Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
quote:Originally posted by Mimik:
Vaynerchuck is entertainment and as such, I enjoy him but don't take him too seriously.
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..
quote:Originally posted by -Cp:
Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?
quote:Originally posted by indybob:
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.
quote:Originally posted by wine+art:
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.
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?![]()
![]()
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?![]()
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.
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.
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...
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.
quote:Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
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.
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...
quote:Originally posted by Poquelin:
It should be obvious to anyone who watches him regularly that he is completely objective
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.
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.
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.
Well saidquote: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.
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.
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..
quote:quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by jqmunro:
Parker isn't a big advocate of blind tasting either... so what's your point on this?
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.![]()
quote:Originally posted by bjnatkels:
Call me a homer but I'll takeSteiman, Laube, Suckling and Molesworth any day.
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
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.
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by WEc:
That, unfortunately, is called an assumption. There is nothing factual about your proposition aside from your own postulations.
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.
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.
quote:Vaynerchuck or Parker?
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.
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.
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.
quote:
With that being said, I don't think anyone can arugue that WS's blind tasting methodolgy 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.
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?
That’s easy, if RP gave it a 92 it will sell out no matter what Gary says.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."?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
quote:While you build a cellar, purchasing without having tasted the exact bottling is reality.
quote:I soooooooo Know why people would say I am biased
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by Darlene:quote:Originally posted by tanglenet:
GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine.
All due respect...but isn't Robert Parker a lawyer...?
quote:Originally posted by latour67:This is a strange thread! I've read Wine Spectator and Robert Parker for many years---20+! I'm not familiar with Gary, or WLTV!
![]()
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.
quote:Originally posted by ND:
I never trust the opinion of anyone trying to sell me something.
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: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.
quote:Originally posted by Yonster24:
Am I the only one who wishes someone (a la Mark Squires) would just MERGE these 2 threads?![]()
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!
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.
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.
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.
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)."
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.
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.
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.
quote:Originally posted by wineismylife:
*YAWN*
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
quote:Originally posted by Brandon M:quote:Originally posted by wineismylife:
*YAWN*
Tired? You're yawning all over the place!![]()
quote:Originally posted by latour67:This is a strange thread! I've read Wine Spectator and Robert Parker for many years---20+! I'm not familiar with Gary, or WLTV!
![]()
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.
quote:Originally posted by ChrisR:
I am happy that someone like Gary is around that understands the contemporary wine movement.
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
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
quote:Originally posted by Montsant:
ChrisR,
Interesting post.
Could you expound on the understands the contemporary wine movement statement?
w+a
quote:Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
My mailing list is over 40% female, and probably 60% under 40.
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.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
My mailing list is over 40% female, and probably 60% under 40.
quote:Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
Nope, purchases are about 40/60 also. I don't know about consumption in detail, but it also seems to be about 40/60.
quote:Originally posted by -Cp:
Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?
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.