Those of you who kindly read my posts know that I stand by what I taste and how I perceive a wine, so here is my follow-up to a "review" of a wine that I posted very favorably on a while back: CLONINGER Santa Lucia Chardonnay 2000: Here is the "review" from Connoisseur's Guide:
" From its too dark and browning color to its smell of burnt coffee and stale nuts to its flat, enervated flavors, this one shows only disappointment and damaged goods and needs to be left on the shelf."
Here I attack: 2000 chard, and already browned? Enervated flavors? Burnt coffee? Sounds like the bottle was damaged by excessive heat to me. Then, " ...and damaged goods": hey, bud, it ever occur to you that this bottle is maybe, just maybe, a "damaged bottle" like you say? Like, maybe you ought to try another, this time purchased not off of a back of a semi in mid-summer Mohave, but in a REAL store? Excuse me, maybe you didn't purchase it: well, cajole it from a reputable source!
This is total BS, and it bugs the heck out of me that someone could write something like tghis and ignore the obvious! I always these people were bozos-----now, I am CERTAIN that they are total fools and amateurs ( excuse me, they get paid for this, so they are "professionals": well, so is the kid next door who sells Lemonade! )! I can challenge other reviews they have made, but why beat a dead nag, I mean rag......
I can't guarantee anything, but the bottle I had showed very nice butterscotch flavors with oak showing through, a bit shy of total balance, but an excellant wine for the price. There is no way this wine can show what these boobs found unless it was damaged: oh, yes, they did say that, didn't they???
Wanna line your hamster cage? Have any new-born puppies or kittens? How about any birds you may have bought? Well, you have just found the most appropriate use for this guide.
Compared to these guys, WS is GOD!

I give this rant three puffs!

And where was the "tasted twice with consistent notes'' line?

Cheers!
And remember: Life's too short to drink bad wine.

Three puffs and a 96 from me!

GMT, so what is you are trying to say exactly? Please, tell us how you really feel!

...of why most thoughtful wine publications rarely publish bad reviews. You run the risk of looking like real idiots if the bottle tasted was off for any reason. And who has time to re-review and re-review potential spoiled bottles.

GMTin Japan, you are correct when you point out that they practically say the bottle was cooked, then review it anyway... Very unprofessional.

highdesertwine

Is three puffs a lot...or a little?

I understand balls and strikes. Could you translate?

...is their highest rating.

highdesertwine

So maybe the reviewer had more than three puffs before tasting.

Cheers!
And remember: Life's too short to drink bad wine.

I totally agree with GMT. I have tasted (more like drank) several bottles of this chard which I deem a good value.
The connoisseur’s guide needs to practice more responsible evaluations. Perhaps we could have some other tasting notes published?


Here are mine:
Sweet oak, buttery finish. It has a nose of peach, oak and vanilla, nice balance. Very good wine.