quote:

Originally posted by Altaholic:
Brandon,

I posted earlier in this thread and, to a large extent, I defended Gary. I think that Gary has been good for wine appreciation, has brought a lot of positive attention to wine, and has broadened wine drinkers in getting them to try new things. Tanglenet was merely stating an opinion and it happens to be an opinion that I agree with. Gary is not a critic in the truest sense of the word. Sure, he evaluates wines but what wine drinker doesn't? If Gary is critic then everybody that drinks wine and forms an opinion of the wine is a critic. I do not care that Gary occasionally evaluates wines that he does not carry, that does not make him a wine critic and do not become deluded into thinking that he is one.

As far as Eric carrying Gary's scores on CT, there was probably some sort of a handsome financial arrangement between the two of them that made it worthwhile for Eric to do so. IMO, this is a questionable arrangement.

On another note, Brandon, why are all of the Vanyiacs (sp?) so defensive about the comments relating to Gary? It seems that if there ever is any discussion on this forum that is not 100% positive for Gary, the Vanyiacs are here in droves to support Gary and bash the opinions of others. It's a fact that we can express opinions without getting bashed for doing so.

Kahuna may be right, a lot of us hang with Gary and when he gets questioned sometimes we defend him as a friend and maybe we aren't as neutral as we should be. I'm not trying to bash anyone here and I respect the opinions. Gary's a big boy and can take care of himself.

It's unfortunate that Gary had to be a succesful business man first and then a wine rater after that. The questioning of his real intentions will never cease because he will always make money off of most wines he tastes. I've met him and I don't think the intentions are to sell more wine. Upsetting people like Joseph Phelps can never be good for business but Gary charges ahead just like WS, Tanzer, and Parker.

Isn't it WS's business to sell ads? How can they be considered true critics when they sell a mag based on advertising dollars? Same deal.

quote:

I didn't take your statement as a personal attack, just surprised someone would honestly believe that the only way to buy wine is once you've tasted it...how about futures or low-allocation mailing lists? Do you try all of these before you buy them?

You also didn't read all of what I wrote. If it's futures or low allocation, or highly sought after, I buy, try, and then send to auction if I don't like it.

I don't care what quantity people want to buy in....1, 2, 3, a case. I just think it's lame to not try what you buy, stash it away until it's "mature" (of which there will be varying opinions here too), and hope for the best 10-20 years or more later.

That's all I'm saying.

And, anybody out there who's been collecting wine for some time will tell you that you will more than likely go through phases and changes with what you like. Most people start off liking new world more fruit forward wines, and finally progress their way into more subtle, complex, elegant wines. Buying expensive bottles that you can only afford 2 of, not trying them, and hoping you'll like them when they are ready years later (when your preferences are possibly different) isn't a great idea from my perspective.

Unless it's 2000 Lafite or something similar. In which case, you've made a great investment and it won't matter if you've tried it or not. In this case...if you're buying highly sought after blue chip wines (1st Growth Bordeaux, DRC, Penfolds Grange, Unico, etc., etc.) it probably doesn't matter so much. Their value will rise over time and you'll probably be able to get your money back out of it, or make a nice profit.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: dr.darkrichandbold,

quote:

While you build a cellar, purchasing without having tasted the exact bottling is reality.

And, sadly, a potentially big mistake.

Oh...and we got here because Roy Hersh from www.fortheloveofport.com, who is a leading authority on port made a comment that I totally agreed with. Which related to Parker vs. Vaynerchuk. He said on page 2:

"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."

This back and forth stinks, Please and I am serious lets establish this Wine Spectator rocks, they have help the wine world in many ways, #2 Robert Parker a Legend, honest and amazing, #3 I know who I am and who my parents raised, I know I took care of my $$$ well being a long time ago and i Know why I started WLTV, I soooooooo Know why people would say I am biased and I really appreciate the support of people who care/know me. Bottom Line is this I just hope that in any small way I have helped wine in this country and if I have I am thrilled and I hope everyone can get along, there is no US vs. Them, we are all on the same team Stay well everyone!

quote:

I soooooooo Know why people would say I am biased

Gary,

The Thundershow is Must See TV in my book because, among other things, you make the point that it's cool to be passionate about wine. I tell many people to watch the show. There are plenty of essentially mundane wine ctitics and scores to go around anyway. That's not your thing. You're talents are much more rare IMHO.

But my point is that there is no test for bias or objectivity. Thus we can only rely on facts that either support independence or facts that are generally regarded as a potential for conflict of interest. The latter is one you just can't shake off.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:

quote:

While you build a cellar, purchasing without having tasted the exact bottling is reality.

And, sadly, a potentially big mistake.

And, sadly, another potentially patronizing post.

If you read our exchanges, we discussed from Sarbuze's first post, to which you admonished not to buy anything one can't afford, buying 2 or 3 bottles of an untasted wine. At that quantify, tasting one to decide whether to buy another 1 or maybe two is silly, especially if the wine won't be approachable for years.

Between professional scores, BB discussion, CT notes and scores, etc., not to mention a person's experience with a style or region, you can get plenty of information to make an informed decision.

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

I have to respond specifically to this post, only to say that this has been an issue in the automotive world for a very, very long time so please come down off your soapbox. RP isn't in the business of rating wines, he is in the business of selling advertising space in his magazine. There is as much subjectivity in his approach as there is in GV's. Albeit not as apparent, but there is a bias and it has been commented on at length. Call it "palate alignment" or what you like, but a bias no less.

FWIW, I like Gary, only because when you search through CT, here, or eBob, there are probably 10,000 notes with so many obscure references you'd think you were in a Dennis Miller routine. He has no problem stating there's some jockstrap action, that it's ok a wine tastes like jockstrap, and that you should go out and find a jockstrap to taste just to have a basis of comparison.

Anyone who can pull that off and still get the number of hits to his vlog garners my respect.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
I don't care what quantity people want to buy in....1, 2, 3, a case. I just think it's lame to not try what you buy, stash it away until it's "mature" (of which there will be varying opinions here too), and hope for the best 10-20 years or more later.

Buying expensive bottles that you can only afford 2 of, not trying them, and hoping you'll like them when they are ready years later (when your preferences are possibly different) isn't a great idea from my perspective.

I trust my experience with wines from specific producers and knowledge of the vintage. To each his own, I'm just not sure how you can think it's lame if it's my personal preference.

And the only expensive bottles I've ever done this with are the Valdicava, and a 1990 Chateau Margaux that I got at a steal of a price. For the most part, the bottles are under $100, so to me it's a safe investment. As long as a wine isn't corked, I can find a good dish to pair it with and I'm sure I'll enjoy it anyways. Again, having experience with the producers and wines in the vintage (as well as reading reviews by those whom I'm calibrated with) will ensure that I'll at least enjoy it.

In the end, it's just wine. If I don't like it, I'll find friends who do and give it to them!

RP isn't in the business of rating wines, he is in the business of selling advertising space in his magazine. There is as much subjectivity in his approach as there is in GV's. Albeit not as apparent, but there is a bias and it has been commented on at length. Call it "palate alignment" or what you like, but a bias no less.


It was my understanding that RP's Wine Advocate has no advertising...hence the term "advocate"...an unbiased opinion of the people. I think you might be mistaken on your RP facts.

GV and RP are great sources of info...quite different but both valuable.
Trev

quote:

Originally posted by nopat:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

I have to respond specifically to this post, only to say that this has been an issue in the automotive world for a very, very long time so please come down off your soapbox. RP isn't in the business of rating wines, he is in the business of selling advertising space in his magazine. There is as much subjectivity in his approach as there is in GV's. Albeit not as apparent, but there is a bias and it has been commented on at length. Call it "palate alignment" or what you like, but a bias no less.

FWIW, I like Gary, only because when you search through CT, here, or eBob, there are probably 10,000 notes with so many obscure references you'd think you were in a Dennis Miller routine. He has no problem stating there's some jockstrap action, that it's ok a wine tastes like jockstrap, and that you should go out and find a jockstrap to taste just to have a basis of comparison.

Anyone who can pull that off and still get the number of hits to his vlog garners my respect.

Nopat,

As I don't understand your reference to the automotive world, I will take your word for it.

In regard to Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, you are obviously not a subscriber and have not read it as he does not accept advertising. Period. It is based on subscription only and not on advertising. That's why he holds himself out as independent critic.

Gary may be a nice guy, knowledgeable, entertaining and cute. But the fact is, Wine Library TV reviews are a COMMERCIAL FOR SELLING WINE. You are talking about a commercial and nitpicking over a commercial. You may like the spokesperson, but he is still selling his product. WLTV was made for selling wine for Wine Library. Period.

Ronald McDonald may be a great guy and have tears behind his clown face and Suzanne Sommers maybe a nice person, but both sell hamburgers and thighmasters.

Why is it so hard for you to recognize a pitchman for a product from a bona fide critic?

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:

quote:

Originally posted by nopat:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

I have to respond specifically to this post, only to say that this has been an issue in the automotive world for a very, very long time so please come down off your soapbox. RP isn't in the business of rating wines, he is in the business of selling advertising space in his magazine. There is as much subjectivity in his approach as there is in GV's. Albeit not as apparent, but there is a bias and it has been commented on at length. Call it "palate alignment" or what you like, but a bias no less.

FWIW, I like Gary, only because when you search through CT, here, or eBob, there are probably 10,000 notes with so many obscure references you'd think you were in a Dennis Miller routine. He has no problem stating there's some jockstrap action, that it's ok a wine tastes like jockstrap, and that you should go out and find a jockstrap to taste just to have a basis of comparison.

Anyone who can pull that off and still get the number of hits to his vlog garners my respect.

Nopat,

As I don't understand your reference to the automotive world, I will take your word for it.

In regard to Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, you are obviously not a subscriber and have not read it as he does not accept advertising. Period. It is based on subscription only and not on advertising. That's why he holds himself out as independent critic.

Gary may be a nice guy, knowledgeable, entertaining and cute. But the fact is, Wine Library TV reviews are a COMMERCIAL FOR SELLING WINE. You are talking about a commercial and nitpicking over a commercial. You may like the spokesperson, but he is still selling his product. WLTV was made for selling wine for Wine Library. Period.

Ronald McDonald may be a great guy and have tears behind his clown face and Suzanne Sommers maybe a nice person, but both sell hamburgers and thighmasters.

Why is it so hard for you to recognize a pitchman for a product from a bona fide critic?

So then you're take on WS is what?

quote:

Originally posted by Brandon M:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:

quote:

Originally posted by nopat:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

I have to respond specifically to this post, only to say that this has been an issue in the automotive world for a very, very long time so please come down off your soapbox. RP isn't in the business of rating wines, he is in the business of selling advertising space in his magazine. There is as much subjectivity in his approach as there is in GV's. Albeit not as apparent, but there is a bias and it has been commented on at length. Call it "palate alignment" or what you like, but a bias no less.

FWIW, I like Gary, only because when you search through CT, here, or eBob, there are probably 10,000 notes with so many obscure references you'd think you were in a Dennis Miller routine. He has no problem stating there's some jockstrap action, that it's ok a wine tastes like jockstrap, and that you should go out and find a jockstrap to taste just to have a basis of comparison.

Anyone who can pull that off and still get the number of hits to his vlog garners my respect.

Nopat,

As I don't understand your reference to the automotive world, I will take your word for it.

In regard to Robert Parker's Wine Advocate, you are obviously not a subscriber and have not read it as he does not accept advertising. Period. It is based on subscription only and not on advertising. That's why he holds himself out as independent critic.

Gary may be a nice guy, knowledgeable, entertaining and cute. But the fact is, Wine Library TV reviews are a COMMERCIAL FOR SELLING WINE. You are talking about a commercial and nitpicking over a commercial. You may like the spokesperson, but he is still selling his product. WLTV was made for selling wine for Wine Library. Period.

Ronald McDonald may be a great guy and have tears behind his clown face and Suzanne Sommers maybe a nice person, but both sell hamburgers and thighmasters.

Why is it so hard for you to recognize a pitchman for a product from a bona fide critic?

So then you're take on WS is what?

I'm not sure if I understand the question? Can you articulate it for me?

This whole thing is getting a bit nutty. It smacks of "who's the bigger snake oil salesman?" and it's disrespectful. Not too many of us are idiots, we know that GaryV ultimately wants to provide for his family by moving pallets of wine. It's not rocket science. Hell, if I had his moxie and charisma, I'd be doing something similar. But, that's not all he's about, clearly. He's an alternative to folks who spend their leisure time sitting in a cigar-smoky back room comparing notes on their stocks and turning up their noses at the newbie who just arrived with cru bourgeois. Too many of us are wine snobs, and I welcome the inclusive attitude he brings.

Hell, I love Gary's show (usually), but I've never bought a thing from winelibrary. Why? Getting wine shipped it a hassle for me, and have only done so for a few special bottles. But, I'd not rule it out in the future.

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine.

All due respect...but isn't Robert Parker a lawyer...?

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
This whole thing is getting a bit nutty. It smacks of "who's the bigger snake oil salesman?" and it's disrespectful. Not too many of us are idiots, we know that GaryV ultimately wants to provide for his family by moving pallets of wine. It's not rocket science. Hell, if I had his moxie and charisma, I'd be doing something similar. But, that's not all he's about, clearly. He's an alternative to folks who spend their leisure time sitting in a cigar-smoky back room comparing notes on their stocks and turning up their noses at the newbie who just arrived with cru bourgeois. Too many of us are wine snobs, and I welcome the inclusive attitude he brings.

Hell, I love Gary's show (usually), but I've never bought a thing from winelibrary. Why? Getting wine shipped it a hassle for me, and have only done so for a few special bottles. But, I'd not rule it out in the future.

I think people took my "Snake Oil" comments the wrong way. I wasn't trying to put down WS or Gary, I was merely trying to show that both could be challenged in their integrity. I did love the sarcastic comments though, as if I can't take them?
(not aimed at you indy)

quote:

Originally posted by Darlene:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine.

All due respect...but isn't Robert Parker a lawyer...?

He has a law degree and passed the bar exam. But as far as I know he hasn't practiced law since 1978 or so.

He has been a writer since and makes a living selling information on wine.

And the point is? You're typecast as the job that you had 25 years ago?

Let me make this clear one more time and the reason why I posted to this thread.

WS writers and RP make a living providing wine information, including ratings. They are paid by subscription (for those who pay and it appears that a lot who post here don't). WS also accepts advertising to offset the cost of printing a large color magazine and to reduce the cost of a subscription (at least that used to be the historical business model). RP does not accept advertising and charges more money ($125 or so) for a subscription so he can make a living by writing about wine.

Gary Vaynerchuck sells wine. No one pays him for his opinion. He supports his family by selling wine. He's done a great job at it.

To compare GV and RP is to compare apples and oranges. If you want to compare WS writers and RP who make a living from the same business model, that's OK with me. If you want to compare GV and Wilfred Wong, who works for Beverages and More and rates wine for BEVMO, that's OK with me.

If Gary STOPPED selling wine and continued to rate wine, I wouldn't have a problem with comparing him with Parker either.

However, this whole conversation is comparing a critic who makes a living selling information on wine, with a merchant who makes a living selling wine.

If RP rates a wine 100 points. He doesn't make any money on the sale of the bottle. If GV rates a wine 100 points, he DOES make money on the sale of the bottle when it's purchased at his store.

Can you hear me now?

I would put WLTV in the category of an "Infomercial" where the line between content and promotion is (intentionally) blurred. In other words, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between information and a commercial message, hence Infomercial.

Well said Tanglenet!! Exactly what I've been saying all along.

This is a strange thread! I've read Wine Spectator and Robert Parker for many years---20+! I'm not familiar with Gary, or WLTV!

quote:

Originally posted by latour67:
This is a strange thread! I've read Wine Spectator and Robert Parker for many years---20+! I'm not familiar with Gary, or WLTV!

I have seen Gary and WLTV, but I wish I wouldn't have. He is a joke and comes across as having a huge Ego. He tries to be a class clown who thinks he can change the wine world.

Sorry Gary, you should leave the wine ratings to the professionals like RP and just stick to selling wine.

I never trust the opinion of anyone trying to sell me something.

quote:

Originally posted by TheVineWoman:
I have seen Gary and WLTV, but I wish I wouldn't have. He is a joke and comes across as having a huge Ego. He tries to be a class clown who thinks he can change the wine world.

Sorry Gary, you should leave the wine ratings to the professionals like RP and just stick to selling wine.

Way to tread gently with your first post, TheVineWoman....