Hi folks

I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.

Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.

So some questions for this group:

- Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
opinion?
- How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
Parker vs. Suckling?

I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

Thanks,
John

A good old wine-newsgroup topic. For historical interest (recommendations
are not up to date), see last paragraph of a wine-newsgroup posting on the
subject from before Parker, Tanzer, or Suckling were on the radar generally
in the US. (This was on the wine newsgroup under its original name,
net.wines. Created 24 years ago this month.)



It's unlikely still to be on today's servers (very few of which existed
then) so here's a current link to Google's archive of it:

http://tinyurl.com/3vjrg


Cheers -- Max

The last question:

1989 Chateau Margaux is one of my favorite Margaux's ever.

I beleive following is accurate.

Spectator I think rated this 100
Parker we 89 point.

That is a big difference. I think in this case I agree with Spectator. But
when 1990 came out....it oveshadowed the complexity of the 1989.

Style vs substance.

Parker seemed to favor---huge, bold, fruit....Spectator seem to notice all
the complexity in the 1989.

"John LaCour" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hi folks

I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.

Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.

So some questions for this group:

- Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
opinion?
- How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
Parker vs. Suckling?

I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

Thanks,
John

John LaCour wrote:

I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.

Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.


I think that "understanding which one(s) [your] personal preferences are
aligned with" is exactly what you should do. If you know of someone who
likes the same things you do, you can buy what he recommends with confidence
that you will probably like it too.



So some questions for this group:

- Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
opinion?
- How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
Parker vs. Suckling?


But those two questions don't seem to gibe with your statement above. If you
want to find a critic whose tastes match yours, it shouldn't matter which
ones anyone else thinks are best, or what the differences are between any
two.

--
Ken Blake
Please reply to the newsgroup


I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

Thanks,
John

Here's a wine to try and see what YOU think:
HdV, Chardonnay, Carneros, 2002.
WS80, RP93
I had it at a trade tasting before I knew what the scores were. One
taste, and I bought it.

1, Pay no attention to critics. NONE.

2. NEVER taste wines. Wines are impossible (not difficult, IMPOSSIBLE)
to evaluate outside of the context of a full meal. Wines that are great
paired with a full meal often taste quite different when tasted alone,
and often taste peculiar.

Tasting wines is in principle stupid. Whoever started this should be
shot.


John LaCour wrote:
Hi folks

I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.

Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
various wine critics. What I have yet to do is understand the
difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.

So some questions for this group:

- Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
opinion?
- How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
Parker vs. Suckling?

I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine. I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

Thanks,
John

John LaCour wrote:


I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine.


WHY? Who cares? Wines are made tio be drunk, not tasted, with FOOD.

I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

WHO CARES?

Thanks,
John

John LaCour wrote:
Hi folks

I'm a long time lurker and occassionly but rare poster.

Like many of you, I do read the reviews / tasting notes / scores from
various wine critics.

I don't. It's a waste of time.

What I have yet to do is understand the
difference in preferences between the critics and come to an
understanding which one(s) my personal preferences are aligned with.

Why?


So some questions for this group:

- Which wine critics are the best judges of quality wine in your
opinion?

Irrelevant.

- How would you describes the differences in preferences of, say,
Parker vs. Suckling?

Irrelevant.


I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where
critics seemed
to disagree on the quality of the wine.

Why? Totallly pointless and misleading. The wine that 'tastes' best may
not be the one that drinks best, and THAT is what matters!

I imagine I'll need to some
some extensive research to find representative samples.

So? Do you like wasting your time on useless tasks?

- Are there any wines that come to mind where different critics rated
them quite differently?

No. I pay no attention to wine critics.


Thanks,
John

"John LaCour" in ups.com:

. . . What I have yet to do is understand the difference in preferences
between the critics . . .

- How would you describes the differences in preferences of [various
critics]

There has been some serious and sophisticated study of this question. One
survey of the subject that appeared online (five years ago?) was by a
wine-enthusiast engineer, and used statistical methods to compare some
popular US critics' rankings of the same wines over several years of thier
publications. That study identified areas where they coincide closely, and
others where systematic differences were evident. (I don't have the
reference handy just now.)

I've heard of at least one other serious study, large and searching,
conducted privately with considerable resource, but I don't think it was
published.

Posted in the 1980s on the wine newsgroup were second-hand accounts of the
pioneering 100-point-scale critic (Parker),both opining that small score
differences were meaningful, and also giving specific wines score
differences (very significant, according to the first comment) when he
tasted it under conditions he did not control. However, Parker stresses
right up front in his publication the primacy of the consumer's own palate
in judging wines. (I wonder sometimes if all of his readers notice that
advice.)

I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where critics
seemed to disagree on the quality of the wine.

Sounds to me like an excellent and provocative basis for a tasting.

Blind tastings are how many good tasters developed their palates over the
years. The blind format (carefully arranged to maximize the palate's
sensitivity if possible) is essential (for wine as in other things) to
exclude distracting or biasing influences. The University of California at
Davis, near Sacramento is famous for its food-science program, wine being
one specialty thereof (the famous "Davis" winemaking training, which several
friends of mine completed, is a Master of Science program in Food Science
with "E and V" specialization, enology and viticulture). That university
offers weekend trainings to the public on sensory evaluation. After
training, students are asked to take blind wine samples (technically matched
for color and other cues) and sort them, blind, after randomization. (Those
who can sort the blind samples consistently, a number of times, are then
recruited as wine judges for agricultural fairs.) The ultimate point of
wine for most people is to enjoy it with good food and/or company,
obviously. Tasting wine critically and systematically, on its own, is a
powerful tool along the way to that. It's how wine is made, for example.

Cheers -- Max

Max,Ken and others make good points. Only you will be able to decide
what critic is best for you. I'd also point out that one's tastes might
sync well with a critic one area, and not another. Even more
complicating is the fact that the bigger publications have multiple
critics (WA is not just Parker, but now Rovani, Thomases, and David S.
; WS has a half-dozen critics).

I find FOR ME Parker is reasonably reliable for Medoc, so-so for CA cab
& Right Bank, way off for Australia. Rovani is so-so for Germany and
way off my tastes in Burgundy. But at WS I find Suckling maddeningly
inconsistent. As for Laube, he's less a critic these days than a
crusader for squeaky-clean "Davis" wines. I do find Claude Kolm (Fine
Wine Review) and Allen Meadows (Burghound) fairly reliable for Burgundy
FOR MY TASTES, yet I still disagree at least 20% of the time.

What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


Max Hauser wrote:
"John LaCour" in ups.com:

. . . What I have yet to do is understand the difference in preferences
between the critics . . .

- How would you describes the differences in preferences of [various
critics]

There has been some serious and sophisticated study of this question. One
survey of the subject that appeared online (five years ago?) was by a
wine-enthusiast engineer, and used statistical methods to compare some
popular US critics' rankings of the same wines over several years of thier
publications. That study identified areas where they coincide closely, and
others where systematic differences were evident. (I don't have the
reference handy just now.)

I've heard of at least one other serious study, large and searching,
conducted privately with considerable resource, but I don't think it was
published.

Posted in the 1980s on the wine newsgroup were second-hand accounts of the
pioneering 100-point-scale critic (Parker),both opining that small score
differences were meaningful, and also giving specific wines score
differences (very significant, according to the first comment) when he
tasted it under conditions he did not control. However, Parker stresses
right up front in his publication the primacy of the consumer's own palate
in judging wines. (I wonder sometimes if all of his readers notice that
advice.)

I plan to do a blind tasting with my tasting group of wines where critics
seemed to disagree on the quality of the wine.

Sounds to me like an excellent and provocative basis for a tasting.

Blind tastings are how many good tasters developed their palates over the
years. The blind format (carefully arranged to maximize the palate's
sensitivity if possible) is essential (for wine as in other things) to
exclude distracting or biasing influences. The University of California at
Davis, near Sacramento is famous for its food-science program, wine being
one specialty thereof (the famous "Davis" winemaking training, which several
friends of mine completed, is a Master of Science program in Food Science
with "E and V" specialization, enology and viticulture). That university
offers weekend trainings to the public on sensory evaluation. After
training, students are asked to take blind wine samples (technically matched
for color and other cues) and sort them, blind, after randomization. (Those
who can sort the blind samples consistently, a number of times, are then
recruited as wine judges for agricultural fairs.) The ultimate point of
wine for most people is to enjoy it with good food and/or company,
obviously. Tasting wine critically and systematically, on its own, is a
powerful tool along the way to that. It's how wine is made, for example.

Cheers -- Max

wrote in message
ps.com...
What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?

I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm not
going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter what
any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose, I'll
buy and 'drink and enjoy'.

I seldom get a bad bottle. I buy based on past experience, the
producer, and the recommendation of the wine shop owner. I experiment
a lot. I never taste a wine before buying it, unless the wine shop
owner happens to have a bottle open for sampling.

Why not? Barberas, for instance, taste quite astringent by themselves,
and anyone who would try one in a tasting would probably think it's
bad. But put that wine in its proper context, with a Piedmontese dish,
and it tastes quite different. Tasting is quite useless, and therefore
a foolish waste of time.


Ronin wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?

I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm not
going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter what
any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose, I'll
buy and 'drink and enjoy'.

I don't mean to be argumentative, but from what you wrote, I read as your
accepting the taste of a critic, (your wine shop owner - which I also do,
but my owner upped and retired, so I'm looking for a new one - not an easy
task) and tasting (having a bottle open for sampling - most wine shops here
(Portland Oregon) have three or four open every Friday and Saturday. Past
experience I have come to rely on less as winemakers change (Kenwood's SB
gets 91 points by the new winemaker adding a healthy dose of Chardonnay - I
liked the old style much better. Ken Wright making monster PN in the late
90's, but I'm not happy with the early 0X's) and I'm always looking for
something new - I never would have discovered Greco di Tufo if I relied
solely on past experience.

As I said, over time I've gotten to have an idea of what a wine will taste
like with certain foods. For instance, I wouldn't buy a fat, soft nebbiolo
for a tomato sauced dish, but look for a leaner, more acidic nebbiolo. I
think it neither foolish, useless, nor a waste of time to taste before I
choose.


wrote in message
ps.com...
I seldom get a bad bottle. I buy based on past experience, the
producer, and the recommendation of the wine shop owner. I experiment
a lot. I never taste a wine before buying it, unless the wine shop
owner happens to have a bottle open for sampling.

Why not? Barberas, for instance, taste quite astringent by themselves,
and anyone who would try one in a tasting would probably think it's
bad. But put that wine in its proper context, with a Piedmontese dish,
and it tastes quite different. Tasting is quite useless, and therefore
a foolish waste of time.


Ronin wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?

I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm
not
going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter
what
any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose,
I'll
buy and 'drink and enjoy'.

Ronin wrote:
I don't mean to be argumentative, but from what you wrote, I read as your
accepting the taste of a critic,

Roger's recommendations are not based on 'tastings', at least not
alone, but on drinking or the recommendation of the wholesaler, I
suppose.

The very methodolgy of tasting is IN PRINCIPLE incorrect. Wines that
are superb with meals often taste terrible alone. There is a
DRASTIC(!!!!!!!), HUGE (!!!!!!!) difference between the way a wine
tastes by itself and the way it tastes in a meal.

I drink Italian wines exclusively, so I have gotten to know almost all
of the basic types pretty well, and am familiar with many producers. I
do try a lot of different wines from time to time, but I do also expect
a certain degree of consistency from Argiolas, D'Angelo,
Mastroberardino, Lungarotti, Cerretto, Cavollotto, Taurino, Santadi,
Chiarlo, etc. I'm not in the least worried about what any 'critic'
thinks, nor in anyone else's opinions of the wines. I and a buddy give
Italian regional dinner parties from time to time, and we usually set
out an assortment of wines, based on the dishes. The last one we had
(Jan 28th, 12 people) featured dishes from all over Italy, so we had
wines from all over Italy: Vino Nobile, Primitivo, Valtellina, etc.
No-one asked about what the wine critics thought, and no-one had
anything but praise for our cooking and our wines, none of which was
cheap. Whether a different bottle of any of our choices would have
registered a point or two higher was the fartherst thing from our
minds. Wines are made to be enjoyed. Generally speaking, you get what
you pay for. If you expect a $10 wine to be as good as a $35 one,
you're usually going to be disappointed.

Tasting and analysis are a waste of time.

(your wine shop owner - which I also do,
but my owner upped and retired, so I'm looking for a new one - not an easy
task) and tasting (having a bottle open for sampling - most wine shops here
(Portland Oregon) have three or four open every Friday and Saturday. Past
experience I have come to rely on less as winemakers change (Kenwood's SB
gets 91 points by the new winemaker adding a healthy dose of Chardonnay - I
liked the old style much better. Ken Wright making monster PN in the late
90's, but I'm not happy with the early 0X's) and I'm always looking for
something new - I never would have discovered Greco di Tufo if I relied
solely on past experience.

As I said, over time I've gotten to have an idea of what a wine will taste
like with certain foods. For instance, I wouldn't buy a fat, soft nebbiolo
for a tomato sauced dish, but look for a leaner, more acidic nebbiolo. I
think it neither foolish, useless, nor a waste of time to taste before I
choose.


wrote in message
ps.com...
I seldom get a bad bottle. I buy based on past experience, the
producer, and the recommendation of the wine shop owner. I experiment
a lot. I never taste a wine before buying it, unless the wine shop
owner happens to have a bottle open for sampling.

Why not? Barberas, for instance, taste quite astringent by themselves,
and anyone who would try one in a tasting would probably think it's
bad. But put that wine in its proper context, with a Piedmontese dish,
and it tastes quite different. Tasting is quite useless, and therefore
a foolish waste of time.


Ronin wrote:
wrote in message
ps.com...
What Max writes is utter rubbish. Wines are not for 'tastsing' but for
drinking, and can only be evaluated (if they have to be evaluated) in
the context of a meal. Everything else is a complete waste of time. Why
do wines have to be evaluated anyway? Are you obsessed with having
something with more points? Why can't you just drink and enjoy? True
connoisseurs do not engage in such lunacy. I don't care how many points
my wine gets by any critic, and I NEVER have tastings, ever. I consider
this some kind of sick joke.

Grow up, people!


So, how *do* you buy wine? By label? Cost? Shape of the pretty bottle?

I taste, and over 50 years of drinking wine, have found I can tell pretty
much how a wine will "drink" with a particular style of food. But I'm
not
going to plunk down cash for a case of wine I haven't tasted, no matter
what
any critic says. Then after tasting, and deciding it suits my purpose,
I'll
buy and 'drink and enjoy'.