Skip to main content

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.
Last edited by drdarkrichandbold
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 Smile 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.
Big GrinTrev
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 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? Roll Eyes
(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.


Cool 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?
quote:
Originally posted by latour67:
Confused 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! Red Face


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.
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.... Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by ND:
I never trust the opinion of anyone trying to sell me something.


Everyone has something to sell.


This whole thing is really a generational thing. I'd bet most folks who are into WLTV are younger (in body and/or spirit). Most people who don't get WLTV are probably older. Neither is right or wrong. Gary might disagree, as he preaches inclusivity, but WLTV may be another version of FUBU (For Us By Us, BTW), but as long as the WLTVers are don't disregard the opinions of the elder statesmen outright, that FUBU attitude is fine with me.
quote:
Originally posted by indybob:
quote:
Originally posted by ND:
I never trust the opinion of anyone trying to sell me something.


Everyone has something to sell.


This whole thing is really a generational thing. I'd bet most folks who are into WLTV are younger (in body and/or spirit). Most people who don't get WLTV are probably older. Neither is right or wrong. Gary might disagree, as he preaches inclusivity, but WLTV may be another version of FUBU (For Us By Us, BTW), but as long as the WLTVers are don't disregard the opinions of the elder statesmen outright, that FUBU attitude is fine with me.
I don’t think it’s an age thing at all. I’m young, I like Gary, I think he is good for wine in general, but I don’t take him serious as an unbiased wine critic. Tanglenet summed it up pretty well IMO.
quote:
In the end, it's just wine. If I don't like it, I'll find friends who do and give it to them!


And that's fine too. I certainly don't care what you do with your wine. And, if you'd prefer RP, WS, and cellartracker to stock your cellar, that's your choice. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm just saying the same thing that Roy Hersh said earlier, and that Gary V. said earlier, and that Parker says too. Trust your own palate, and educate it before you drop money on something you can barely afford. What someone else thinks is great or will be great in 20 years, may not make a lot of difference if it's not your cup of tea.
quote:
Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
]
And, if you'd prefer RP, WS, and cellartracker to stock your cellar, that's your choice. Nothing wrong with that.

I'm just saying the same thing that Roy Hersh said earlier, and that Gary V. said earlier, and that Parker says too. Trust your own palate, and educate it before you drop money on something you can barely afford.


You're missing the point that I trust my palate and wine knowledge enough to buy these wines knowing I've enjoyed them from other vintages. Maybe not everyone is comfortable with this, but so far it's worked out great for me.

My original statement was in agreement with you:
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.


You are making the assumption that I can "barely afford" these wines? My budget allows me quite a bit of freedom in my wine purchases. That said, it's not a loss to me if in 10 years I don't like 1 of two bottles I purchased...as to taste it in the first place I would have bought one of the bottles. Again, the other bottle I can use for cooking or give to my father or a friend. Maybe I'll look you up in 10 years and donate a few bottles I don't like.

Since you seem to be so adamant that you should only buy wines you know you'll like:

How do you taste every wine you purchase before you actually purchase it? Meaning, do you not have to make an initial purchase of one bottle before stocking up?

How are you able to predict how a wine will evolve over time? Wines undergo serious transformations over time...if you like it in 2008, doesn't mean you'll like it in 2020. On the other hand...you may love a wine now, but in 10 years you might think it's mediocre.

One final thing, you said it yourself that palates change over time as do wine preference. If I buy a bottle now, love it and lay down a case of it for 20 years, who is to say I'll still be enjoying those wines in 20 years? To me it's silly to fill a cellar with cases of the same thing when there is so much great stuff out there to try, especially when you're preferences for style of wine might be completely different by the time the wines peak.
Last edited by Sarbuze
quote:
Originally posted by indybob:
quote:
Originally posted by ND:
I never trust the opinion of anyone trying to sell me something.


Everyone has something to sell.


This whole thing is really a generational thing. I'd bet most folks who are into WLTV are younger (in body and/or spirit). Most people who don't get WLTV are probably older. Neither is right or wrong. Gary might disagree, as he preaches inclusivity, but WLTV may be another version of FUBU (For Us By Us, BTW), but as long as the WLTVers are don't disregard the opinions of the elder statesmen outright, that FUBU attitude is fine with me.


hmmmm....it's an interesting take and I'm not sure where I would classify myself in the WLTV demographic but I know I have learned a ton from Gary AND the people on the forum. Guys like GeneV and Julius really bring the knowledge. There are a lot of people over on the WLTV forum that have a thirst for knowledge and reallyu could care less why Gary is doing what he is doing because they get so much out of it.

Squires, WS, Vino, and WLTV all have such different vibes but there are so many great things about each that I would hate to say to any of them, "stick with what you know best." It would be like telling Roy to stick with fortified and not bother with dry. Smile
Sarbuze....let's revisit what you said:

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. 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)."


1. What you should have said is you're a strong advocate of buying PRODUCERS you have tried. That's different than "wines you have tried". And, again, my point is that is a potentially big waste. Every vintage is different. Take California and Phelps Insignia. Of any region, CA's weather varies the least. Now take 3 vintages in a row. '97, '98, '99. All VERY different, and as such VERY different Insignias. And, all priced at over $100. To simply buy any of these because you liked the '92, and '94 is no guarantee you'll like any of the latter. And, as I see it, if your finances are "limited" you are potentially allocating money in the wrong place unknowingly.

2. I'm not assuming you can barely afford anything....you said you can "only afford so much" and "it's not easy or possible in many instances due to finances".

3. Your specific example here with the Valdicava is an exception to the rule. #1...you got them at a very good price, and I too would jump at an opportunity like this regardless of tasting first. Where we differ is that I also look at the investment potential. If those bottles are now worth double...do I really want to hold on to them. Suckling might think it's a 100 pt'er, but I might not. So I'll try one and see. Or, simply think twice if I really want to ever open a $400 Brunello! There's some great wine out there for that kind of money.

With the kind of money being tossed around in wine now, If I'm cellaring to drink, I better be sure it's a wine I'll like. If others are comfortable investing this kind of change and keeping their fingers crossed that it will deliver, that's up to them. Hopefully money doesn't matter.
Responses 1-3: My finances allow me a generous wine budget, but not infinite. "can only afford so much" referred to the bottles of $175/bottle wine...and my statement to most people would suggest I CAN AFFORD the two bottles ("so much") without effecting future wine purchases.

I only buy 2-3 bottles of a particular wine for cellaring, if I were going to buy the wine to taste it young, in my opinion I may as well buy 2-3, cellar it until it peaks, and find out then whether or not I like it. My finances, and cellar, allow for this.

And you forgot to address the following point:

Wines and palates change over time (as you said yourself). How can you be sure the case of wine you bought today, that you love now, is still going to be a wine you enjoy in 5, 10, 20 years?

You can't. No one can. So I'd say you're potentially missing out on having bottles in your cellar you'll enjoy in 20 years just because you were only buying stuff that tasted good to you when it (and you) were younger.
Last edited by Sarbuze
quote:
Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
Every vintage is different. Take California and Phelps Insignia. Of any region, CA's weather varies the least. Now take 3 vintages in a row. '97, '98, '99. All VERY different, and as such VERY different Insignias. And, all priced at over $100. To simply buy any of these because you liked the '92, and '94 is no guarantee you'll like any of the latter. And, as I see it, if your finances are "limited" you are potentially allocating money in the wrong place unknowingly.


Maybe the difference is you have more rigid tastes? I'll grant that different vintages of a wine like Insignia will be different, but for my palate, I wouldn't worry about them being so different that I would like the '94, but not the '97 (as a side note, having only had access to the '97s more experienced wine drinkers saved I have yet to have a '97 CA Cab/Blend I didn't like). It's nice you have experience with all these vintages to tell us about though.

Now, if the vintage was a dud and you bought before that could be ascertained, that's one thing, but we've been explicitly talking about purchases based on vintage, prior experience with a producer, ratings and, especially for me, experiences of my bulletin board colleagues.

Further, we're talking about buying 2-3 bottles without tasting. I'm not saying I've never had a bad experience after buying 2 bottles w/out prior tasting, but "bad" is probably a strong word, and it is still an experience, which is the part of the process for all us whipper snappers.

Thinking back, I have bought wines untasted I later regretted because it was a terrible vintage (3 "bargain" – but undrinkable – 2002 CdP's) and others because that had not been stored properly (After loving both bottlings, I grabbed 8 1999/2000 Don Melchors in 2005 - 2 were somewhat oxidized). But I have yet to purchase a few of a new vintage and later think – I really wish I had left these on the shelf. Both of these were learning experiences that cost a total of $150. I'm okay with that. I have bought far more wines without tasting that have been fantastic choices.

I don't know if I really disagree with what you're saying, unless you really think it applies to us. I do think you have something to get off your chest and the fact that posturing it as a reply to our posts doesn't really work is merely an inconvenience. A separate thread about how much – in bottles and $$ -- people spend without tasting wine, and from what regions, would be interesting.

I'm not sure if 2005 Bordeaux is what you're talking about, but Bordeaux has come up in your posts. I would not be surprised if many "newbie" wine drinkers bought a bunch and will find out over the next 20 years its not their style. That's their lesson to learn and, assuming they had the funds to do it, they can probably handle it. I did buy split two six packs of 2005 Bordeaux with a friend - one right bank (Gigault Cuvee Viva) and one left bank (Caronne St Gemme). As it cost each of us $85, I'm not too worried.
I received this e-mail this morning from GaryV.

quote:
The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of

This is a special wine for me, a worldwide exclusive to Wine Library because of a very smart deal I put together when I went to Bordeaux last year! I don't have the liberty to score it since I was involved, but I was PUMPED that Stephen Tanzer reviewed the wine. Tanzer is a difficult critic and 90 - 93 points from him is an outstanding score, but in all honesty I was actually kinda disappointed and thought it was underrated, ESPECIALLY when I finally tasted it from the bottle. As you'll see in the video I believe this wine will last for 30+ years EASY and I am humbled to have been a part of this project.


Reasons to jump on this today:

The price of this wine will be rising to $49.99 on Monday!

Quality in the bottle equals what most $100 futures are tasting like right now.

This wine is being discussed in a thread on Robert Parker's boards.

This is a very rare opportunity given the small production... only 315 cases were made.

Given the price inflations and the way the 2005 demand has become, this may even be a wine you want to consider buying multiple cases of.


Now my question is this: What is the probability that an independent wine critic would say "The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of"
while at the same time being the exclusive seller of that very same wine?

The answer in none. Any independent critic would instantly loose his or her credibility as an unbiased independent critic.
quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
I received this e-mail this morning from GaryV.

quote:
The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of

This is a special wine for me, a worldwide exclusive to Wine Library because of a very smart deal I put together when I went to Bordeaux last year! I don't have the liberty to score it since I was involved, but I was PUMPED that Stephen Tanzer reviewed the wine. Tanzer is a difficult critic and 90 - 93 points from him is an outstanding score, but in all honesty I was actually kinda disappointed and thought it was underrated, ESPECIALLY when I finally tasted it from the bottle. As you'll see in the video I believe this wine will last for 30+ years EASY and I am humbled to have been a part of this project.


Reasons to jump on this today:

The price of this wine will be rising to $49.99 on Monday!

Quality in the bottle equals what most $100 futures are tasting like right now.

This wine is being discussed in a thread on Robert Parker's boards.

This is a very rare opportunity given the small production... only 315 cases were made.

Given the price inflations and the way the 2005 demand has become, this may even be a wine you want to consider buying multiple cases of.


Now my question is this: What is the probability that an independent wine critic would say "The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of"
while at the same time being the exclusive seller of that very same wine?

The answer in none. Any independent critic would instantly loose his or her credibility as an unbiased independent critic.


I'm a HUGE supporter of Gary, WLTV, AND Wine Library but I do find this statement to carry some weight. It certainly makes you think about it.
quote:
I'm a HUGE supporter of Gary, WLTV, AND Wine Library but I do find this statement to carry some weight. It certainly makes you think about it.


Brandon,

We have several things in common then. I too am a big fan of GV and WLTV. I currently have a bit over $5,000 in 2005 Bdx futures on order from Wine Library including 12 x 75cl of Angelus which I bought after watching WLTV. I was sold by his passion for this wine. Others have rated it very highly.
dont forget Stephan Tanzer loved it and is a very VERY tough critic and gave it 90-93, I really think people will win by buying this wine, I understand I wear 2 hats and I always will and for that I will not apologize but will of course respect and FULLY understand where people are coming from, Brandon I think u know me, to question this is understandable and I respect that but I think u know who I am and I hope like with any person in this world you take them for the "proof in the pudding" I bought all this wine before Tanzer ever scored it because I thought it rocked, for ST the toughest critic out there to score this up to a 93 I think shows a lot, but of course everything is what and how you want to look at it. Stay well everyone, again those of you who have opinions about me that have never meet me please give me a chance to share some vino with you one day. Stay healthy all!
quote:
Originally posted by Brandon M:
quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
I received this e-mail this morning from GaryV.

quote:
The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of

This is a special wine for me, a worldwide exclusive to Wine Library because of a very smart deal I put together when I went to Bordeaux last year! I don't have the liberty to score it since I was involved, but I was PUMPED that Stephen Tanzer reviewed the wine. Tanzer is a difficult critic and 90 - 93 points from him is an outstanding score, but in all honesty I was actually kinda disappointed and thought it was underrated, ESPECIALLY when I finally tasted it from the bottle. As you'll see in the video I believe this wine will last for 30+ years EASY and I am humbled to have been a part of this project.


Reasons to jump on this today:

The price of this wine will be rising to $49.99 on Monday!

Quality in the bottle equals what most $100 futures are tasting like right now.

This wine is being discussed in a thread on Robert Parker's boards.

This is a very rare opportunity given the small production... only 315 cases were made.

Given the price inflations and the way the 2005 demand has become, this may even be a wine you want to consider buying multiple cases of.


Now my question is this: What is the probability that an independent wine critic would say "The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of"
while at the same time being the exclusive seller of that very same wine?

The answer in none. Any independent critic would instantly loose his or her credibility as an unbiased independent critic.


I'm a HUGE supporter of Gary, WLTV, AND Wine Library but I do find this statement to carry some weight. It certainly makes you think about it.
love your name, clever Smile Thnx for the kind words and again I understand, I just want to do a good thing with WLTV but of course understand peoples views, makes much sense, heck I would think the same too, I just know whats going on here!


quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
quote:
I'm a HUGE supporter of Gary, WLTV, AND Wine Library but I do find this statement to carry some weight. It certainly makes you think about it.


Brandon,

We have several things in common then. I too am a big fan of GV and WLTV. I currently have a bit over $5,000 in 2005 Bdx futures on order from Wine Library including 12 x 75cl of Angelus which I bought after watching WLTV. I was sold by his passion for this wine. Others have rated it very highly.
quote:
this wine

After reading through this incredibly long chain, I felt compelled to post.

I think those who do not know GaryV are baffled at why the Vaynernation comes so quickly to his defense, but it is really very simple. Gary has done a tremendous job of becoming the voice of the people, something that I think has been squarely missing from the wine community.

I love Parker and WS as much as anyone and they serve a very specific role and excel in their respective areas. Gary is doing something they aren't doing. He is interfacing with the consumer in a very direct, targeted, highly immersive, and inclusive way. Most importantly he listens and responds.

As part-critic, part-retailer, part-wine rock star Wink he transcends the traditional box that everyone wants to lump him into. I think he's breaking new ground. His relatability, accessibility and ability to understand the value of the dollar (and that is because of, not in spite of, his retail experience) to me is an advantage to the consumer. He gets that to the average mid-level wine consumer that $25 a bottle is expensive and can provide a unique perspective.

By getting people past entry level offerings and out of their wine comfort zones, he stirs up conversation, debate and hopefully grows interest and demand for good wine. I want more people to be exposed to the depth, complexity, variance and excitement that wine from around the world can offer. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe greater interest, purchasing power and demand for better wine will benefit the consumer in the long run.

To do that there is a lot of work to do. The biggest hurdle is to cut through all the snobbery and negative stereotypes that are attached to "wine" as a global brand. There is an intimidation factor or a "not for me" response that needs to be overcome by the casual or uninformed wine drinker. Finally someone is out there dispelling myths and encouraging people to have confidence in their own tasting abilities and opinions about wine.

I am happy that someone like Gary is around that understands the contemporary wine movement. The wine world is changing a lot faster than I think people realize. The world is getting smaller via media and I'm thankful that he's at the forefront helping to lead the charge.
Two bottles here or there isn't really what I'm getting at.

It's the folks who buy 6 of this, 12 of that, and before one knows it, they've spend a couple thousand on wine they've read about, or tried a few vintages back and they're simply going on blind faith that it will be to their liking. My simple argument is...give it a try. Even if you liked the previous vintage. There's no guarantee you'll like the next one. '97 and '98 Insignia are not the same wine. '02 and '03 Clos de Tart are not the same wine. '02 and '03 Guigal La La's are not the same....etc., etc.
quote:
I love Parker and WS as much as anyone and they serve a very specific role and excel in their respective areas. Gary is doing something they aren't doing. He is interfacing with the consumer in a very direct, targeted, highly immersive, and inclusive way. Most importantly he listens and responds.


I actually love Sucklings V-Blogs for the same reason. It's fun to see, hear, and interact.
quote:
Originally posted by dr.darkrichandbold:
Two bottles here or there isn't really what I'm getting at.

It's the folks who buy 6 of this, 12 of that, and before one knows it, they've spend a couple thousand on wine they've read about, or tried a few vintages back and they're simply going on blind faith that it will be to their liking. My simple argument is...give it a try. Even if you liked the previous vintage. There's no guarantee you'll like the next one. '97 and '98 Insignia are not the same wine. '02 and '03 Clos de Tart are not the same wine. '02 and '03 Guigal La La's are not the same....etc., etc.


DRAB: Now we're on the same page! In a few years when I have a giant cellar integrated in my home, I'll begin buying by the case or more. At that point, I will definitely try everything first (when possible)! Smile
quote:
Wines and palates change over time (as you said yourself). How can you be sure the case of wine you bought today, that you love now, is still going to be a wine you enjoy in 5, 10, 20 years?


Because I've spent the past 11 years figuring out what I like, trying what I buy, and reconfiguring my cellar when I realize I don't really like certain things as much as the critics did when I bought them way back when. Or like certain things I liked in the beginning. I love Bordeaux and Burgundy, and I don't ever see that changing. They are the worlds greatest wines, IMHO. I may get into other things like Alsacian wines, or Barolo one day, but my love for Bordeaux and Burgundy will never change. Now....my love for their prices is a whole different story...and is rapidly making it so that I will not be able to purchase them anymore.
quote:
Originally posted by Gary Vaynerchuk:
dont forget Stephan Tanzer loved it and is a very VERY tough critic and gave it 90-93, I really think people will win by buying this wine, I understand I wear 2 hats and I always will and for that I will not apologize but will of course respect and FULLY understand where people are coming from, Brandon I think u know me, to question this is understandable and I respect that but I think u know who I am and I hope like with any person in this world you take them for the "proof in the pudding" I bought all this wine before Tanzer ever scored it because I thought it rocked, for ST the toughest critic out there to score this up to a 93 I think shows a lot, but of course everything is what and how you want to look at it. Stay well everyone, again those of you who have opinions about me that have never meet me please give me a chance to share some vino with you one day. Stay healthy all!
quote:
Originally posted by Brandon M:
quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
I received this e-mail this morning from GaryV.

quote:
The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of

This is a special wine for me, a worldwide exclusive to Wine Library because of a very smart deal I put together when I went to Bordeaux last year! I don't have the liberty to score it since I was involved, but I was PUMPED that Stephen Tanzer reviewed the wine. Tanzer is a difficult critic and 90 - 93 points from him is an outstanding score, but in all honesty I was actually kinda disappointed and thought it was underrated, ESPECIALLY when I finally tasted it from the bottle. As you'll see in the video I believe this wine will last for 30+ years EASY and I am humbled to have been a part of this project.


Reasons to jump on this today:

The price of this wine will be rising to $49.99 on Monday!

Quality in the bottle equals what most $100 futures are tasting like right now.

This wine is being discussed in a thread on Robert Parker's boards.

This is a very rare opportunity given the small production... only 315 cases were made.

Given the price inflations and the way the 2005 demand has become, this may even be a wine you want to consider buying multiple cases of.


Now my question is this: What is the probability that an independent wine critic would say "The last 2005 Bordeaux you need to buy a case of"
while at the same time being the exclusive seller of that very same wine?

The answer in none. Any independent critic would instantly loose his or her credibility as an unbiased independent critic.


I'm a HUGE supporter of Gary, WLTV, AND Wine Library but I do find this statement to carry some weight. It certainly makes you think about it.


I said that the statement carries some weight and makes you think about it, I didn't say I was thinking THAT hard about it! :-)

I've always said that if you knew Gary and hung out with him the way I have, you really wouldn't question it. There will always be doubters. C'est la Vie!
This email is no different than the hundreds of emails that have been sent over the past two years. It's designed to sell wine and may employ some hyperbole to that end. It should not detract from the fact that Gary is truly passionate in his "love" for all matters regarding wine, and his interest in spreading the word and including those who might consider themselves currently disenfranchised.
quote:
Originally posted by latour67:
Confused 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! Red Face


Don't worry. You aren't missing much. Gary is no different than anyone of us posters here who is just as passionate about wine as we all are. He just gets to sell the stuff and give his opinion on the wines that he sells.

Some people think that tasting tasting non-blind AND selling the stuff is a good basis for being declared as a wine critic.
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisR:
Maybe I'm an optimist, but I believe greater interest, purchasing power and demand for better wine will benefit the consumer in the long run.

To do that there is a lot of work to do. The biggest hurdle is to cut through all the snobbery and negative stereotypes that are attached to "wine" as a global brand. There is an intimidation factor or a "not for me" response that needs to be overcome by the casual or uninformed wine drinker. Finally someone is out there dispelling myths and encouraging people to have confidence in their own tasting abilities and opinions about wine.

I am happy that someone like Gary is around that understands the contemporary wine movement. The wine world is changing a lot faster than I think people realize. The world is getting smaller via media and I'm thankful that he's at the forefront helping to lead the charge.


That was a very good first post.
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisR:
I am happy that someone like Gary is around that understands the contemporary wine movement.

ChrisR,
Interesting post.
Could you expound on the understands the contemporary wine movement statement?
w+a

Big Grin Big Grin Be vewy kafo how you answer this question ChrisR
(picturing mouse sniffing at cheese)
Last edited by ksc02
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by ChrisR:

I am happy that someone like Gary is around that understands the contemporary wine movement.


ChrisR,

Interesting post.

Could you expound on the understands the contemporary wine movement statement?

w+a


I think its the waiting list at Ghost Horse World.

But seriously, words like "movement," attitudes like the people over at X are Y, etc. are for politics, and even then they are often trite.

People need not be snobby. When they are, they can be easily ignored, because it is, after all, only wine and not social security or health care. I really see no need to start joining movements and forming groups.

Wine is not something to belong to.
quote:
Originally posted by Montsant:


ChrisR,

Interesting post.

Could you expound on the understands the contemporary wine movement statement?

w+a


I think its the waiting list at Ghost Horse World.

But seriously, words like "movement," attitudes like the people over at X are Y, etc. are for politics, and even then they are often trite.

People need not be snobby. When they are, they can be easily ignored, because it is, after all, only wine and not social security or health care. I really see no need to start joining movements and forming groups.

Wine is not something to belong to.[/QUOTE]



That said, it is the essence of said space, not the space surrounding said wine, no?
I took it exactly opposite.

The 'movement', is against Ghost Horse's schtick, which is the most extreme form of a wine marketing mantra that started when Robert slugged Peter and reached it's peek, well now.

Calling it a movement, may be a bit much, but the marketplace is shifting. It's getting younger, female, and cares less about ratings, luxury appeal, and 'power'.

My mailing list is over 40% female, and probably 60% under 40. (From what I can tell) That demographic would shock most Napa mailing lists. Honestly I don't know how it happened, but it's not what one would expect. Something is changing, and consumers are looking for new and different voices, who connect better with them and why they drink wine.
quote:
Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
The 'movement', is against Ghost Horse's schtick, which is the most extreme form of a wine marketing mantra that started when Robert slugged Peter and reached it's peek, well now.

Calling it a movement, may be a bit much, but the marketplace is shifting. It's getting younger, female, and cares less about ratings, luxury appeal, and 'power'.

My mailing list is over 40% female, and probably 60% under 40. (From what I can tell) That demographic would shock most Napa mailing lists. Honestly I don't know how it happened, but it's not what one would expect. Something is changing, and consumers are looking for new and different voices, who connect better with them and why they drink wine.


ok. to be clear, whatever the "modern wine movement" is, it would seem to have little, if anything, in common with Ghost Horse World. While I don't think there's anything to fret over with GHW, I'd rather pop a bottle or two with this movement thing, including a bottle of this Bordeaux gary's pushing.

My point was that whether you call your version of a hobby a movement or whether you sell (albeit partly facetiously) the privilege to "belong," both of this is too clubby for my tastes, too us vs. them. People can almost be snobbish about how much they are not snobs.

That wine demographics are changing is great. It makes sense that retail shops and wineries would cater to that in their merchandising and marketing. But to speak of this as a movement, to me, misses the point.

I'm rambling. I've just never been a joiner. I don't trust movements on grave, nobel-prize things, much less something so perfectly enjoyable as a glass of wine.

Just my two cents.
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.
quote:
Originally posted by Vinyrd Skynyrd:
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.


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!
quote:
Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
I took it exactly opposite.

The 'movement', is against Ghost Horse's schtick, which is the most extreme form of a wine marketing mantra that started when Robert slugged Peter and reached it's peek, well now.

Calling it a movement, may be a bit much, but the marketplace is shifting. It's getting younger, female, and cares less about ratings, luxury appeal, and 'power'.

My mailing list is over 40% female, and probably 60% under 40. (From what I can tell) That demographic would shock most Napa mailing lists. Honestly I don't know how it happened, but it's not what one would expect. Something is changing, and consumers are looking for new and different voices, who connect better with them and why they drink wine.


Maybe I should have said the "movement" in the wine market? Who knew every word would be dissected with such intensity? Smile

But seriously, I believe there is a shift in attitudes toward wine. I think your comment above regarding power, luxury, legacy, speaks to exactly what I'm trying to get at. There's a demo shift, a perception shift (people now feel it's okay to tailgate at a football game with wine instead of beer). That is a significant social shift. Wine is shedding some of its stereotyping and is being embraced by a lot more people. With this kind of "movement" or social shift, comes a need for "ambassadors" that embrace this ideology and keep pushing it forward.

The quality of wine is also improving which means you don't have to buy expensive wine to get good wine anymore and regional dominance over varietals isn't what it used to be. You don't have to look to Burgundy, Oregon or California to get great Pinot Noir. You can find it in New Zealand now. I can buy Chateau Musar instead of Chateau Margaux because not only is great wine being made elsewhere, its accessible. We are no longer have to depend on the local liquor store because you can find wine online from around the globe. Amazon.com is starting to sell wine. Wine is starting to hit critical mass and that means change.
Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×