Vaynerchuck or Parker?

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

Originally posted by -Cp:

quote:

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

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

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

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

Chris,

With due regard, you actually made my point.

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

My point was really that simple.

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

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

quote:

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

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

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:

quote:

Originally posted by Poquelin:

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet: ...Vaynerchuck sells wine. Although he may review wines he does not sell, he still sells wine. He represents himself, his shop and people who want to sell you wine. He's very successful at it, but I would not confuse the difference between the two.

Being the wine director of a huge wine-selling business actually places Gary V. in an ideal situation to critique wines: he has his pick of an enormous inventory to taste.

Personally I have never detected the least prejudice in GV's ratings. I really believe he tells it like it is, whether his company carries the wine or not.

Whatever you may think of his personality or style, I think he is totally unbiased.

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

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

What he said.

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

quote:

Originally posted by MorBorDo:

quote:

Personally I have never detected the least prejudice in GV's ratings. I really believe he tells it like it is, whether his company carries the wine or not.

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

Very well said. I agree 100%

quote:

Originally posted by Instant Access:
Chris,

With due regard, you actually made my point.

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

My point was really that simple.

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

Originally posted by Mr Cabernet:

quote:

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

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

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

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

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

What he said.

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

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

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

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

Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

quote:

Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

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

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

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

quote:

Originally posted by tanglenet:
Maybe it's my age, but it seems that people younger than me have been brought up on slick advertising and free web content and can no longer differentiate between a sales pitch (GV) and information you pay for (RP)(perhaps they don't pay for it, leads to the confusion).

GV peddles wine. He is not a critic. He is a salesman. He could be selling cars, but he's selling wine. You may find him entertaining, animated and knowledgable, but he's just selling product. Don't confuse the two.

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

Brandon,

I posted earlier in this thread and, to a large extent, I defended Gary. I think that Gary has been good for wine appreciation, has brought a lot of positive attention to wine, and has broadened wine drinkers in getting them to try new things. Tanglenet was merely stating an opinion and it happens to be an opinion that I agree with. Gary is not a critic in the truest sense of the word. Sure, he evaluates wines but what wine drinker doesn't? If Gary is critic then everybody that drinks wine and forms an opinion of the wine is a critic. I do not care that Gary occasionally evaluates wines that he does not carry, that does not make him a wine critic and do not become deluded into thinking that he is one.

As far as Eric carrying Gary's scores on CT, there was probably some sort of a handsome financial arrangement between the two of them that made it worthwhile for Eric to do so. IMO, this is a questionable arrangement.

On another note, Brandon, why are all of the Vanyiacs (sp?) so defensive about the comments relating to Gary? It seems that if there ever is any discussion on this forum that is not 100% positive for Gary, the Vanyiacs are here in droves to support Gary and bash the opinions of others. It's a fact that we can express opinions without getting bashed for doing so.

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

quote:

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

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

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

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

quote:

On another note, Brandon, why are all of the Vanyiacs (sp?) so defensive about the comments relating to Gary? It seems that if there ever is any discussion on this forum that is not 100% positive for Gary, the Vanyiacs are here in droves to support Gary and bash the opinions of others. It's a fact that we can express opinions without getting bashed for doing so.

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

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

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

quote:

Originally posted by Brandon M:

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

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

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

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

quote:

Personally I have never detected the least prejudice in GV's ratings. I really believe he tells it like it is, whether his company carries the wine or not.

Whatever you may think of his personality or style, I think he is totally unbiased.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

quote:

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

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

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.

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 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.
Trev

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 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 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?
(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.

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?

I would put WLTV in the category of an "Infomercial" where the line between content and promotion is (intentionally) blurred. In other words, it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between information and a commercial message, hence Infomercial.

Well said Tanglenet!! Exactly what I've been saying all along.

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 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!

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.