Vaynerchuck or Parker?

Parker, because at least he uses descriptors that I can Identify with when smelling and tasting wine. Besides, Parker is a wine critic and Gary is a wine salesman.

I trust Parker's ratings far more than Vaynerchuck, but when I'm done listening/watching Vaynerchuck taste a wine I have a far better basic sense of whether I want to buy it than when I read many of Parker's notes.

Vaynerchuck is entertainment and as such, I enjoy him but don't take him too seriously.

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..

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...

Too over-the-top and wears wristbands 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..

"THE OAK MONSTER!"

I don't even follow Gary so I have no basis for comparison.

I greatly respect Parker, particularly for specific varietals. Sure, he's pretty 'enthusiastic' regarding his scoring with some more than others but, with time, you can gage to his scoring system.

I just can not take Gary seriously. I respect his passion, but I draw the line at 'tasting my sweaty socks to correlate my palate to his.

quote:

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

In spite of his antics, I’ve learned plenty from GV. About your question, my palate has not settled down into absolute preferences, as of yet. I continue to enjoy the experience across the broad spectrum of wine regions, countries and varietals.

I haven't figured out if my palate is more calibrated toward one or the other. I am one of the few who likes Parker's OZ Shiraz recommends, for the most part, but I really like GaryV, especially with his reviews of white wines. He's helping to make wine more approachable for the masses, and give it less "snob" appeal, which I agree with wholeheartedly. His Schtick doesn't bug me one bit. Heck, I talk like him a lot of the time anyways, so no big whoop.

A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.

I'm in the same camp as wiml, and really did not know Gary was a critic per se.

I respect Parker for Bordeaux and Rhone. I have little to no interest in his opinion for anywhere else and glad he is turning many regions over to others now.

That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.

A bucket of earth and sweaty socks. How'd that work for ya?

quote:

Originally posted by wine+art:
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.

Found it difficult to correlate your palate to his on your OZ wines, eh?

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:

quote:

Originally posted by indybob:
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.

A bucket of earth and sweaty socks. How'd that work for ya?

Hey, I didn't go that far! Just the fruit, jams, nuts, and a few of the candies. It's pretty cool to nail the flavor of red Twizzlers in wine when I find it.

quote:

Originally posted by KSC02:

quote:

Originally posted by wine+art:
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.

Found it difficult to correlate your palate to his on your OZ wines, eh?

... if it is Spain or Oz, and it is Parker, it must be a 95+, right?

I just enjoy wine from Loire, Alsace, Burgundy ( he was always clueless) Champagne, Oregon, Languedoc, Italy, (all) and Washington, and never seek his opinion on any of these.

I do seek out his opinion on Rhone (red only) and Bordeaux. (red only)

Why anyone would pay any attention to a wine salesman's "opinions," especially as opposed to those of an "independent" critic, is beyond me.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
Why anyone would pay any attention to a wine salesman's "opinions," especially as opposed to those of an "independent" critic, is beyond me.

Board-O. I hear you, but if you actually watch GaryV's shows with any frequency, you'll see that he gives a great many of the wines he tastes a "pass" and does not recommend them. Almost all of them are wines he stocks. Sure, he's a wine salesman (which I'll admit does make me a bit skeptical at times), but there's no denying his palate and knowledge are excellent.

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.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
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 have absolutely no connection to Gary, except that of a viewer. It should be obvious to anyone who watches him regularly that he is completely objective -- I remember that once he panned a wine and said something like (I'm paraphrasing), "I wish we hadn't bought so many cases of it."

In all honesty, I believe for Gary it's all about the ego. The sheer number of shows per week, the endless request for attention in the form of the number of people he wants to post in response to his shows, etc. is certainly indicative to his need for attention and validation.

I believe his (his father's I suppose) business is truly very successful, and WLTV has provided the son an opportunity to show Dad that he can contribute, and be successful in his own right. A psychologist would probably have a field day...

He has the power over what to sell, and how much to sell, and I truly believe there is a certain sense of freedom and objectivity in his reviews (he doesn't owe a thing to anyone is probably his perspective).

That ALL said, I love the guy, and the show. It's quite addictive and I believe very unique. I get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the whole WLTV experience.

My wife and others I've exposed to the show all agree that his approach is very entertaining and puts an anti-snob spin on our favourite subject.

Let's face it - We all take this subject way too seriously considering our lives are not dependent upon it. It's just a hobby for most of us on this board.

Gary goes out of his way to stress that you should not take his word for it (and I don't), and that the only so-called critic you should listen to are those that have an alignment with your palate. For the most part, my palate has nothing in common with James Laube, however have found my 'scores' to line up quite close to James Molesworth. Hence, I tend to pay more attention.

With regards to Parker, I tend to shave at least 3-5 points off his scores, and generally that is where I will land with my own preferences.

To conclude, I personally put my 'trust' level at an equal level when it comes to both Parker and Vaynerchuk. But that's just me.

Cheers,

- Ian

quote:

Originally posted by -Cp:
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...

Mine too. I agree with you as to his antics also, it seems to be a branding/movement thing - he uses the same annoying phrases and those who like him only or more than other wine critics identify with them (and sadly enough might use them, too).

As to whether he's critic, he tastes wines, describes them and assigns a rating, so I think that has to make him a critic. The independence thing is not lost on me though. All other things being equal, I prefer blind and independent ratings to non-blind independent ratings and both to non-blind non-independent ratings.

But all other things are not equal and also, blind, independent ratings are, IMHO, more theoretical than real. I think the major critics often know what they're tasting even if its blind and as all of them are very much a part of the wine world, well, independence is merely a relative thing. As others have noted he pans so many of the wines they stock at all price points.

I don't like the antics. I don't even really like the "changing the wine world" shtick - I've never been a class warfare sort and I don't find him that different than other critics, save that he doesn't tend to taste really expensive wines. If you listed his ratings and compared them, I think you'd have a lot of head scratching to do. But I better understand what hes tasting than when I read others notes. Not the sweat socks nonsense (see gimicks above), the bigger things: fruit, acidity, tannin, oak, etc.

Just my .02

I am glad we have both. Parker is strictly a numbers guys for me. I don't read his mag and pretty much stumble across his ratings when buying wine ie: "RP 92" like many of us. That's about it for me with him nowadays. Too many sources on the Internet (wine boards, cellartracker etc.)to get my skinny on any bottle I want and have lots of opinions. Aside from big year Boardeaux and Burgundy for serious futures investing in a vintage (and even that is not a gimmie anymore), he's just not a big deal or necessary for me.

I do enjoy viewing many of Gary's videos (not all)as truly seeing a wine being tasted and evaluated in front of your eyes is pretty neat and a helluva lot more fun than a 3 sentence printed note with a score. At least for me - even with the over the top goofy antics, Gary knows his stuff without being snobby. When he gets down to it - he gets 1/2 way serious.

I don't care about or what his motives are or are not. I'm guessing it's a normal balance of heavy business and some pleasure doing it. It's nice to watch the tastings when you are drinking a good wine yourself and you do not want to put the TV on and just skip to the good wine parts in sideways...

Him doing these videos is a good thing - oh and don't forget they're FREE to view and free of obligation, which IMO gives him a long leash to not be overly criticized or have motives questioned. Don't like it. Don't watch.

As to the question from the beginning of the thread, I align with no one critic or taster more than any other. I agree with some and disagree with others.

quote:

With regards to Parker, I tend to shave at least 3-5 points off his scores, and generally that is where I will land with my own preferences.

Me too, but then I use the 96 point system...

Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity. He is the Tommy Lasorda of wine though, and that is no small compliment.

quote:

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

Perfectly stated.

quote:

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

Sure he tastes wines that he sells - that's the point of doing the show. That's exactly how I would do it to. He's a businessman and it's a free show. How much charity do you want? He does not recommend wines he does not like and he does educate you. Take it or leave it.

There's also a ton of crooked %hit going on in the "legitimate wine critic world" and has for years. How many gold watches has Parker received from various Chateau Barons over the years? Let's not be nieve. And these "real critics" are what drives the prices up on all of us - not guys like Gary.

Wow - and I don't even buy from Wine Library

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.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:

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.

Unless there is an allocation issue, of course.

Yeah...that's a pain in the butt. Some of these wines have become so sought after, you're lucky to get one bottle. I hate that. And, I don't subscribe to it...there's plenty of other stuff out there. Unless I can procure at least 3...I usually don't buy. But that's me...

To be honest, I really don't think that Vaynerchuk's intended audience are the people with 1000s of posts here or over at eBob.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
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".

How do you buy before you try if you're purchasing futures or mailing list wines? For me, I can't afford to fly to Europe and even if I did, I would not know how to taste a barrel sample.

quote:

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.

OK, one more time, it is quite possible that Gary V posseses a world class palate and renders entirely unbiased opinions. I spoke merely to the clear appearance of, are you ready, "conflict of interest". I think GV is the greatest cheerleader of wineolgy around. People love his style and he attracts a huge following. That is a good thing! He destroys the presumption that to enjoy fine wines you have to be white, partially bald, and speak with a British accent. I love watching Gary. I just do not believe as much in his scores and reviews as I do in Mr. Parker or Mr. Suckling.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
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.

Wow. How did we get here from Parker v. Vaynerchuck? I have this uncle who does his best to be the overbearing father I never had...

Wasn't Sarbuze talking about buying wine he/she could afford but not afford to buy extra to drink young? Frankly, what in the world would are you going to do with some of these wines on release - decant them for a week?

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

quote:

Originally posted by GlennK:
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.

Point well taken on the Silver Oak. And if that genre were the only wines that he panned that he also sold, I would share your skepticism. But how do you account for the wines that he sells where he says something like, "RP gave this one a '92' and I think he totally missed it. I'm giving this one a major pass."?

You really don't have to watch very long to come across this kind of note from GV. He's done this enough times to convince me that he's no less objective than anyone else you can throw out there. The fact that you or I might have difficulty with that is irrelevant.

- Senator

Parker isn't a big advocate of blind tasting either... so what's your point on this?

quote:

Originally posted by jqmunro:
Parker isn't a big advocate of blind tasting either... so what's your point on this?

There just seem to be some folks who actually think anyone is truly objective.

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by jqmunro:
Parker isn't a big advocate of blind tasting either... so what's your point on this?

There just seem to be some folks who actually think anyone is truly objective.

By the same token, you cannot deny the contrary. Logically speaking, the contrary is correct since in order for you to prove your statement you'll have to somehow show that everyone is not objective.

How about neither. Although I find GV very entertaining, and have learned alot from him, my palate just doesn't align with his. As for Parker and the WA crew my experience with them is that their scores are inflated and therefore I just don't trust them. Call me a homer but I'll take Steiman, Laube and Suckling any day.

Parker gave this red called Falesco a 90 or 91 and Vanderchuk said it was mediocre wine with a "sad" finish. Made me laugh, that comment, and boosted his cred in my book

quote:

Originally posted by bjnatkels:


Call me a homer but I'll take Steiman , Laube, Suckling and Molesworth any day.

it's nice when molesworth triples the value of your 05 Clos in a matter of a month. I can understand why you would take him anyday

quote:

Parker gave this red called Falesco a 90 or 91 and Vanderchuk said it was mediocre wine with a "sad" finish. Made me laugh, that comment, and boosted his cred in my book

I saw that. I'll trust Gary on that one as you can see his face tasting it plus Wine Library probably bought 200 cases of that stuff, so that was a good honest drubbing. Cheapie italians like that are bought by the car load like Yellow Tail. Still, most of the people who drink it don't know who the hell Robert Parker or Gary Vaynerchuck are anyway, so it doesn't matter.

I've had Falesco Sangiovese before. It is a table wine in a pizza restaurant - like on every table 90 points seemed pushing it. I'll probably have it poured for me again sometime.

quote:

Originally posted by Poquelin:

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.

Do you feel the same way about Wilfred Wong at BEVMO?

quote:

Originally posted by WEc:
By the same token, you cannot deny the contrary. Logically speaking, the contrary is correct since in order for you to prove your statement you'll have to somehow show that everyone is not objective.

True objectivity (or even true selflessness) has all the factual foundation of the Easter Bunny. I don't need a heaping plate of syllogism to recognize what is, inherently, human nature.

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by WEc:
By the same token, you cannot deny the contrary. Logically speaking, the contrary is correct since in order for you to prove your statement you'll have to somehow show that everyone is not objective.

True objectivity (or even true selflessness) has all the factual foundation of the Easter Bunny.

That, unfortunately, is called an assumption. There is nothing factual about your proposition aside from your own postulations.

quote:

Originally posted by WEc:
That, unfortunately, is called an assumption. There is nothing factual about your proposition aside from your own postulations.

Heh, you make me chuckle.

quote:

Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
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.

So anyone who cannot afford a case of wine for $2400 shouldn't buy two bottles? That's a great outlook...I wonder why people think wine enthusiasts are snobs.

A lot of people buy a bottle or two of wines that are that pricey as most people don't want to spend that much on a single case of wine. I'm a young, aspiring collector - why should I commit to large quantities of a few wines I may like when there are so many things out there that I haven't tried yet?

By the time some of my purchases reach their peak in 10-15 years, I'll be turning 40, will be long done with graduate school, and can worry about only buying things I've tried or know I'll love then. For now, a lot of the fun is trying anything and everything at all price ranges. I rarely buy more than 2-3 bottles of any single wine- there is so much great juice out there I don't want to miss out on any of it.

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?

quote:

Originally posted by sarbuze:
I rarely buy more than 2-3 bottles of any single wine- there is so much great juice out there I don't want to miss out on any of it.

I'm in my 40's and still buy that way. I never buy a case of anything.

quote:

Vaynerchuck or Parker?

James Suckling

I’ll preface this by stating that I don't watch WLTV all that often (maybe 2x per month) and I have only bought wine from WL several times in the past.

I’ve tried several of Gary's recs in the past and have not been disappointed. I've also tasted some recs of his that I have not liked but Gary's mantra is to "trust your palate." I'm sure he really doesn't care if not everybody agrees with him. Additionally, I have found his palate to be a bit similar to my own in that he does not favor wines that are fake, heavily extracted, heavily manipulated, heavily oaked, etc. Several here have been a bit down on Gary for his unusual descriptors and verbiage on his show. I agree that he might seem a bit over-the-top and sophomoric at times but, in general, he knows what he is talking about. Would people really want to listen and watch a video blog in which the people talk in a monotone voice all of the time and do not have a sense of humor? Let's face it; a portion of what Gary does is for entertainment purposes. Sure he does want to promote the store and sell wine but why shouldn’t he? Wine Library is paying for the production of this show and they are not going to promote Canal's over in Pennsauken.

With all of this being said, I am not under the delusion that Gary is a wine critic. Personally, I will trust a recomendation from Tanzer and Molesworth before one from Gary. However, if Gary can accomplish the task of getting people to open their eyes and expand their horizons to trying new wines, he is doing a good job with his show. Additionally, he is accomplishing what a lot of advertising for other businesses is failing to with that being increasing brand awareness for WL AND serving as an educator. Back to the original question – I've probably tasted a higher percentage of wines with high scores from Parker that I thought weren't that good as opposed to wines recommended by Gary.

quote:

Originally posted by jfoobar:

quote:

Originally posted by WEc:
That, unfortunately, is called an assumption. There is nothing factual about your proposition aside from your own postulations.

Heh, you make me chuckle.

As do you. You obviously don't understand the concept of an objective truth and are just a victim of your own self-fulfilling prophecy. You are correct in that you do not need a heaping plate of syllogism from me as obviously the laws of logic don't apply to you.

Ignorance is bliss!

You can't be objective if you know what you're tasting – you can be professional, but you have a preconceived notion of what's in that glass, so its simply not possible. So Gary V. and Parker are out. As an aside, I assume that Jay Miller and the others at WA also do not taste blind – am I correct? What about IWC?

Either way, count me in no one is objective camp. Mostly, a blind taster might not know what exact bottle he or she is tasting, but its hard not to know a lot about the wine, including a pretty good estimate of price point or at least this is/is not a <$25 wine.

Further, after drinking wine for roughly a decade and really getting into it about 3 yrs ago, I can pick out some producers and/or wines blind. I can only assume these guys do it far more regularly. In this vane, Parker's famed memory almost makes it pointless for him to taste blind – he's going to know so often, he might as well make sure his preconceptions are accurate.

Blind tasters can do everything to keep preconceptions out of the score and notes, but a professional has to know too much about what's in the glass actually to have no preconceptions. And then there's the advertising and the socializing with wine people, and the flame fest when you pan hordes of Opus One fan's favorite wine. So again, no one is objective.

I guess if you never left your house or watched/read/listened to modern media while training yourself to be a wine expert by having de-labeled and re-bottled wines (those Turley bottles would start to be recognizable) delivered so you know only vintage, region, appellation, etc., then you could claim to have accomplished what would seem to be the holy grail of wine tasting - be an "objective" critic.

Incidentally, the one critic that I think might have somehow accomplished this is Laube, because his Cab scores seem to have no bearing whatever to price and producer and little relation to prior track record. Before anyone thinks I'm being facetious, I don't drink enough Cab to have anything but an anecdotal opinion, but I have found many of his ratings on bottles I have had to be spot on, especially the few bottles I've had from the 1996 and 1997 retrospectives.

quote:

Originally posted by vinole:

quote:

Originally posted by sarbuze:
I rarely buy more than 2-3 bottles of any single wine- there is so much great juice out there I don't want to miss out on any of it.

I'm in my 40's and still buy that way. I never buy a case of anything.

I'm in my 30's and I'm with you. I would not buy a case of 1 wine either. 2-4 bottles is my usual purchase. I prefer variety.

quote:

Originally posted by WineWhiner:

quote:

Originally posted by vinole:

quote:

Originally posted by sarbuze:
I rarely buy more than 2-3 bottles of any single wine- there is so much great juice out there I don't want to miss out on any of it.

I'm in my 40's and still buy that way. I never buy a case of anything.

I'm in my 30's and I'm with you. I would not buy a case of 1 wine either. 2-4 bottles is my usual purchase. I prefer variety.

We could start a separate buying habits thread. I try to do 2 of most things, though I buy 6 on occasion. I have bought more from the same producer at one shot, but its different bottlings.

About half the time I have not tasted the exact bottling and am relying on prior experience with the producer, ratings/notes, recommendations, etc. Curiously the most blind purchases I've ever made were my early purchases from Siduri/Novy and Ketcham Estate last year, relying on BB opinion more than anything else. Fantastic wine buying decision making on my part.

People have a right to not like Gary's "schtick"...and a right to not agree w/ his palate. What I don't get is the sentiment, repeated many times in this thread, that Gary's JUST a wine saleslman...ONLY there to sell wine....and THAT is why you can't trust his scores. The factual data simply does not support this claim...... simply he pans more wines than he picks. That's right....more than 50% of the wines are PANNED. Further, I've heard him say things like, "This is the #1 selling <insert varietal> @ Wine Library, and I'm telling you...never buy this again!! STOP!!".

So simply, I think you have both things going on....Gary sells wine, but he also rates wine.....does he rate wine honestly....I thinnk so.......the "facts" are undeniable.

Another little fact, every review that he does on WLTV is entered into a Spreadsheet that shows up on the WLTV site. All of those reveiws and scores also download automatically to the WL website as well for each individual wine. I know...."that PROVES that he's just there to sell the wine". But no, you would be wrong....it's not just the RECS, but ALL of the reviews are downloaded......all of the pans, known as (and you WS guys will go off the deep-end here) VaynerPAZZZ's. Here's the point.....name ONE wine retailer that publicly posts negative reviews for the wines they're selling. What other retailer posts something, from the staff, saying...essentially...."don't buy this wine."? Well, I'll save you the time......not one retailer does this. And the point is that Gary is taking the wearing of the two hats seriously. If he were doing WLTV soley to sell wine, he wouldn't post all of the negative reviews.

So, don't like him or his terms or his wristbands, but enough w/ just summarily dismissing him as "He just sells wine". The facts just don't support this.

With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy is the best.

Chris,

I think the point that some were making here is that Wine Library will still sell plenty of the wines Gary pans to its walk in customers who didn't see him pan the wine.

Also, panning wines is necessary for his show and probably increases online wine sales for Wine Library. If Gary never panned a wine, no one would trust him. By panning wines, GV has the appearance of objectivity. Thus, folks are more likely to trust a good score from GV and buy lots of the wine he recommends on the show.

So, Gary gets the best of both worlds. He gets purchases from his regular walk in folks who don't realize that he just scored certain popular wines poorly, and he gets huge online sales from folks who think he is completely objective about a wine he rates 94 points on the show.

I don't know Gary and he may be completely objective, but I don't think it is correct to suggest that panning a wine to online customers shows objectivity. I'm sure he's not taking financial hits by doing WLTV.

FGV

quote:

With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy is the best.

How can any form of judging - where you're drinking tons of wine at once - be the best?

It's better than not tasting blind. Of the tasters mentioned, the WS's method clearly is the best.

quote:

Originally posted by SS Chris:
People have a right to not like Gary's "schtick"...and a right to not agree w/ his palate. What I don't get is the sentiment, repeated many times in this thread, that Gary's JUST a wine saleslman...ONLY there to sell wine....and THAT is why you can't trust his scores. The factual data simply does not support this claim...... simply he pans more wines than he picks. That's right....more than 50% of the wines are PANNED. Further, I've heard him say things like, "This is the #1 selling <insert varietal> @ Wine Library, and I'm telling you...never buy this again!! STOP!!".

So simply, I think you have both things going on....Gary sells wine, but he also rates wine.....does he rate wine honestly....I thinnk so.......the "facts" are undeniable.

Another little fact, every review that he does on WLTV is entered into a Spreadsheet that shows up on the WLTV site. All of those reveiws and scores also download automatically to the WL website as well for each individual wine. I know...."that PROVES that he's just there to sell the wine". But no, you would be wrong....it's not just the RECS, but ALL of the reviews are downloaded......all of the pans, known as (and you WS guys will go off the deep-end here) VaynerPAZZZ's. Here's the point.....name ONE wine retailer that publicly posts negative reviews for the wines they're selling. What other retailer posts something, from the staff, saying...essentially...."don't buy this wine."? Well, I'll save you the time......not one retailer does this. And the point is that Gary is taking the wearing of the two hats seriously. If he were doing WLTV soley to sell wine, he wouldn't post all of the negative reviews.

So, don't like him or his terms or his wristbands, but enough w/ just summarily dismissing him as "He just sells wine". The facts just don't support this.

With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy is the best.

IA, I understand that many don't utilize online, BUT....many do. And this group who shop online is huge compared to folks who regularly watdch WLTV episodes. More than 50% of WL's total revenue of $60+ million in revenues is done via online ordering. So the fact that Gary has panned close to 700 wines AND publishes that panning on his site should not be minimized. Again, please find me one Wine retailer that publicly pans the wines they sell on their website.

I would also point out that many "walk-in" customers (like me) purchase many wines online....and then augment their online purchases when they get there.

But you're correct that not everybody see those negative reviews.....but to minimize it seems "not objective" to me.

I think that if you watch the show w/ any regularity, most would conclude that he's being honest. Another example, there have been times when Gary discloses, prior to tasting the wine, that he's very friendly with the particular winemaker....and he then pans the wine.....you can see the pain on Gary's face as he does this.

I'll also direct folks to an episode (this is early WLTV, BEFORE much of the national attention Gary's received) where Gary addresses this question directly. It won't convince all of you, but thought some may be interested in hearing his thoughts. The backdrop is that, a few episodes earlier, Gary had scored the 2003 Corte Riva Merlot quite highly....and there were questions posted in the "comments" section about Gary scoring it high solely to sell the wine.

http://tv.winelibrary.com/2006/09/27/the-wine-worlds-bi...e-brands-episode-99/

Finally, if it ends up that Gary is objective....and that this objectivity ends up selling more wine for him overall, then I say, "all the power to him". It just seems that things like "panning more wines than he recommends" (not just a few)....and posting the close to 700 pans on his WL site is being minimized. If these rather significant pieces of information don't impress you at all, then I don't think there's anything I or anyone can say to convince you to at least reconsider.

quote:

Originally posted by -Cp:

quote:

With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy is the best.

How can any form of judging - where you're drinking tons of wine at once - be the best?

Wow....even this part of my post is disputed.....this is a tough board!

and, to answer your question...because blind is, undeniably, the most objective format.

Chris,

With due regard, you actually made my point.

It very well may be that WL's internet sales are soaring b/c GV pans certain wines thereby giving him the appearance of objectivity with regard to the wines he scores highly. This leads to trust and trust leads to sales from the VaynerNation.

My point was really that simple.

Gary appears to be a nice guy, and very well may be objective, but I think you are a bit naive re the business end of things.

But, people are drinking wine and talking about it, so it's a good thing.

quote:

Originally posted by Senator:
But how do you account for the wines that he sells where he says something like, "RP gave this one a '92' and I think he totally missed it. I'm giving this one a major pass."?

That’s easy, if RP gave it a 92 it will sell out no matter what Gary says.

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:

quote:

Originally posted by Poquelin:

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.

Do you feel the same way about Wilfred Wong at BEVMO?

I don't remember Wong giving a pazzzzzzzz to any of the wines he's writes about. Gary will do this for wines very low rated or even for high rated but too high priced wines.

quote:

Originally posted by SS Chris:
People have a right to not like Gary's "schtick"...and a right to not agree w/ his palate. What I don't get is the sentiment, repeated many times in this thread, that Gary's JUST a wine saleslman...ONLY there to sell wine....and THAT is why you can't trust his scores. The factual data simply does not support this claim...... simply he pans more wines than he picks. That's right....more than 50% of the wines are PANNED. Further, I've heard him say things like, "This is the #1 selling <insert varietal> @ Wine Library, and I'm telling you...never buy this again!! STOP!!".

So simply, I think you have both things going on....Gary sells wine, but he also rates wine.....does he rate wine honestly....I thinnk so.......the "facts" are undeniable.

Another little fact, every review that he does on WLTV is entered into a Spreadsheet that shows up on the WLTV site. All of those reveiws and scores also download automatically to the WL website as well for each individual wine. I know...."that PROVES that he's just there to sell the wine". But no, you would be wrong....it's not just the RECS, but ALL of the reviews are downloaded......all of the pans, known as (and you WS guys will go off the deep-end here) VaynerPAZZZ's. Here's the point.....name ONE wine retailer that publicly posts negative reviews for the wines they're selling. What other retailer posts something, from the staff, saying...essentially...."don't buy this wine."? Well, I'll save you the time......not one retailer does this. And the point is that Gary is taking the wearing of the two hats seriously. If he were doing WLTV soley to sell wine, he wouldn't post all of the negative reviews.

So, don't like him or his terms or his wristbands, but enough w/ just summarily dismissing him as "He just sells wine". The facts just don't support this.

With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy is the best.

What he said.

I like Gary V very much. I find it a refreshing change to hear wine talked about in such a down to earth manner. He is constantly telling people it's NOT about ratings and that they should make up their own mind. A great example for me is that I've bought about 10 of the wines he's recommended and only liked about 2 of them. I now have a comparison basis to his reviews. I sure Gary would say "right on" on this. He is not trying to be a guru.

quote:

Originally posted by MorBorDo:

quote:

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.

OK, one more time, it is quite possible that Gary V posseses a world class palate and renders entirely unbiased opinions. I spoke merely to the clear appearance of, are you ready, "conflict of interest". I think GV is the greatest cheerleader of wineolgy around. People love his style and he attracts a huge following. That is a good thing! He destroys the presumption that to enjoy fine wines you have to be white, partially bald, and speak with a British accent. I love watching Gary. I just do not believe as much in his scores and reviews as I do in Mr. Parker or Mr. Suckling.

Very well said. I agree 100%

quote:

Originally posted by Instant Access:
Chris,

With due regard, you actually made my point.

It very well may be that WL's internet sales are soaring b/c GV pans certain wines thereby giving him the appearance of objectivity with regard to the wines he scores highly. This leads to trust and trust leads to sales from the VaynerNation.

My point was really that simple.

Gary appears to be a nice guy, and very well may be objective, but I think you are a bit naive re the business end of things.

But, people are drinking wine and talking about it, so it's a good thing.

I've been involved w/ business for 25 years....but I think we seem to be agreeing. The only point I was responding to was whether Gary is objective.....again, if that objectivity sells more wine, that's OK with me. What would not be OK is if he wasn't objective (as objective as one can be when not tasting blindly).

To each their own. I would, however, suggest that anyone who thinks he is super annoying go back and watch the Verite Episode (#1) and see how much has changed in two years. It's hillarious to see Gary uptight and nervous.

Personally, I think the worst part of WLTV is that stupid spread sheet.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

Originally posted by SS Chris:
People have a right to not like Gary's "schtick"...and a right to not agree w/ his palate. What I don't get is the sentiment, repeated many times in this thread, that Gary's JUST a wine saleslman...ONLY there to sell wine....and THAT is why you can't trust his scores. The factual data simply does not support this claim...... simply he pans more wines than he picks. That's right....more than 50% of the wines are PANNED. Further, I've heard him say things like, "This is the #1 selling <insert varietal> @ Wine Library, and I'm telling you...never buy this again!! STOP!!".

So simply, I think you have both things going on....Gary sells wine, but he also rates wine.....does he rate wine honestly....I thinnk so.......the "facts" are undeniable.

Another little fact, every review that he does on WLTV is entered into a Spreadsheet that shows up on the WLTV site. All of those reveiws and scores also download automatically to the WL website as well for each individual wine. I know...."that PROVES that he's just there to sell the wine". But no, you would be wrong....it's not just the RECS, but ALL of the reviews are downloaded......all of the pans, known as (and you WS guys will go off the deep-end here) VaynerPAZZZ's. Here's the point.....name ONE wine retailer that publicly posts negative reviews for the wines they're selling. What other retailer posts something, from the staff, saying...essentially...."don't buy this wine."? Well, I'll save you the time......not one retailer does this. And the point is that Gary is taking the wearing of the two hats seriously. If he were doing WLTV soley to sell wine, he wouldn't post all of the negative reviews.

So, don't like him or his terms or his wristbands, but enough w/ just summarily dismissing him as "He just sells wine". The facts just don't support this.

With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy is the best.

What he said.

I like Gary V very much. I find it a refreshing change to hear wine talked about in such a down to earth manner. He is constantly telling people it's NOT about ratings and that they should make up their own mind. A great example for me is that I've bought about 10 of the wines he's recommended and only liked about 2 of them. I now have a comparison basis to his reviews. I sure Gary would say "right on" on this. He is not trying to be a guru.

Definitely Vaynerchuck... Parker values some aspects in wine that I do not (what I would call overextracted fruit bombs), and while Gary might appreciate them as well... His wine reviews comment on style preferences and who might like the wine more than others... rather than some absolute good or bad rating from Parker. Parkers reviews are harder for me to decipher in that way, so I've just come not to trust his scores in many regions.

And though he's in sales, I've never been disappointed in a Gary recommended/scored wine - noting that I'll skip some b/c the style doesn't sound my speed.

Also, I'll say that Gary seems to value a broader range of styles than Parker. (It seems to me.)

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.

quote:

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.

"When I drink, I think; and when I think, I drink." Francois Rabelais

The same schtick goes for B-21 shop in Tampa. The salesmen rate wines, but you can never cross orient their taste notes & ratings to a viable base such as WS or RMP.

Strickly salesmenship. If some one says is good, most folks will blindly follow along.

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.

If he's not a critic, why does someone respected as well as Eric Levine put his scores on CTs list? Why does Gary taste Kosta Browne? I get that people think he's just a business man, and to some degree he is, but it does not simply stop at being a wine salesman. He's a lot more than that.

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.

I’ve never looked around the WLTV Forum in the past but I was over there and found the quote below

quote:

Originally posted by SS Chris on the WLTV Board:
Prediction: now that there's a flurry of post from Vayniacs of on W
S......it's only a matter of time, before they start bashing us as devout "minions" of Gary's.....and telling us to get off their board. Mind you, none of us have been bashing any of them.....or their board.............well...everyone except NY Pete of course.

But you watch.....only a matter of time before they start belittling us. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see......actually, somebody already called me "naive about business".

I guess that the last paragraph of my post above fulfilled SS Chris’ prediction. It’s always the us vs. them attitude that emanates from those WLTVers.

This is kind of an add on to Board-O’s comments on the other thread about the WL e-mails. I always find it kinda funny that the WL e-mails (more than any of the other wine retailer e-mails that I get) really push ratings/points. Every WL e-mail screams “91 pts for under $15 bucks, best QPR of the year” or something similar. I’ve heard Gary say more than once that points don’t matter, bla, bla, bla, but every e-mail is just one big shelf taker. I haven’t seen an e-mail in a while from the WL that was something that was unrated by the wine press and sounded new and interesting.

quote:

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.

Though I do not condone much of the sophmoric behavior which seems to run unchecked over at WLTV forums it seems that a few there often poke fun of and criticize Gary. For example.

http://tv.winelibrary.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4443&start=0

So I guess they feel that they do enough to keep Mr. Vaynerchuck in check. Someone posting here about Vaynerchuck and not on WLtv forums would lead the Vayneeacs (sp) to come to his defense feeling that said poster does not follow GV enough to comment.

quote:

Originally posted by Brandon M:

If he's not a critic, why does someone respected as well as Eric Levine put his scores on CTs list? Why does Gary taste Kosta Browne? I get that people think he's just a business man, and to some degree he is, but it does not simply stop at being a wine salesman. He's a lot more than that.

I don't know the relationship between Eric Levine and GV. I'm guessing the ratings are provided FREE to CT so it's cheap content and it's a free advertising to Gary. It's called cross promotion.

As for the reason why Eric has the ratings listed: I'm guessing it's because Gary is a wine celebrity right now (with a fan base right here in River City) and is quoted in print, TV, and the Internet. Doesn't change his day job as a wine salesman. If he has Gary on the site, he should also have Wilfred Wong too, who is the "critic" for Beverages and More (BEVMO).

Wilford Wong and Gary Vaynerchuck have the same jobs. They taste wine to sell wine. The only difference between the two is that Gary is more popular.

quote:

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.

You may be right. We will never know because there is no genetic test for bias. The best we can do is to find an opinion which at least appears like that person has no reason to be biased and every reason to be unbiased. Here's a little 3 question test. If you get them all right (answers at the bottom) then you will understand what people are trying to say here.

Q1. Which of the following individuals would you think is most likely to give you an unbiased opinion of which is the best LCD TV on the market today;

A1. The sales guy on the floor at Best Buy during "Toshiba Blow-Out Days!".
A2. The most recent review of LCD TVs in Consumer Reports magazine.

Q2. Whom of the following two sources would you most trust to give you the straight skinny on the best full size pickup on the market today.

A1. Your cousin Vince who works the sales lot at the local Ford dealereship.
A2. The annual Road and Track Full Sized Truck roundup for 2008.

Q3. Which of the following sources would you use to help evaluate a Bordeaux wine to purchase for your daughter's wedding in June.

A1. Wine Library TV archives.
A2. Robert Parker's Bordeaux tastings (alternately if you have it Bordeaux: A Consumer's Guide to the World's Finest Wines, 4th ed. 2003.)

If you answered A2 for all, you get the point being made.

quote:

Originally posted by GlennK:
I’ve heard Gary say more than once that points don’t matter, bla, bla, bla, but every e-mail is just one big shelf taker. I haven’t seen an e-mail in a while from the WL that was something that was unrated by the wine press and sounded new and interesting.

So you're saying there's a disconnect between WL's marketing and GV's ratings ... I'm not sure that cuts against Vaynerchuck.