Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Parker, because at least he uses descriptors that I can Identify with when smelling and tasting wine. Besides, Parker is a wine critic and Gary is a wine salesman. 
I trust Parker's ratings far more than Vaynerchuck, but when I'm done listening/watching Vaynerchuck taste a wine I have a far better basic sense of whether I want to buy it than when I read many of Parker's notes.
Vaynerchuck is entertainment and as such, I enjoy him but don't take him too seriously.
quote:Originally posted by Mimik:
Vaynerchuck is entertainment and as such, I enjoy him but don't take him too seriously.
Yeah but why does he have to sound so goofy with all the repetitive words like "Sniffy Sniff"? Everytime I watch him w/ my wife in the room, she has to leave cause to her - he's like fingernails on a chalkboard...
He's too over-the-top and wears wristbands(Last time I wore a wristband was back in High School) and says stupid things like: "Hizzy" "the big W for Walla Walla" and "Sniffy Sniff" and other things that just annoy the crap out of her and others I know..
quote:Originally posted by -Cp:quote:Originally posted by Mimik:
Vaynerchuck is entertainment and as such, I enjoy him but don't take him too seriously.
Yeah but why does he have to sound so goofy with all the repetitive words like "Sniffy Sniff"? Everytime I watch him w/ my wife in the room, she has to leave cause to her - he's like fingernails on a chalkboard...
Too over-the-top and wears wristbands and says stupid things like: "Hizzy" "the big W for Walla Walla" and "Sniffy Sniff" and other things that just annoy the crap out of her and others I know..
"THE OAK MONSTER!"
I don't even follow Gary so I have no basis for comparison.
I greatly respect Parker, particularly for specific varietals. Sure, he's pretty 'enthusiastic' regarding his scoring with some more than others but, with time, you can gage to his scoring system.
I just can not take Gary seriously. I respect his passion, but I draw the line at 'tasting my sweaty socks to correlate my palate to his.
I just can not take Gary seriously. I respect his passion, but I draw the line at 'tasting my sweaty socks to correlate my palate to his.
quote:Originally posted by -Cp:
Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?
In spite of his antics, I’ve learned plenty from GV. About your question, my palate has not settled down into absolute preferences, as of yet. I continue to enjoy the experience across the broad spectrum of wine regions, countries and varietals.
I haven't figured out if my palate is more calibrated toward one or the other. I am one of the few who likes Parker's OZ Shiraz recommends, for the most part, but I really like GaryV, especially with his reviews of white wines. He's helping to make wine more approachable for the masses, and give it less "snob" appeal, which I agree with wholeheartedly. His Schtick doesn't bug me one bit. Heck, I talk like him a lot of the time anyways, so no big whoop.
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.
I'm in the same camp as wiml, and really did not know Gary was a critic per se.
I respect Parker for Bordeaux and Rhone. I have little to no interest in his opinion for anywhere else and glad he is turning many regions over to others now.
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.
I respect Parker for Bordeaux and Rhone. I have little to no interest in his opinion for anywhere else and glad he is turning many regions over to others now.
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.
quote:Originally posted by indybob:
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.
A bucket of earth and sweaty socks. How'd that work for ya?
quote:Originally posted by wine+art:
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.
Found it difficult to correlate your palate to his on your OZ wines, eh?
quote:Originally posted by KSC02:quote:Originally posted by indybob:
A while back, I did part of his episode #148, just to lock in some flavors.
A bucket of earth and sweaty socks. How'd that work for ya?
Hey, I didn't go that far! Just the fruit, jams, nuts, and a few of the candies. It's pretty cool to nail the flavor of red Twizzlers in wine when I find it.quote:Originally posted by KSC02:quote:Originally posted by wine+art:
That said, Parker is no longer my favorite critic for any region.
Found it difficult to correlate your palate to his on your OZ wines, eh?
... if it is Spain or Oz, and it is Parker, it must be a 95+, right?
I just enjoy wine from Loire, Alsace, Burgundy ( he was always clueless) Champagne, Oregon, Languedoc, Italy, (all) and Washington, and never seek his opinion on any of these.
I do seek out his opinion on Rhone (red only) and Bordeaux. (red only)
Why anyone would pay any attention to a wine salesman's "opinions," especially as opposed to those of an "independent" critic, is beyond me.
quote:Originally posted by Board-O:
Why anyone would pay any attention to a wine salesman's "opinions," especially as opposed to those of an "independent" critic, is beyond me.
Board-O. I hear you, but if you actually watch GaryV's shows with any frequency, you'll see that he gives a great many of the wines he tastes a "pass" and does not recommend them. Almost all of them are wines he stocks. Sure, he's a wine salesman (which I'll admit does make me a bit skeptical at times), but there's no denying his palate and knowledge are excellent.
I'm not calling Gary dishonest, but if he buys a wine, he sure has to sell the wine. I don't think he can be completely objective; I don't think I could.
quote:Originally posted by Board-O:
I'm not calling Gary dishonest, but if he buys a wine, he sure has to sell the wine. I don't think he can be completely objective; I don't think I could.
I have absolutely no connection to Gary, except that of a viewer. It should be obvious to anyone who watches him regularly that he is completely objective -- I remember that once he panned a wine and said something like (I'm paraphrasing), "I wish we hadn't bought so many cases of it."
In all honesty, I believe for Gary it's all about the ego. The sheer number of shows per week, the endless request for attention in the form of the number of people he wants to post in response to his shows, etc. is certainly indicative to his need for attention and validation.
I believe his (his father's I suppose) business is truly very successful, and WLTV has provided the son an opportunity to show Dad that he can contribute, and be successful in his own right. A psychologist would probably have a field day...
He has the power over what to sell, and how much to sell, and I truly believe there is a certain sense of freedom and objectivity in his reviews (he doesn't owe a thing to anyone is probably his perspective).
That ALL said, I love the guy, and the show. It's quite addictive and I believe very unique. I get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the whole WLTV experience.
My wife and others I've exposed to the show all agree that his approach is very entertaining and puts an anti-snob spin on our favourite subject.
Let's face it - We all take this subject way too seriously considering our lives are not dependent upon it. It's just a hobby for most of us on this board.
Gary goes out of his way to stress that you should not take his word for it (and I don't), and that the only so-called critic you should listen to are those that have an alignment with your palate. For the most part, my palate has nothing in common with James Laube, however have found my 'scores' to line up quite close to James Molesworth. Hence, I tend to pay more attention.
With regards to Parker, I tend to shave at least 3-5 points off his scores, and generally that is where I will land with my own preferences.
To conclude, I personally put my 'trust' level at an equal level when it comes to both Parker and Vaynerchuk. But that's just me.
Cheers,
- Ian
I believe his (his father's I suppose) business is truly very successful, and WLTV has provided the son an opportunity to show Dad that he can contribute, and be successful in his own right. A psychologist would probably have a field day...
He has the power over what to sell, and how much to sell, and I truly believe there is a certain sense of freedom and objectivity in his reviews (he doesn't owe a thing to anyone is probably his perspective).
That ALL said, I love the guy, and the show. It's quite addictive and I believe very unique. I get quite a bit of enjoyment out of the whole WLTV experience.
My wife and others I've exposed to the show all agree that his approach is very entertaining and puts an anti-snob spin on our favourite subject.
Let's face it - We all take this subject way too seriously considering our lives are not dependent upon it. It's just a hobby for most of us on this board.
Gary goes out of his way to stress that you should not take his word for it (and I don't), and that the only so-called critic you should listen to are those that have an alignment with your palate. For the most part, my palate has nothing in common with James Laube, however have found my 'scores' to line up quite close to James Molesworth. Hence, I tend to pay more attention.
With regards to Parker, I tend to shave at least 3-5 points off his scores, and generally that is where I will land with my own preferences.
To conclude, I personally put my 'trust' level at an equal level when it comes to both Parker and Vaynerchuk. But that's just me.
Cheers,
- Ian
quote:Originally posted by -Cp:
Yeah but why does he have to sound so goofy with all the repetitive words like "Sniffy Sniff"? Everytime I watch him w/ my wife in the room, she has to leave cause to her - he's like fingernails on a chalkboard...
Mine too. I agree with you as to his antics also, it seems to be a branding/movement thing - he uses the same annoying phrases and those who like him only or more than other wine critics identify with them (and sadly enough might use them, too).
As to whether he's critic, he tastes wines, describes them and assigns a rating, so I think that has to make him a critic. The independence thing is not lost on me though. All other things being equal, I prefer blind and independent ratings to non-blind independent ratings and both to non-blind non-independent ratings.
But all other things are not equal and also, blind, independent ratings are, IMHO, more theoretical than real. I think the major critics often know what they're tasting even if its blind and as all of them are very much a part of the wine world, well, independence is merely a relative thing. As others have noted he pans so many of the wines they stock at all price points.
I don't like the antics. I don't even really like the "changing the wine world" shtick - I've never been a class warfare sort and I don't find him that different than other critics, save that he doesn't tend to taste really expensive wines. If you listed his ratings and compared them, I think you'd have a lot of head scratching to do. But I better understand what hes tasting than when I read others notes. Not the sweat socks nonsense (see gimicks above), the bigger things: fruit, acidity, tannin, oak, etc.
Just my .02
I am glad we have both. Parker is strictly a numbers guys for me. I don't read his mag and pretty much stumble across his ratings when buying wine ie: "RP 92" like many of us. That's about it for me with him nowadays. Too many sources on the Internet (wine boards, cellartracker etc.)to get my skinny on any bottle I want and have lots of opinions. Aside from big year Boardeaux and Burgundy for serious futures investing in a vintage (and even that is not a gimmie anymore), he's just not a big deal or necessary for me.
I do enjoy viewing many of Gary's videos (not all)as truly seeing a wine being tasted and evaluated in front of your eyes is pretty neat and a helluva lot more fun than a 3 sentence printed note with a score. At least for me - even with the over the top goofy antics, Gary knows his stuff without being snobby. When he gets down to it - he gets 1/2 way serious.
I don't care about or what his motives are or are not. I'm guessing it's a normal balance of heavy business and some pleasure doing it. It's nice to watch the tastings when you are drinking a good wine yourself and you do not want to put the TV on and just skip to the good wine parts in sideways...
Him doing these videos is a good thing - oh and don't forget they're FREE to view and free of obligation, which IMO gives him a long leash to not be overly criticized or have motives questioned. Don't like it. Don't watch.
As to the question from the beginning of the thread, I align with no one critic or taster more than any other. I agree with some and disagree with others.
I do enjoy viewing many of Gary's videos (not all)as truly seeing a wine being tasted and evaluated in front of your eyes is pretty neat and a helluva lot more fun than a 3 sentence printed note with a score. At least for me - even with the over the top goofy antics, Gary knows his stuff without being snobby. When he gets down to it - he gets 1/2 way serious.
I don't care about or what his motives are or are not. I'm guessing it's a normal balance of heavy business and some pleasure doing it. It's nice to watch the tastings when you are drinking a good wine yourself and you do not want to put the TV on and just skip to the good wine parts in sideways...
Him doing these videos is a good thing - oh and don't forget they're FREE to view and free of obligation, which IMO gives him a long leash to not be overly criticized or have motives questioned. Don't like it. Don't watch.
As to the question from the beginning of the thread, I align with no one critic or taster more than any other. I agree with some and disagree with others.
quote:With regards to Parker, I tend to shave at least 3-5 points off his scores, and generally that is where I will land with my own preferences.
Me too, but then I use the 96 point system...
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity. He is the Tommy Lasorda of wine though, and that is no small compliment.
quote:Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
Perfectly stated.
quote:quote:
Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
Sure he tastes wines that he sells - that's the point of doing the show. That's exactly how I would do it to. He's a businessman and it's a free show. How much charity do you want? He does not recommend wines he does not like and he does educate you. Take it or leave it.
There's also a ton of crooked %hit going on in the "legitimate wine critic world" and has for years. How many gold watches has Parker received from various Chateau Barons over the years? Let's not be nieve. And these "real critics" are what drives the prices up on all of us - not guys like Gary.
Wow - and I don't even buy from Wine Library
I have had a few wines in the last week that Parker scored 92 that I would probably give pretty close to an 'undrinkable' score (but barely drinkable, so lets give them the base of 50 to start).
KAESLER STONEHORSE GRENACHE/SHIRAZ/MOURVÈDRE 2005, RP 92, Machine 50+5+6(unpleasant medicinal smell)+10(unpleasant medicinal taste, an overripe mess...maybe a $5 wine in my book)+3(don't see how this can get much better, no acidity or tannin to speak of, only a faint glimmer that it resembled a CDP, for about 5 minutes, 30 minutes after opening, then it was gone and did not come back over next 2 hours)=74. Rest of glass down the sink, will give it another try tomorrow (that 5 minutes of CDP merit not dumping it today). A colleague also bought a bottle, similar notes on day 1, not sure about his day 2 experience, will find out tomorrow.
DOMAINE DE LA COLLINE SAINT-JEAN VACQUEYRAS 2004, RP 90-92, Machine 50+5+7.5(something did not smell right, not bad or corked or cooked just not right)+6(unenjoyable and unpleasant on day 1, undrinkably revolting on day 2, i.e. 'spit out' undrinkable)+4(maybe some of those horrible flavours will go away over time, and the smidge of apparent structure (whatever that is) might allow it to last until the flavours are gone)=72. Poured down the sink on day 2. Same colleague also bought a bottle for himself (at another store, so not an issue of 2 bad bottles from a bad case of wine). His reaction to drinking it - not good, something not right, not an off bottle, but not drinkable, and he poured it down the drain.
I would not accept either of the above bottles as a gift.
Another I tried on Parker's 95 rating was the 2003 Dominus. Bought a 6-pack. Then saw Laube's rating. Had not heard of him, read the comments of many re. Laube's 'skill' at rating Cali Reds, felt that most people discounted his ratings/notes altogether, but difference between his notes (and score) and Parker's had me concerned. Opened a bottle of the Dominus. Day 1 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. I thought 'obviously way too early to be popping a bordeaux-like cali wine'. Day 2 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. Certainly drinkable, not completely lacking enjoyability, but I would peg this as a $25 Napa Cab/blend. I would not call it austere (as I understand the word), would not say 'drink it now', but besides those things I agreed with Laube's score and cannot understand Parker's rating of 95.
For comparison, I have had a few bottles of 2000 Monbousquet in the last several months. I loved this wine. Same score as the Dominus, I don't get it (yes the wines are different ages/vintages from different countries in slightly different styles, and had different tasting notes, but even with that I still don't get it).
I have not had a lot of experience with half-decent wines, but I have found that I generally agree with Parker on Aussie Shiraz or Cab and with Bordeaux, the above examples don't fit in to those categories, but I am still left thinking 'HUH???'.
KAESLER STONEHORSE GRENACHE/SHIRAZ/MOURVÈDRE 2005, RP 92, Machine 50+5+6(unpleasant medicinal smell)+10(unpleasant medicinal taste, an overripe mess...maybe a $5 wine in my book)+3(don't see how this can get much better, no acidity or tannin to speak of, only a faint glimmer that it resembled a CDP, for about 5 minutes, 30 minutes after opening, then it was gone and did not come back over next 2 hours)=74. Rest of glass down the sink, will give it another try tomorrow (that 5 minutes of CDP merit not dumping it today). A colleague also bought a bottle, similar notes on day 1, not sure about his day 2 experience, will find out tomorrow.
DOMAINE DE LA COLLINE SAINT-JEAN VACQUEYRAS 2004, RP 90-92, Machine 50+5+7.5(something did not smell right, not bad or corked or cooked just not right)+6(unenjoyable and unpleasant on day 1, undrinkably revolting on day 2, i.e. 'spit out' undrinkable)+4(maybe some of those horrible flavours will go away over time, and the smidge of apparent structure (whatever that is) might allow it to last until the flavours are gone)=72. Poured down the sink on day 2. Same colleague also bought a bottle for himself (at another store, so not an issue of 2 bad bottles from a bad case of wine). His reaction to drinking it - not good, something not right, not an off bottle, but not drinkable, and he poured it down the drain.
I would not accept either of the above bottles as a gift.
Another I tried on Parker's 95 rating was the 2003 Dominus. Bought a 6-pack. Then saw Laube's rating. Had not heard of him, read the comments of many re. Laube's 'skill' at rating Cali Reds, felt that most people discounted his ratings/notes altogether, but difference between his notes (and score) and Parker's had me concerned. Opened a bottle of the Dominus. Day 1 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. I thought 'obviously way too early to be popping a bordeaux-like cali wine'. Day 2 - nothing interesting, nothing unique, absent aroma, plain boring muted cabernet, very little apparent tannin or acidity. Certainly drinkable, not completely lacking enjoyability, but I would peg this as a $25 Napa Cab/blend. I would not call it austere (as I understand the word), would not say 'drink it now', but besides those things I agreed with Laube's score and cannot understand Parker's rating of 95.
For comparison, I have had a few bottles of 2000 Monbousquet in the last several months. I loved this wine. Same score as the Dominus, I don't get it (yes the wines are different ages/vintages from different countries in slightly different styles, and had different tasting notes, but even with that I still don't get it).
I have not had a lot of experience with half-decent wines, but I have found that I generally agree with Parker on Aussie Shiraz or Cab and with Bordeaux, the above examples don't fit in to those categories, but I am still left thinking 'HUH???'.
Ok, I looked at the cellartracker notes on the Kaesle GSM, my rating/notes do not change, but I expect it is possible that the LCBO has sold me mistreated/improperly shipped crap once again (this has happened several times, most recently with a Classics order of 2x1996 Leo Poy and 2x1996 Pichon Baron...1 Leo Poy was ok, the other was cooked, and both Pichon Barons were poor at best, tasted nothing like the notes that I have seen -- these were all delivered in the middle of summer, and after drinking them I question whether they had all been damaged during shipping from the LCBO warehouse to my local store). The notes that I read on cellartracker DO NOT match the wine that we consumed IN ANY WAY. Along those lines, wife asked (soon after opening) if the wine was carbonated...and I see the last note posted on cellartracker was "A sparkling GSM????". I detected what she detected, but thought it was just a bit of overly sharp acidity, and when it was gone after 10 minutes (leaving no apparent acidity) I figured that was the case. This does remind me however of the only other Aussie GSM experience that I had, with so much secondary fermentation going on that it fizzed like a Coke when I poured in it my glass...so who knows. My bottle was crap and it sounds like my friend's bottle was also crap.
quote:Originally posted by Board-O:quote:Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
Perfectly stated.
Does Robert Parker taste blind? I've known Gary to pan wines that he sells, and to take flack from those producers he has panned. So he's over the top...so what. He's a business man...so are most of you...
One is a wine critic and the other is an entertaining hack.
But it’s up to you to decide which one is which.
But it’s up to you to decide which one is which.
Darlene, the answer to your question is no.
quote:Originally posted by Darlene:quote:Originally posted by Board-O:quote:Originally posted by MorBorDo:
Gary sells wine. He does not taste blind. That answers the question about his objectivity.
Perfectly stated.
I've known Gary to pan wines that he sells, and to take flack from those producers he has panned. So he's over the top...so what. He's a business man...so are most of you...
I agree with Darlene. He does offer low opinions on wines in his inventory.
IMO, which critic/journalist you prefer is not the issue. Regardless of the individual, it is just one person's opinion and nothing more. Educated and well-honed certainly, but subjective by nature.
As a consumer, you are best reading as many of these professional opinons as possible. You will learn from them all, whether you agree or not ... with the accuracy. The more well informed you become, the better your buying strategy will become.
There is no substituting professional scores and TN compared to your OWN DRINKING EXPERIENCE and no better guide as to whether or not you will like a wine, than your own.
As a consumer, you are best reading as many of these professional opinons as possible. You will learn from them all, whether you agree or not ... with the accuracy. The more well informed you become, the better your buying strategy will become.
There is no substituting professional scores and TN compared to your OWN DRINKING EXPERIENCE and no better guide as to whether or not you will like a wine, than your own.
Unfortunately, most of the wines they taste are not available to me, so who knows who's palate I follow. I will say that I've learned a great deal from Vaynerchuk as I'm relatively new to the wine world. It's interesting going through his earlier episodes and watching him build his shtick. I think most media personalities have learned to be themselves and if anything, be memorable (good or bad) - I think he's done both.
OTOH, while I appreciate him, I think perhaps his talents are misplaced. My kids (10 and 8) come over to my laptop like moths to a flame whenever I watch an episode. Maybe he should be reviewing gummy bears and relating them to a Riesling he recently tasted.
OTOH, while I appreciate him, I think perhaps his talents are misplaced. My kids (10 and 8) come over to my laptop like moths to a flame whenever I watch an episode. Maybe he should be reviewing gummy bears and relating them to a Riesling he recently tasted.
quote:Originally posted by Poquelin:
It should be obvious to anyone who watches him regularly that he is completely objective
Otherwise, he would be leading to his own demise. Appearing to be objective is the least of the requirements for him to gain any plausibility.
quote:I'm not calling Gary dishonest, but if he buys a wine, he sure has to sell the wine. I don't think he can be completely objective; I don't think I could.
I think Gary is very objective in his ratings but I believe, most, if not all, of the wines he tastes are wines that he sells. On many occasions he will pass on a wine that I'm sure he inventories many cases of.
I have found his palate to be very similar to mine so I trust his scores. It's also nice to see and hear his reaction to a wine rather than just read a Parker or WS review.
I agree that he is a bit goofy at times so I just fast forward if I'm not in the mood for his humor or editorial comments.
Bob
I haven’t watched the show in a while, but I respect Gary as a businessman because he carved out a nice market for himself and obviously has a lot of loyal viewers that buy based on his opinions. You cannot deny his passion for wine and I would recommend the show to anyone getting into wine as they will learn a lot.
With that said, people trusting Gary’s scores as totally unbiased and objective are fooling themselves in my opinion. The guy is reviewing wines from his store non-blind. How can he put all of that out of his mind, I know I couldn’t? And I know he has panned wines on the show, but it’s easy to pan silver oak because it is still going to sell out anyway. Now I’m not saying he would intentionally over rate a wine to boost sales, I’m just saying there is no way he can be 100% objective.
Now is Parker 100% objective, probably not, but I would take his 50 years of experience over Gary’s 20. My guess is Gary would agree with that as well.
With that said, people trusting Gary’s scores as totally unbiased and objective are fooling themselves in my opinion. The guy is reviewing wines from his store non-blind. How can he put all of that out of his mind, I know I couldn’t? And I know he has panned wines on the show, but it’s easy to pan silver oak because it is still going to sell out anyway. Now I’m not saying he would intentionally over rate a wine to boost sales, I’m just saying there is no way he can be 100% objective.
Now is Parker 100% objective, probably not, but I would take his 50 years of experience over Gary’s 20. My guess is Gary would agree with that as well.
OK,
The fact that Gary V sells the wine he is tasting, and that he often scores off both his taste and other scores (i.e. he will say I disagree with Parker on this one, I'm giving this wine 90 points), I agree that does not PROVE that he is not objective. It does give the appearance though which, if you really want to be taken seriously as an independent wine critic you must avoid. I did say however that Gary V is the Tommy Lasorda of fine wine meaning he is a sincere and entertaining spokesman for wine which is beneficial to the entire industry. He, more than anyone I've seen would be the most likely candidate for a cable TV show on wine ala Rachel Ray. He has that kind of charisma. That is where he will have a major impact on wine. There are a lot of wine critics out there. There is no one that brings what he does and I watch all of his shows. I bought a case of '05 Angelus from him after the WLTV review.
Finally, Wilford Wong may have one of the greatest palates in the world, I don't know, but becasue of his assocation with BevMo, his scores and notes don't get much play.
The fact that Gary V sells the wine he is tasting, and that he often scores off both his taste and other scores (i.e. he will say I disagree with Parker on this one, I'm giving this wine 90 points), I agree that does not PROVE that he is not objective. It does give the appearance though which, if you really want to be taken seriously as an independent wine critic you must avoid. I did say however that Gary V is the Tommy Lasorda of fine wine meaning he is a sincere and entertaining spokesman for wine which is beneficial to the entire industry. He, more than anyone I've seen would be the most likely candidate for a cable TV show on wine ala Rachel Ray. He has that kind of charisma. That is where he will have a major impact on wine. There are a lot of wine critics out there. There is no one that brings what he does and I watch all of his shows. I bought a case of '05 Angelus from him after the WLTV review.
Finally, Wilford Wong may have one of the greatest palates in the world, I don't know, but becasue of his assocation with BevMo, his scores and notes don't get much play.
Has Jim Rome sued Gary for stealing his bit?
I get and applaud the idea of taking the snobbery out of wine, but Gary's song and dance doesn't appeal to me. It might be appealing for sports, but seems way over the top for wine, IMO.
On the other hand, as least Gary doesn't sell the pretense that he's unbiased and we all know he's trying to pitch product at the end of the day (instead of Parker's faux consumer advocate schtick).
I get and applaud the idea of taking the snobbery out of wine, but Gary's song and dance doesn't appeal to me. It might be appealing for sports, but seems way over the top for wine, IMO.
On the other hand, as least Gary doesn't sell the pretense that he's unbiased and we all know he's trying to pitch product at the end of the day (instead of Parker's faux consumer advocate schtick).
I watch WLTV and although some of the antics are a bit much, I think he's making wine fun for a lot of people and commend him for that. I enjoy the show and have learned quite a bit from watching some of the older episodes.
My sentiments are in line with this statement:
Nice post on Fermentation today by Tom Wark regarding this issue: Who To Trust?
My sentiments are in line with this statement:
quote:Now is Parker 100% objective, probably not, but I would take his 50 years of experience over Gary’s 20. My guess is Gary would agree with that as well.
quote:Finally, Wilford Wong may have one of the greatest palates in the world, I don't know, but becasue of his assocation with BevMo, his scores and notes don't get much play.
Nice post on Fermentation today by Tom Wark regarding this issue: Who To Trust?
quote:There is no substituting professional scores and TN compared to your OWN DRINKING EXPERIENCE and no better guide as to whether or not you will like a wine, than your own.
Amen Roy! I've said it many times myself. Try what you buy! I just don't get half of the connesieurs out there who buy cases of product and don't bother trying it until it's "ready". What if you don't like it? There is so much variability even with the same producer between vintages. Sometimes there are stylistic changes. Sometimes things go a wry. Sometimes the batch at one store isn't as good as what another store gets. I could go on.
As for the thread....The more opinions/resources you have the better. If you like Gary...more power to you. Parker is certainly a valuable resource as well. Most importantly is not taking what anyone says as scripture. It is opinion, and it will vary between tasters, because everyone is different. And, not everyone is tasting in the same way, or necessarily getting the exact same sample. There are many variables. The best way to figure it all out, is to educate your own palate and try what you're about to get yourself into.