I have had a few wines in the last week that Parker scored 92 that I would probably give pretty close to an 'undrinkable' score (but barely drinkable, so lets give them the base of 50 to start).

KAESLER STONEHORSE GRENACHE/SHIRAZ/MOURVÈDRE 2005, RP 92, Machine 50+5+6(unpleasant medicinal smell)+10(unpleasant medicinal taste, an overripe mess...maybe a $5 wine in my book)+3(don't see how this can get much better, no acidity or tannin to speak of, only a faint glimmer that it resembled a CDP, for about 5 minutes, 30 minutes after opening, then it was gone and did not come back over next 2 hours)=74. Rest of glass down the sink, will give it another try tomorrow (that 5 minutes of CDP merit not dumping it today). A colleague also bought a bottle, similar notes on day 1, not sure about his day 2 experience, will find out tomorrow.


DOMAINE DE LA COLLINE SAINT-JEAN VACQUEYRAS 2004, RP 90-92, Machine 50+5+7.5(something did not smell right, not bad or corked or cooked just not right)+6(unenjoyable and unpleasant on day 1, undrinkably revolting on day 2, i.e. 'spit out' undrinkable)+4(maybe some of those horrible flavours will go away over time, and the smidge of apparent structure (whatever that is) might allow it to last until the flavours are gone)=72. Poured down the sink on day 2. Same colleague also bought a bottle for himself (at another store, so not an issue of 2 bad bottles from a bad case of wine). His reaction to drinking it - not good, something not right, not an off bottle, but not drinkable, and he poured it down the drain.

I would not accept either of the above bottles as a gift.

Another I tried on Parker's 95 rating was the 2003 Dominus. Bought a 6-pack. Then saw Laube's rating. Had not heard of him, read the comments of many re. Laube's 'skill' at rating Cali Reds, felt that most people discounted his ratings/notes altogether, but difference between his notes (and score) and Parker's had me concerned. Opened a bottle of the Dominus. Day 1 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. I thought 'obviously way too early to be popping a bordeaux-like cali wine'. Day 2 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. Certainly drinkable, not completely lacking enjoyability, but I would peg this as a $25 Napa Cab/blend. I would not call it austere (as I understand the word), would not say 'drink it now', but besides those things I agreed with Laube's score and cannot understand Parker's rating of 95.

For comparison, I have had a few bottles of 2000 Monbousquet in the last several months. I loved this wine. Same score as the Dominus, I don't get it (yes the wines are different ages/vintages from different countries in slightly different styles, and had different tasting notes, but even with that I still don't get it).

I have not had a lot of experience with half-decent wines, but I have found that I generally agree with Parker on Aussie Shiraz or Cab and with Bordeaux, the above examples don't fit in to those categories, but I am still left thinking 'HUH???'.

Ok, I looked at the cellartracker notes on the Kaesle GSM, my rating/notes do not change, but I expect it is possible that the LCBO has sold me mistreated/improperly shipped crap once again (this has happened several times, most recently with a Classics order of 2x1996 Leo Poy and 2x1996 Pichon Baron...1 Leo Poy was ok, the other was cooked, and both Pichon Barons were poor at best, tasted nothing like the notes that I have seen -- these were all delivered in the middle of summer, and after drinking them I question whether they had all been damaged during shipping from the LCBO warehouse to my local store). The notes that I read on cellartracker DO NOT match the wine that we consumed IN ANY WAY. Along those lines, wife asked (soon after opening) if the wine was carbonated...and I see the last note posted on cellartracker was "A sparkling GSM????". I detected what she detected, but thought it was just a bit of overly sharp acidity, and when it was gone after 10 minutes (leaving no apparent acidity) I figured that was the case. This does remind me however of the only other Aussie GSM experience that I had, with so much secondary fermentation going on that it fizzed like a Coke when I poured in it my glass...so who knows. My bottle was crap and it sounds like my friend's bottle was also crap.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

quote:

Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.

Perfectly stated.

Does Robert Parker taste blind?

I've known Gary to pan wines that he sells, and to take flack from those producers he has panned. So he's over the top...so what. He's a business man...so are most of you...

One is a wine critic and the other is an entertaining hack.

But it’s up to you to decide which one is which.

Darlene, the answer to your question is no.

quote:

Originally posted by Darlene:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

quote:

Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.

Perfectly stated.

Does Robert Parker taste blind?

I've known Gary to pan wines that he sells, and to take flack from those producers he has panned. So he's over the top...so what. He's a business man...so are most of you...

I agree with Darlene. He does offer low opinions on wines in his inventory.

IMO, which critic/journalist you prefer is not the issue. Regardless of the individual, it is just one person's opinion and nothing more. Educated and well-honed certainly, but subjective by nature.

As a consumer, you are best reading as many of these professional opinons as possible. You will learn from them all, whether you agree or not ... with the accuracy. The more well informed you become, the better your buying strategy will become.

There is no substituting professional scores and TN compared to your OWN DRINKING EXPERIENCE and no better guide as to whether or not you will like a wine, than your own.

Unfortunately, most of the wines they taste are not available to me, so who knows who's palate I follow. I will say that I've learned a great deal from Vaynerchuk as I'm relatively new to the wine world. It's interesting going through his earlier episodes and watching him build his shtick. I think most media personalities have learned to be themselves and if anything, be memorable (good or bad) - I think he's done both.

OTOH, while I appreciate him, I think perhaps his talents are misplaced. My kids (10 and 8) come over to my laptop like moths to a flame whenever I watch an episode. Maybe he should be reviewing gummy bears and relating them to a Riesling he recently tasted.

quote:

Originally posted by Poquelin:
It should be obvious to anyone who watches him regularly that he is completely objective

Otherwise, he would be leading to his own demise. Appearing to be objective is the least of the requirements for him to gain any plausibility.

quote:

I'm not calling Gary dishonest, but if he buys a wine, he sure has to sell the wine. I don't think he can be completely objective; I don't think I could.

I think Gary is very objective in his ratings but I believe, most, if not all, of the wines he tastes are wines that he sells. On many occasions he will pass on a wine that I'm sure he inventories many cases of.

I have found his palate to be very similar to mine so I trust his scores. It's also nice to see and hear his reaction to a wine rather than just read a Parker or WS review.

I agree that he is a bit goofy at times so I just fast forward if I'm not in the mood for his humor or editorial comments.

Bob

I haven’t watched the show in a while, but I respect Gary as a businessman because he carved out a nice market for himself and obviously has a lot of loyal viewers that buy based on his opinions. You cannot deny his passion for wine and I would recommend the show to anyone getting into wine as they will learn a lot.

With that said, people trusting Gary’s scores as totally unbiased and objective are fooling themselves in my opinion. The guy is reviewing wines from his store non-blind. How can he put all of that out of his mind, I know I couldn’t? And I know he has panned wines on the show, but it’s easy to pan silver oak because it is still going to sell out anyway. Now I’m not saying he would intentionally over rate a wine to boost sales, I’m just saying there is no way he can be 100% objective.

Now is Parker 100% objective, probably not, but I would take his 50 years of experience over Gary’s 20. My guess is Gary would agree with that as well.

OK,

The fact that Gary V sells the wine he is tasting, and that he often scores off both his taste and other scores (i.e. he will say I disagree with Parker on this one, I'm giving this wine 90 points), I agree that does not PROVE that he is not objective. It does give the appearance though which, if you really want to be taken seriously as an independent wine critic you must avoid. I did say however that Gary V is the Tommy Lasorda of fine wine meaning he is a sincere and entertaining spokesman for wine which is beneficial to the entire industry. He, more than anyone I've seen would be the most likely candidate for a cable TV show on wine ala Rachel Ray. He has that kind of charisma. That is where he will have a major impact on wine. There are a lot of wine critics out there. There is no one that brings what he does and I watch all of his shows. I bought a case of '05 Angelus from him after the WLTV review.

Finally, Wilford Wong may have one of the greatest palates in the world, I don't know, but becasue of his assocation with BevMo, his scores and notes don't get much play.

Has Jim Rome sued Gary for stealing his bit?

I get and applaud the idea of taking the snobbery out of wine, but Gary's song and dance doesn't appeal to me. It might be appealing for sports, but seems way over the top for wine, IMO.

On the other hand, as least Gary doesn't sell the pretense that he's unbiased and we all know he's trying to pitch product at the end of the day (instead of Parker's faux consumer advocate schtick).

I watch WLTV and although some of the antics are a bit much, I think he's making wine fun for a lot of people and commend him for that. I enjoy the show and have learned quite a bit from watching some of the older episodes.

My sentiments are in line with this statement:

quote:

Now is Parker 100% objective, probably not, but I would take his 50 years of experience over Gary’s 20. My guess is Gary would agree with that as well.

quote:

Finally, Wilford Wong may have one of the greatest palates in the world, I don't know, but becasue of his assocation with BevMo, his scores and notes don't get much play.

Nice post on Fermentation today by Tom Wark regarding this issue: Who To Trust?

quote:

There is no substituting professional scores and TN compared to your OWN DRINKING EXPERIENCE and no better guide as to whether or not you will like a wine, than your own.

Amen Roy! I've said it many times myself. Try what you buy! I just don't get half of the connesieurs out there who buy cases of product and don't bother trying it until it's "ready". What if you don't like it? There is so much variability even with the same producer between vintages. Sometimes there are stylistic changes. Sometimes things go a wry. Sometimes the batch at one store isn't as good as what another store gets. I could go on.

As for the thread....The more opinions/resources you have the better. If you like Gary...more power to you. Parker is certainly a valuable resource as well. Most importantly is not taking what anyone says as scripture. It is opinion, and it will vary between tasters, because everyone is different. And, not everyone is tasting in the same way, or necessarily getting the exact same sample. There are many variables. The best way to figure it all out, is to educate your own palate and try what you're about to get yourself into.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:

As for the thread....The more opinions/resources you have the better. If you like Gary...more power to you. Parker is certainly a valuable resource as well. Most importantly is not taking what anyone says as scripture. It is opinion, and it will vary between tasters, because everyone is different. And, not everyone is tasting in the same way, or necessarily getting the exact same sample. There are many variables. The best way to figure it all out, is to educate your own palate and try what you're about to get yourself into.

Well said

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:

quote:

There is no substituting professional scores and TN compared to your OWN DRINKING EXPERIENCE and no better guide as to whether or not you will like a wine, than your own.

Amen Roy! I've said it many times myself. Try what you buy! I just don't get half of the connesieurs out there who buy cases of product and don't bother trying it until it's "ready". What if you don't like it? There is so much variability even with the same producer between vintages. Sometimes there are stylistic changes. Sometimes things go a wry. Sometimes the batch at one store isn't as good as what another store gets. I could go on.

As for the thread....The more opinions/resources you have the better. If you like Gary...more power to you. Parker is certainly a valuable resource as well. Most importantly is not taking what anyone says as scripture. It is opinion, and it will vary between tasters, because everyone is different. And, not everyone is tasting in the same way, or necessarily getting the exact same sample. There are many variables. The best way to figure it all out, is to educate your own palate and try what you're about to get yourself into.

I am a strong advocate of only buying wines that you have tried and know you will enjoy. But it's not easy, or possible to do this in many instances due to finances. For instance, I'm a big Brunello fan and love Valdicava from the few vintages I've had. When a chance to pick up some of the 2001 Riserva came up in August of last year, I jumped on it. I bought two bottles at $175 a pop and don't plan on opening them for a long time! I've done this with a few 2005 Bordeaux's as well...I can only afford so much and would rather enjoy it in a few years when it matures. The Bordeaux I did purchase, by the way, were based on reviews by all available sources, as well as reading forums such as these (one specifically was based on a show by Gary V on the 2005 Secret de Cardinale).

Until I am able to attend more high-end tastings, most of my high-end purchases will be based on either my experience with the producer, varietal/appellation/vintage...or with reviews written by a collection of reviewers.

quote:

Originally posted by -Cp:

quote:

Originally posted by Mimik:
Vaynerchuck is entertainment and as such, I enjoy him but don't take him too seriously.

Yeah but why does he have to sound so goofy with all the repetitive words like "Sniffy Sniff"? Everytime I watch him w/ my wife in the room, she has to leave cause to her - he's like fingernails on a chalkboard...

He's too over-the-top and wears wristbands(Last time I wore a wristband was back in High School) and says stupid things like: "Hizzy" "the big W for Walla Walla" and "Sniffy Sniff" and other things that just annoy the crap out of her and others I know..

My wife does the SAME EXACT THING. She can't stand him. I think he's entertaining and can be right on about a wine sometimes, but personally I prefer Parker.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.

..Last time I checked Bobby Parker sells wine with his brother in Oregon (Beaux Freres?) as well.

So on a mere technicality, Mr. Parker does sell wine - Gary and he are on even playing fields hence.

Now, if Gary decides to review the stuff he is outsourcing to be made in California, then RP will have the edge

Parker started out his career to provide a resource for buyers who were not able to taste wines before they purchased them. Prior to that most consumers were left to the mercy of the wine merchants, growers and distributors who had a vested interest in selling wine to consumers. In this regard, Parker presented himself as an advocate for the consumer.

Vaynerchuck sells wine. Although he may review wines he does not sell, he still sells wine. He represents himself, his shop and people who want to sell you wine. He's very successful at it, but I would not confuse the difference between the two.

Please explain to me the vast number of people who still watch Gary's vlog but can't, due to shipping laws, order wine from him. Sure, he's selling, but if you spend any time on his boards, you'll find a HUGE number of people who respect his opinion and can't order wines from WL. And here's the other thing...even when I could order from there...I never did. By the time I paid for shipping, the wines cost roughly the same as what I can get here at home.

Gary is entertaining, and if you really listen to him, he knows his stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet: ...Vaynerchuck sells wine. Although he may review wines he does not sell, he still sells wine. He represents himself, his shop and people who want to sell you wine. He's very successful at it, but I would not confuse the difference between the two.

Being the wine director of a huge wine-selling business actually places Gary V. in an ideal situation to critique wines: he has his pick of an enormous inventory to taste.

Personally I have never detected the least prejudice in GV's ratings. I really believe he tells it like it is, whether his company carries the wine or not.

Whatever you may think of his personality or style, I think he is totally unbiased.

quote:

I am a strong advocate of only buying wines that you have tried and know you will enjoy. But it's not easy, or possible to do this in many instances due to finances.

In this scenairio, I would potentially comment that if you can't afford to try it, you can't afford to buy it. And, this is not meant to be an attack.

I make it a point to try virtually everything in my cellar. Granted, there are somethings I can't try before I buy. For example, a highly sought after wine at a good price that if I wait even one day to try it, it's gone from the marketplace. In this scenairio....I buy, try, and if I don't think it's worth it's price tag....off to auction it goes.

I have no desire to cellar potentially uninspiring wine. It's not cost effective. Although, in some cases I guess it could be negligible. I suppose if you had 2000 Lafite in the cellar and 20 years later, you didn't like it, you'd still have a hefty profit to take at auction on the remaining bottles.

I also don't agree with the folks who say...well, even if you try it when it's young, you have no idea what it will eventually be like, so what's the point? If that is so, then why is there a growing number of critics every year speculating on the latest vintage available? Granted, there are no for sures, but once you've tasted enough wine, it's not hard to evaluate the raw materials and decide whether or not the wine is interesting enough to cellar. Point and case....at La Paulee over the weekend, it was no surprise that Armand Rousseau's 2005's were so highly talked about. Were they ready to drink? No. But, the raw materials were nothing short of stunning, and the hundreds of people trying it were all able to see that.