Welcome Guest ( Log In | Join )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Oops! Parker on Aussie wine writers ...
"lantana"
post Jul 22 2003, 03:50 PM
Post #21





Guests






Scott, Scott, Scott (said with head in hands shaking from side to side slowly), just when we were starting to forgive you for your past conciliatory behaviour.

Oh well, I must admit I do have a good laugh at your comments, but I expect you must get that reaction quite alot.
lantana



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Jeff"
post Jul 22 2003, 03:11 PM
Post #22





Guests






Scott,

Outrageous stuff. Give yourself an uppercut.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"TORB"
post Jul 22 2003, 03:06 PM
Post #23





Guests






Scott,

My comments were directed at what you said, not who you are and were not personally directed. In response once again you attack me as a person.

Scott, I have to laugh when I see you taking a pot shot at me and then saying it says a lot about my character.

Once again the readers of this forum will make up thier own minds but then the readers of this forum are mainly from that same major wine comsuming country" to which you refer in your post.

Your cheerfull "hack charlatan"
Ric





This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"MGH"
post Jul 22 2003, 02:16 PM
Post #24





Guests






For my two bob's worth, I think most wine writers have re-rated wines or whole vintages quite significantly. I recall 1982 in Sth Aust -it was, at the time, heralded by virtually wine critics. Of course that all changed with time. That doesn't make them good or bad, just a case (or cases) of changing tastes and conditions.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Gary W"
post Jul 22 2003, 01:38 PM
Post #25





Guests






Scott,
I would consider that post a most vicious and uncalled for personal attack. It would perhaps make YOU king of the cheap shots around here.
Ric is not a "professional" wine writer. He is an amateur who does what he does for the love of wine. His views and notes are appreciated by a great many people. Personally we have our disagreements on wine styles and differ in tastes at times but that is all part of the wine experience that we all so enjoy discussing.

I know little about you personally but as you have chosen to make this personal on someone whose opinion I have much time for......I think you are the same Scott Treloar who posts on eRobertParker. You rarely have a pleasant word to offer but plenty of advice. You seem to be a wine snob of the highest order who is both condescending and you allow no room for divergence with your own opinon. I seem to recall when looking at your profile on this site that your email was (since removed) a work one for an insurance company in the UK yet you allude to be in the wine industry. May I ask what exactly are YOUR professional qualifications that we should put so much weight on your opinion?

Gary Walsh






This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Trevor"
post Jul 22 2003, 01:05 PM
Post #26





Guests






Scott,
Were you bullied at school much?




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"scott"
post Jul 22 2003, 12:51 PM
Post #27





Guests






Ric,
let's be honest here, I have no time for your views and patent lack of knowledge on these subjects. You feel the same, so there is no point in having some sort of side debate dressed up differently - but these pot shots do reveal a lot about your character.

I think you're a classic example, that just because you're prolific there is an assumption of competency. You cannot write a tasting note, have no formal training, very little understanding of technical issues and it shows.

If the standard of wine writing was higher in Oz than it is, your hack, charlatan efforts would be shown up clearly in the light of day for what they are. So rather than defend, you should be grateful for the overall standard of wine journalism. I can think of no other major wine comsuming country where you would be taken seriously.

Nothing further to say really, you just go on fooling most of people Ric, and I'll keep shaking my head at it.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"lantana"
post Jul 22 2003, 10:04 AM
Post #28





Guests






Correction to my previous posting, 17/20 is silver medal status, 15.5 - 16.9 is bronze.
lantana



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"lantana"
post Jul 22 2003, 09:55 AM
Post #29





Guests






Joe c,

Why is JO being constantly singled out for downgrading wines? He is not alone here! Wine Spectator constantly do it, Robert Parker is often doing it, the main difference being that they use the 100 point scale, so a 91 being reduced to an 88 isn't as severe as 19/20 down to 17/20 points, which is still almost bronze medal points, whereas 75/100 is almost faulty as far as I'm concerned, so be careful how you transpose the different scales.

By the way, JO currently rates Cape Mentelle Cab 1991 18.9 points on his onwine site, so I don't know what you are referring to when you say he downgraded it to 17 pts two years after awarding it 19 pts!! Perhaps he's upgraded it since?!

I'd also like to add this to the thread, as I feel JO cops it more often than others, because he seems to be the new kid on the block, although I think he's been at it for 7-8 years or more (somebody please correct me if I'm wrong) & here it comes, WHAT USE ARE HALLIDAY'S NOTES?! The number of times he has gone back to a wine & given a progress report, can be counted on one's fingers & toes. I'm constantly looking for appraisals from him of older vintages that I have in my cellar to see if he has a note from more than 5-8 years ago, only to see the last tasted date as 1995 or some such date. He rarely picks an optimum drinking window, but for the poor bastard who takes a stab at it, what do we do to him? Slate him & deride him as a poor taster!! As far as JO's palate being in tune with no flavour, high acid wines, or whatever Parker said about him, then so is mine, because I would far prefer to be advised by JO's notes than RPJ's, who I think has been exposed to far too much American "moreism" & artificially sweetened foods in his life & not enough elegance, balance & grace!

That's my rant, feel free to cut me down if you feel I'm wrong, but let's all be thankful for "new" voices in the wine industry, such as JO & we don't only have "the Gurus" like RPJ & JH as reference points, anymore.
lantana



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Joe c"
post Jul 21 2003, 04:46 PM
Post #30





Guests






Dear Mark, I largely agree with you. I do not rely on the so called expert's ratings. I rather taste and form my own opinion and make my own judgement as to whether the wine would improve with time and if so, the time frame. However to give 99 or 100 pts. the wine would have to be something special later on with time. If not then I feel their tasting ability and credibility should be questioned. I remember JO gave the Cape Mentelle's cab-sav 1991vintage in excess of 19 pts.(out of 20)and yet 2 years later gave it 17 odd pts. Surely if his taste buds are that good and he is a so called an expert, he would not have given such a high rating to start with. To rate a wine so highly yet deteriorate so speedily does put a question mark to his tasting ability. Imagine giving the 71 Grange say 98 pts. yet 2 years later 75 pts. Many folks would laugh at your tasting ability. I know that wines do evolve and change but to get it so wrong??? I do give him the marks for honesty though. Joe C.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Mark D"
post Jul 21 2003, 09:32 AM
Post #31





Guests






Joe,
I'm not interested in continuing the debate - just to say that RP, JO et al have been around for some time.

RP became famous due to his predictions of greatness for 1982 Bordeaux at a time when some others were saying that the wines are too low in acid, too new world, too lacking in typicity.

Interstingly, the exact same debate is taking place with 2000 Bordeaux. I was there during vintage and the fruit was in perfect condition - the argument again comes down more to expectations and preference.

RP has changed points many times as has JH - which is why Oliver was initially criticised.

Since the thread started I have look up On Wine and yes, there have been many changes since initial ratings. Yet wine is not a static, immutable product.

The argument on erobertparker which I also use has become even more boorish and at times trivial as many of the members see RP as the Holy grail and therefore all others are of little value or just plain wrong.

An example is the low prices this year for 2002 Bordeaux indent. RP did not go to the tastings - and thus demand in the USA was low. Why? Because many USA buyers need their hands held. If RP annoints a wine with 99 points or something the price skyrockets - to think I used to be able to afford some of those right bank superstars. The said 2000 was the greatest ever - thus prices were 4 times as high for firsts compared to 2002.

In this case, I'm glad he did not go. I could get my favourite wines including Mouton, Lafite, Margaux, the Leovilles, Chevalier, Lagrange, Pontet Canet, Pichon baron and Lalande, Lynch Bages, Montrose et al for much less than in 2001.

Putting individuals aside, the wine market has become a trendy, showy industry. There is competion to buy points, not wines. It has also led to investors hogging 100 pointers who will in many cases never drink the stuff. Yet more crazily, so many buyers are totally reliant on RP in particular and tasters per se to determine what they should like, let alone buy, like "RP or WS gave it 100 points - what's wrong with my palate??"

having said that, I am not overly taken by JO's ratings, but after drinking European and Aust wines for nearly 30 years, I see all as opinions, and accept that tasting young wines partticularly tank and barrel samples is a risky business and the wine often bears little resemblance to what is in the bottle. After that, the wine continues to change and knowing the wine's history is probably more important than your palate in determining future performance.





This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Joe c "
post Jul 20 2003, 09:52 PM
Post #32





Guests






A lot of the arguments put forwards seems to go round in circles, the more i read, the less fact/opinion sinks in. In reality only time will tell if JO or Parker and all the other names put forward are good tasters/judges. We shall see in 5-10 (or more) years, all the 99's and 100 pointers or equivalent given by these chaps will stand up to the test of time and the wines do mature as predicted or fizzle out to something very ordinary. Reading some of their tasting notes raises my eye brows on many occasions. I suspect some will have egg on their faces as a lot of bold predictions had been made by many a wine writer, JO and Parker included. Would be great if all the contributors in this forum would compare some of the previous tasting notes made by these guys, open up a bottle from time to time (preferably with a few other tasters ) and make a few critical or complimentary comments. Then collectively we all will have a better idea who is good and who is not. No use making big predictions and not finding out how it turn out later on. Cheers Joe c.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Gary W"
post Jul 20 2003, 10:55 AM
Post #33





Guests






Ric,
Well said. Agree with comments 100% (or should that be 20/20)
Gary



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"simm"
post Jul 19 2003, 12:53 PM
Post #34





Guests






Joe C,
to which do you refer? There may be some simple definitions required.

simm



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Joe c"
post Jul 19 2003, 08:18 AM
Post #35





Guests






I wish some you would write in plain old simple English. Some of the terms/phrases/jargons are a little difficult to understand. No sarcasm here.



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"TORB"
post Jul 18 2003, 05:47 PM
Post #36





Guests






Scott,

You say I think the standard of wine writing is Australia is lamentable. The published palates seem too often wholly unreliable.

Sorry that you think our wine writers are ?wretched, deplorable, distressing or just plain mournful? - depending on which dictionary definition meaning you wish to choose. Oh yes, and I forgot they are also ?unreliable?, that?s Halliday, Hooke, Kyte-Powell, Port, Evans, White, a few others too, oh - and I also neglected to mention Oliver. Such a pity they don?t measure up to your standards.

I guess that?s to be expected, especially when one of our well known ones (Jeremy Oliver) is ?an unskilled taster? (even if ?he is not a bad person?).

The following comments apply to everyone. It?s very easy to sit back and take pot shots at these guys because their tastes may not be your own or you happen not to agree with them. However if you like them or its immaterial; they are still respected by many people. If they were not respected by a large number of people they wouldn?t be making a living in the business over a protracted period of time and sell countless books and periodicals.

Just ask someone like Campbell from Wine Front Monthly how hard it is to break into this market and establish a name for yourself. If you are not good you don?t survive long term, it?s that simple. As stupid as the public may or may not be, as a writer you still have to prove your worth to the people who are paying the tariff. If a wine writer is not worth feeding the public will soon establish that fact and stop purchasing the product.

So by definition Oliver is either a supreme charismatic con man who can sell ice to Eskimos or he does have a palate and knowledge level that?s acceptable to a large number of the wine drinking public.

Cheers
Ric




This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Gary W"
post Jul 18 2003, 01:51 PM
Post #37





Guests






Yes..a little "complexity" is fine but a bottle developing into something smelling like a horses arse is not my bag. Can't drink the stuff. Apparently Brett becomes more active if wine is not cellared well e.g. breeds if over 19 or 20 or so I hear. I don't think I have the energy for another "Brett" discussion here though. Still recovering from the last one!
GW



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"lantana"
post Jul 18 2003, 01:04 PM
Post #38





Guests






Gary W,

Yeah, I think I'll read it too, as I lean more towards Jefford than Halliday when it comes to non interventionist winemaking. I was however interested in J.H.'s point about A.J.'s lack of consistency, in relation to acid being evil & sugar addition...no comment, also MLF O.K. if occuring naturally, evil if instigated by the winemaker!
Having read the latest from Decanter on Brett this morning, it would seem the PR push for it's acceptance has well & truly begun!! I wonder if it is being driven by the Andrew Jefford's & Nicolas Joly's of the world?
Myself, I think I'm in the "little bit pregnant" school of non-interventionist winemaking & brett acceptance. As long as my wine doesn't give birth to something I wasn't expecting, in however many months time, I like a little bit of Brett, if it doesn't dominate.
lantana



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"Gary W"
post Jul 17 2003, 05:28 PM
Post #39





Guests






Lantana,
Does not mean the book is not a well written and a good read. It illustrates a different philosophical bent by the author. This is a different issue to that of the book's quality. Apparently Brian Croser thinks it should be required reading. I will read it I think...even though I think a lot of wineries will come unstuck with this low intervention winemaking lark.
Gary



This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
"lantana"
post Jul 17 2003, 04:55 PM
Post #40





Guests






Scott,

I have lifted the last part of the Halliday article about Andrew Jefford & his "New France" book & included it below. I would like to know your opinion & Pierre Rovani's too, for that matter, of the incongruities JH raises.
I am actually not a huge fan of JH's, some of his wine ratings amaze me, but I do respect him. It just seems to me that some of the points he raises, do make sense.

"This is familiar territory for Jefford watchers. While condemning the addition of acid, he is silent on the issue of adding sugar. The former is evil, the latter is not, but they both change the chemical composition of wine. So does malolactic fermentation, apparently good if it happens spontaneously, but not if it is controlled.

He and I have already crossed swords on the subject of fining and filtration, both of which are (in Jefford's view) evil, denaturing processes. As the next few years go by, wine consumers are going to hear or read much discussion about brettanomyces (brett for short), a spoilage yeast which gives rise to gamey, animal or bandaid aromas. It is controlled by the addition of SO2 in healthy doses; but as the level of sulphur use has declined, so has the presence of brett increased.

Once in a winery, only the strictest hygiene will eliminate it, and, since it is present in the vineyard on grapes, re-contamination is always on the cards. In small doses, it is not unpleasant; the problem is, if present and active when the wine is bottled, the population can continue to increase thereafter. For Jefford the filtration cure is worse than the illness; for most new world winemakers and judges, the reverse is the case. C'est la geurre." extract from James Halliday-"Sophistry of a Stormy Petrel", Mar 21 2003 The Australian

I'd appreciate your thoughts, as I too saw the high praise heaped on this book by the Squires forumites.
lantana







This post has been imported from Winepros archive - www.winepros.com.au
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th January 2020 - 01:30 PM