Skip to main content

Reply to "Vaynerchuck or Parker?"

quote:
Originally posted by -Cp:
Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?


All of the reasons why Gary's not really a critic have been beaten to death here ad nauseum, so I have nothing to add there.

But, he does score wines on the 100 point scale, so on that basis alone the question is a fair one. But kind of a weird one, because the number of wines Gary has scored is so tiny compared to Parker. He hasn't (yet) provided a big enough data set to be meaningful. I've tasted only a handful of wines that have GV ratings, versus a great number of wines with Parker ratings.

But more importantly, I respect both gentlemen for completely different reasons. For me, Parker's a "conclusions" guy and Gary's a "process" guy.

With Parker, it's all about his ultimate conclusions about wines. His scores are reliable (albeit in some regions more than others). I don't spend tons of time reading his prose, I go straight to the scores.

Gary's scores - his bottom line conclusions - mean nothing to me. But I'm a big fan of his show, though, because watching it lets me engage in the whole process of tasting & evaluating wine. I think Gary is providing educational value above and beyond his role as a mere salesman. Yet I would never call him a "critic" - he doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the professional definition of one.

So, I watch almost every WLTV show. But I almost never refer to the WLTV score spreadsheet.
×
×
×
×