Skip to main content

Reply to "Vaynerchuck or Parker?"

Originally posted by Vinyrd Skynyrd:
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.

Eek Don't tell SS Chris, he'll be crushed!

I like your thoughts on the matter and they make sense. You can call Gary whatever you want, and many have, but the bottom line is he critiques wine, and people listen.

Oh...and he's my hero!