Skip to main content

Closed168 replies

Vaynerchuck or Parker?

V vsMember
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.
B brandonmMember
quote:
Originally posted by Vinyrd Skynyrd:
quote:
Originally posted by -Cp:
Who seems to match your PALette (in regards to their scores/recommendations) better? Gary or Robert?


All of the reasons why Gary's not really a critic have been beaten to death here ad nauseum, so I have nothing to add there.

But, he does score wines on the 100 point scale, so on that basis alone the question is a fair one. But kind of a weird one, because the number of wines Gary has scored is so tiny compared to Parker. He hasn't (yet) provided a big enough data set to be meaningful. I've tasted only a handful of wines that have GV ratings, versus a great number of wines with Parker ratings.

But more importantly, I respect both gentlemen for completely different reasons. For me, Parker's a "conclusions" guy and Gary's a "process" guy.

With Parker, it's all about his ultimate conclusions about wines. His scores are reliable (albeit in some regions more than others). I don't spend tons of time reading his prose, I go straight to the scores.

Gary's scores - his bottom line conclusions - mean nothing to me. But I'm a big fan of his show, though, because watching it lets me engage in the whole process of tasting & evaluating wine. I think Gary is providing educational value above and beyond his role as a mere salesman. Yet I would never call him a "critic" - he doesn't come anywhere close to meeting the professional definition of one.

So, I watch almost every WLTV show. But I almost never refer to the WLTV score spreadsheet.


Eek Don't tell SS Chris, he'll be crushed!

I like your thoughts on the matter and they make sense. You can call Gary whatever you want, and many have, but the bottom line is he critiques wine, and people listen.

Oh...and he's my hero!
C chrisrMember
quote:
Originally posted by Stefania Wine:
I took it exactly opposite.

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

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

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


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

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

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

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×