I think it goes without saying, Greg, that one’s own palate is the most important.
Besides yourself, which raters do you listen to the most?
100% agree. My most trusted–aside from me, obv.-- are a couple of friends and a guy I really like at my local store. The point of this admittedly dumb exercise was which of the forces who exert undue influence over the wine industry do you give any credibility to at all.
I have to, I am one of them.[/quote]
as am I
but some/many simply don’t “get it”
Oh. In that case:
- Tanzer and Raynolds
- Neil Martin
- Suckling (for Sauternes/Barsac; when he was working for WS)
… still, these guys’ influence on me and my buying choices pales in comparison to some folks who post on CT, as well as knowledgeable folks who own and operate wine shops local to me.
B–you’re up late. I’m about to pass out and you have 5 hours on me
Scott, you know me … !
For me its this…
Burgundy - Burghound
Italy - Galloni
Spain - Neal Martin, Luis Gutierrez via Jancis Robinson, and Jose Peñin
South America - Neal Martin & Patricio Tapia
Everything else Jancis Robinson & CT
Using CT to your advantage is pretty easy if you invest a little bit of time into reading through tasting notes and identifying likeminded tasters. Ignore the scores, not the words.
I favor the more critical raters like IWC and JG. A 97-98+ by either and you can rest assured it’s an epic wine.
- none of the above - its liberating to trust one’s self - to do this you must unlearn what you have learned
A lot of great wine writers and raters have been mentioned … personally I like to shop around … have my favorites in Burgundy, Champagne, Bordeaux and Mosel. First and foremost I value my own palete … and that of trusted wine friends.
Whan I look at a wine writer/rater the most important quality is consistency … and taken to the extreme this encompass all. The palete should be consistent, ratings should be consistent, the relative ratings and personal preferences should also be consistent.
Consistency is difficult … 100% consistency impossible … but some writers manage to be quite consistent within their own personal preferences - and eventhough you don’t share these preferences … the tasting notes and ratings could have great value for you.
Anyhow … thanks to all the good people that are striving to make consistent ratings … as for myself - I try!
John Gilman and Keith Levenberg
Keith does have an exceptional palate. There are so many places that I get information from now.
It is complicated but enriching.
John Gilman and Allen Meadows (Burghound) are my Burgundy folks.
Antonio Galloni for Italy.
I find that most of the ratings now for Rhone and Bordeaux just confuse me. I am more likely to get good information from a friend or this board.
For Champagne, Peter LIem, Brad Baker and a few other sources including Antonio.
FWIW. Most of my sources would be in the other category above I guess.
Back on eBob, I thought Ben Sherwin wrote some highly amusing TNs. Keith L’s RMP help line tribute to 07 CndP warrants an honorable mention.
The winner for shear entertainment doesn’t publish (to my knowledge), use points or ever post here. He’s on Wine Disorder: Chris Coad.
In the end there’s only one rater to pay attention to, as “De La Soul” would sing: “It’s just me, myself and I”.
RT
Decanter is pretty good. Of critics not mentioned, I like Mike Steinberger and W. Blake Gray.
I vary based on the region, it goes something like this:
In order
BDX:
Martin
Tanzer (top 2 much greater than bottom 2)
Kissack
Parker
Rhone:
Raynolds
Molesworth
Parker
Italy:
Galloni
Pinot:
Raynolds
Tanzer
Champagne:
Raynolds
Galloni
Cali Cab:
Tanzer
Galloni
As you can see, I am highly reliant on my IWC subscription. I don’t know what I will do with WA as I like Galloni, but I really like Martin but now sure it’s worth the price for me just for him.
Besides yourself, which raters do you listen to the most?
Honestly Brian, and this time not being a smart ass, nobody really. I don’t generally like to read TNs, whether amateur or pro - the score tells me if someone liked the wine or not. Nor would I make much distinction between a few points. If someone says 96 or above, I figure he or she really loved the wine, if it’s in the lower 90s, they really liked it, and so on. And if they use some different scoring system, like Jancis does, it doesn’t really matter because you can make the same rough calculation.
That said, I rarely buy any wine that I haven’t tasted or that I don’t know from a prior vintage or from the producer/winemaker.
What I do like and sometimes find interesting are comments from someone who has some context and perspective. So if someone says, and a friend once did, that he can always tell Cos because it has a little bitterness on the finish to him, that’s kind of interesting. To say you get pear, apple, bread, long finish, 92 points - that’s as useless as it is uninteresting.
Guys like David S can sometimes put things in an interesting way when he’s talking about some producer in Germany that he’s intimately familiar with. Galloni, bless his heart, was sometimes able to do that with various producers in Piedmont. Parker was able to do that with producers in the Rhone and elsewhere, but today his reviews sometimes read more like PR for them than like reviews. I just haven’t read enough of Tanzer to have a clue, or of most reviewers. Hugh Johnson has his biases - I’m mostly familiar with what he had to say about Hungary and I figure I’m as competent as he is in that respect and I disagree with him, Jancis sometimes has a perspective that’s interesting but not for her ratings, and so on. None of these are for purchasing decisions however.
I believe it is very valuable to have tasted with a reviewer.
When you are tasting the same wines and discussing them real time, you can really get a handle on how their palate aligns with yours.
The only two writers I’ve tasted with are Claude Kolm and Richard Jennings.
I get more out of their tasting notes because of my direct knowledge of where they are coming from.
I’ve tasted with Richard several times and I’m amazed at how we agree on most wines.
Our palates are definitely on the same page and I’ve grown to really trust his notes.
Unfortunately, I have not rubbed elbows with Da Hound, but I’m sure it would help if I did…
TTT
I prefer to taste before I buy, but that isn’t always possible. Especially for some of my coveted Burgundy producers.
I therefore find some utility in the raters. I most often end up running some nerdy metrics and feel better triangulating my purchases, which includes some favored tasters from CT.
As to the raters, if I see a score by WA or Parker, I subtract two points to normalize it. I read a study from (I believe it was Cornell) that analyzed the raters and it in fact found he rates 1.5 points higher than the rest. And that was before he gave out about 19 100s to the 2009 Bordeaux vintage. If Tanzer or Burghound give a 90, I expect it will be outstanding.
I’m personally sold on WS blind tasting method. I don’t like all of them, but in comparing how certain wines do over the years, I am amazed by the consistency in general.
I like John Gilman, but I find his scores about two points above his peers in Burgundy. Sometimes when he’s giving out 68s to modern styled, spoofilated wines in Bordeaux, I get his argument or position. The problem there is that is doesn’t help me. I know what he thinks of it. With the other tasters, they seem to score it against their peers and they usually tell you that it’s a modern style, extracted wine. I love his honesty though and his good scores mean more because he’s willing to hand out some bad ones. - This is the same on CT. If I only see a taster giving out good scores all the time, their ratings begin carrying less weight with me.
I like Jeff Leve too. Very consistent and informative. His scores and mine are usually about the same, so he is very helpful.
My two cents. I have a system I like and it helps me find good wine. Find what works for you and drink what you like and you’ll be happy.
But then you can’t tell other people they’re wrong, and that means some folks won’t be happy.
FWIW, I agree with the point above that it’s sort of silly to say “trust your own palate” and leave it at that. Of course you should develop your own tastes, of course you shouldn’t like something just because someone told you to, and of course you shouldn’t buy cases upon cases of Chateau Spectacular solely on the basis that it got 97 points with no sense that you actually like it. However, professional reviews still have some utility for thoughtful people, not just for the straw men who keep getting knocked down. You can’t always taste things before the buying opportunity evaporates, you may know generally what you think of a winery’s style but not whether a particular vintage was relatively successful or unsuccessful, and you may want to find new wines to try on some basis other than which label is prettier.
I use IWC and Burghound a fair amount. I’ll likely take a look at Galloni’s new venture. I read WFW and Decanter, but mostly for the columns and articles; sometimes I find the panel format useful if multiple tasters with different preferences all think a wine is great (though more often than not the cast changes too often for me to guess which of the diverging opinions I’m most likely to agree with). CT is useful, especially for current views of how a wine has developed, but it has the same consistency issue. I’m aware of folks like Gilman, JLL, Bettane, Juhlin, Asimov, Hersh, etc. (I’m leaving people out) and am interested in what they have to say but don’t follow closely.