’t say scientific per se, but would go on about how rational his scale was based upon his ‘golden palate’.

Uh-huh…you seem to have the Tom Hill RMP disease. Ascribe things to him that he never actually said.

[Markus_S]

Where did RMP state it was “scientific”?

If you read some of his early writings (say mid-late 1980’s), he didn’t say scientific per se, but would go on about how rational his scale was based upon his ‘golden palate’.

Uh-huh…you seem to have the Tom Hill RMP disease. Ascribe things to him that he never actually said.

Well rationality is a scientific reasoning. You wouldn’t ascribe faith to science, would you?

[David_Bu3ker]

If you read some of his early writings (say mid-late 1980’s), he didn’t say scientific per se, but would go on about how rational his scale was based upon his ‘golden palate’.

Uh-huh…you seem to have the Tom Hill RMP disease. Ascribe things to him that he never actually said.

Well rationality is a scientific reasoning. You wouldn’t ascribe faith to science, would you?

Yeah, but you are still twisting his words to create a platform for criticism. It’s disingenuous at a minimum, and likely worse because you are doing it with specific intent to smear him.

[Markus_S]

Uh-huh…you seem to have the Tom Hill RMP disease. Ascribe things to him that he never actually said.

Well rationality is a scientific reasoning. You wouldn’t ascribe faith to science, would you?

Yeah, but you are still twisting his words to create a platform for criticism. It’s disingenuous at a minimum, and likely worse because you are doing it with specific intent to smear him.

How am I smearing him? His own book jackets called him “the man with the golden palate”.

[John_Morris]

I don’t ever recall Parker calling the scale “scientific,” Markus.

[Brad_England]

RMP seems to have his own version of Godwin’s law.

[Mark_Golodetz]

What is a “spherical” wine?

“ Vietti, Barolo Monvigliero 2019

gorgeous, spherical Barolo that dazzles right out of the gate. Aromatically broad and expansive, the 2019 fleshes out beautifully in the glass. Bright red-toned fruit, orange zest, mint, spice and bright saline notes saturate the palate on the back end. The 2019 is a total stunner, even in this stage of youthful austerity. It comes across as a bit rustic compared to the 2018, but the final verdict on that won’t be evident for at least a number of years. This is the first vintage that includes a second parcel in Monvigliero. In the cellar, one lot saw submerged cap maceration, the other did not. Drink 2029-2049.97+ pts Antonio Galloni, Vinous (Jan 2023)”

[D_Pennet]

I think with Galloni, if you start analysing his language, you come up against a wall of hyperbole. Yet I think he is a very emotional taster and his language reflects this, lots of musical analogies. Get past the hyperbole and take the tasting notes in an emotional context and if your palate aligns, then he is great. On Italy unbeatable.
For me he is the better taster of champagne, much better than Mr Kelley who lacks Galloni’s unprejuducied approach. The late Josh Reynold’s was the best taster of Champagne from what I would call the anglo-american fraction. David Schildknecht was good but too long-winde.

Points have become a point of instumentalisation, I believe this to be true of Galloni and Kelley, they are no longer intrinsically linked with with what is in the bottle so basically meaningless other than they inflate prices.

Galloni’s is very thin skinned which is not a good thing in a critic. In contrast Mr Kelley engages in duscusions, but i must admit it is great fun winding up the Vinous testers, they are completly devoid of humour. Your Say used to be a really interesting place, now it has become a echo chamber and if you suffer from insomnia a good place to go.

[David_Cooper]

Well said. I agree with most of what you said.

The one thing I found about AGs videos that I just couldn’t stop focusing on was the giant dent in the fridge door in the background.

[Scott_Watkins]

Man I love the way you play both boards depending which one you’re posting on, I hope it brings you tons of business!