This is such an important video. Fundamentally what i think you’re saying is that scores are really no help to the average consumer, especially when taken out of context. But of course people sell on the basis of score alone. Add into that the fact that some critics work for supermarket chains and allow their scores to be used to sell and you’ve got a potentially toxic mix.
Independent review is absolutely crucial for drinkers/consumers. Us. I include myself fully in this group, as well as being a reviewer. I never accept/take money from wineries for reviews and I never will. (There's undoubtedly a video in that). Yes, many retailers sell on score alone, which is ludicrous given consumers won't buy a wine scored under 90 points, yet most of the time a reasonable mid-week drinking wine will sit 87-89pts...
Great summary, thank you! I do actually encourage people in my life who are getting into wine to give their own scores. It’s a great form of aesthetic orientation, despite all the flack scores get.
What wine drinkers have learned are to find someone whose wine ratings match with their experience. Jancis Robinson for example scores out of twenty points, uses reduced descriptors and rarely rates over 17.5 out of 20. That score is less than 90 on the 100 point scale and therefore below the cut for most consumers using those 100 point systems. However in wine show judging that's a solid Silver. The great thing about the 20 point system used in show judging is the rules the chief judge sets for the wine class. Example - not looking for high levels of battonage in a Chardonnay class. One only has to look at how few wines in a category at shows get solid golds eg 18.5 and above. Compare that with the almost endless lists of wines rated 90 plus by Aussie wine writers. The 20 point system is therefore less inflated, at shows meets certain standards and frankly is the only system that avoids the 90 plus tendency of most wine writers in Australia.
The 20 point system is very different, and judging at shows when we used to use the 20 point system, a 14, or 15 was acceptable and good. 72.5 points in the hundred point scale. It's a complex debate, but ultimately, consumers will not accept a wine scored under 85 points. Chicken and egg, now.
Well spoken Erin, aligning with a wine judge/writer that you agree with is important. As I still use the 20 point system after listening to what you have said I will do more research on the 100 point system. Thank you for the education.🍷
Thanks Greg. I've had lots of passionate discussions with people still choosing to use the 20 point system. As I talked about in the video, there's no problem with it, or the 100pt system, it's just about relating to the numbers. Jancis is a steadfast proponent of the 20pt system, and she uses it to great effect.
Thank you for going through this. This video has been the most helpful that I have found to break down wine scoring. I have only found one other that discussed the differences in scoring pre-2000 and post-2000 (average scores have gone up). It explained my scores (being 1-5 lower than my wife's) since I learned before 2000 and my wife that has started paying attention and doing research within the past 7 years. Something that we have started doing it discuss all of the notes and quality and then expressing how much we like it in a 1-10 scale, in .25 degree increments.
At the end of the day when I am having a glass, did I enjoy the wine? That is the only thing that matters. I do not save the good wines for the weekend. Something about opening a Henschke Mount Edelstone 2015 on a Wednesday.
Really interesting, thanks Erin Some of this definitely resonated with me. I am a Halliday subscriber and it took me a couple of years to learn that the first thing i needed to do when checking a Halliday review is to see who the actual reviewer was! Finding a reviewer or two whom you can trust, no matter where they write, can really take some of the guesswork out of buying wines you haven't tasted yet!
Have to love your passion Erin, this is why you have a great following and your soo good at what you do, very hard to find people today with as much passion as you do, once again a fantastic video and a pleasure to learn from you. Have a fantastic Christmas and I wish you all the best to both you and your family. X❤
Thanks for a great video, the explanations on the differences in scoring was very interesting. I have to agree with your view on finding a reviewer who mirrors your own palette.
It's everything. You might only go to a particular reviewer for their views on one variety, or one thing... but it's worth trying to finding alignment somewhere.
Talk about transparency Erin! One of your best videos ever. I really like the point you make about 'very well made wines'. I stumble around wines that I regard as average or maybe not as striking is a better word. As in I don't mind them, nothing wrong with them but they are just not for me. I still buy these kind of bottle just because they are well made and i can share them with family/friends who might enjoy them more than I would . Taste is subjective but Quality is very easy to spot!
Great video. The 100 point scale invented by Robert Parker is the most reliable and flexible in m view.. Allmost aeveryone use it now. I agree about what you say regarding tasters who aligns with your palate. My top tasters are Jeb dunnuck. Neil Martin. Antonio Galloni and Lisa Perroti. I trust their palate. Of course Robert Parker where the best rater ever. Sadly he had to stop.
Really well explained, I hadn't quite thought about picking wine writers that suit my palate. It's also provided context on how you scored the Xanadu black label
I've been waiting for this explanation for some time. I know when I like a wine, and most of the time I can work out why I like it. For me, the added dimension is experience or range. I can try a wonderful Vouvray which I think is 90 points given the descriptors you have shared (for example). But unless I have experience of tasting a lot (or enough) Chenin Blanc from the Loire by score lacks context. That's where other people scores become helpful as you mention. So broadening my tasting experiences within a typical area, or grape variety, or from a specific producer etc can only come with practice. From now on I will start to practice giving scores to wines I drink. Thanks for a very educational video Erin. PS: I have just had a 2019 Domaine de Villargeau Cotes du Giennoix Sauvignon Blanc which I have given 90 points. I now have a good excuse to try more to see how close to reality I am!
Great video, thank you for this. It explains so much nuance that is lost the vast majority of the time. Your voice is a breath of fresh air in a sometimes stuffy industry. An industry we all love, because there’s endless discovery, learning and enjoyment :)
@@erinlarkin as someone who sells wine (Langton’s), I’m often suggesting wines based on points, but often the points alone don’t tell the story, and doesn’t provide any context either. I’ve tasted ‘perfect’ wines that I felt were a bit underwhelming, and discovered other ‘imperfect’ wines I’ve loved and bought, only to find later their scores don’t have the same numbers. And some of my favourite and most successful wines don’t have any points at all (Travis Earth as one example).
And THAT is one of the beauties/challenges/idiosyncrasies about wine reviewing. It’s actually what stokes my curiousity… the differences in opinion and assessment. Good that you know what you like and know how to find it. The best skill a drinker/buyer can hone!
Always enjoy your videos Erin and being born and raised in Perth you have been my 'go to' for knowledge on wine. As someone who is fairly new to wine something that has always confused me is the economics. I believe this question is closely related to grading as the vast difference in cost is not really matched by the difference in scores. I bought some Larry Cherubino Pedestal Cab Sav as you guys at Halliday had rated it 96. Cost me $20 a bottle. Then there is Diane Madeline Cullen Cab sav that I paid $130 for. Over 6x more. Further, in a previous video you mentioned that even at $800 henschke hill of grace is still great value!! For what it's worth I have always wondered what it is exactly people are paying for. I assume you would agree it is not that the Diane Madeline is 6x better than the Larry Cherubino. My only guess is that it must be to do with uniqueness of taste. So just thought I'd let you know that that is something maybe worth educating us about.
A video on value, and price of wines is a really good idea, and one I've been working on a while now. Thanks for the detailed comment - lots to consider here. To answer your question (very briefly), I would say that cheap wine is made with the intention of it being drunk by the consumer in the short term. It is not made with long term ageing in mind, and for that reason, it is unlikely that a cheap wine will attract an extremely high score for quality. 'Deliciousness', sure. It's made that way. But 'quality', less often. The Diana Madeline will live many decades, whereas the $20 Cherubino (I assume Avant Gardener or something like it) may go a decade or so, and will be bloody delicious in that time, but won't hold up in the long term. That's ok - that's not what it was made for. Doesnt stop it being cracking value for money... Hope that helps?
Nice and very informative video Erin! From your perspective as a wine judge, what are your perspective about wine score inflation among critics? Is that a growing issue?
I would say it's always been a challenge, and as long as we all live and breathe, it will be a challenge. External imperatives can sometimes drive wine score inflation (hence why independent voice is so vital), but sometimes it is possible to 'run out of runway', as I have heard it described. We all try, with every wine we taste, to be consistent, and not to creep north with scores. It's difficult to rein it in once the horse has bolted... so to speak... prevention is better than a cure.
Experts simply don't weight the aspects of a wine the same as the average consumer for a number of reasons. When you're part of the crowd like I am, learning to read what's in a score/review for yourself becomes a skill of its own. I've made huge mistakes and bought things I definitely shouldn't have, but I won't accept sole responsibility. To be fair, some critics are very good at keeping this stuff in mind, and manages to communicate something that will inform a broad spectre of premises.
I identify as both a buyer/drinker, and critic. My technical knowledge and experience in tasting helps to give shape and detail to my assessments, but at the end of the day, my life as a wine collected/drinker means I value drinkability very highly. As well. In tandem. The best wines are excellent, and delicious. Reading into scores and notes is a skill, I agree, that’s why I made this video. Hopefully it gave you another perspective that you could find useful? Thanks for watching 🙏
Not all 100 point scales are created equal. Suckling’s, for example have 15 points for colour. There is no 50 for ‘turning-up’. He has a video where he explains all this. So a RP 95 and JS 95 are two very different things. By the way, when you review for WS, is it blind? (As JS does) Have only just discovered you and love your work.
Thanks for watching 🙏 I don’t taste blind, as I think it robs me of the ability to understand intention and producer story which is important to the story of the wine. I do a lot of judging by at wine shows at that is obviously all blind so I get my fair share of both methods. They both have benefits.
Interesting you said you are not into high alcohol shiraz, given I am sitting on a couple of bottles of 18% Shiraz, wonder how they will turn out long run. 😂
If you are scoring a wine 99- 100 pts to a wine tasted today and it is supposed to improve with age does this make sense I don't think so no wine tasted today that is getting better with age should score 99- 100 at time of tasteing what is you view on that
The decision to point a wine 100 points is an interesting one. I have never reviewed a wine to which I have given 100 points. I grapple with a similar thought - if the wine is going to improve, how can it be 100 points? But. The answer to that is; a 100 point wine ready has all of its greatness. It will evolve, and morph, and some may say it will be ‘better’, but the fact is, great wine in time, always starts out as great wine. My first 100 point wine is still in front of me. Who knows when it will be!
there has to be something said about old school pure technical, degustation and scoring… does wine industry at this stage of development really need assessment of faults? I mean literally anybody with enough money can make a textbook Sauv Blanc but is that an archivment and should they be rewarded for that? I am not sure. I think wine industry itself has moved forward but wine tasting, scoring, journalism around wine has not :)
It's a complicated topic, but I'm not sure I agree with you about the wine industry moving forward and wine journalism remaining static - perhaps you are following the wrong people! I think the Australian wine show system and its judges are the most technically focused in the world. The wine writers are the ones who must navigate fault and style when forming a critical opinion - in a show, the faulty wine is booted. In real life, the faulty wine must be described, explained and a picture painted. It's an incredibly complex juggle of priorities.
In your videos you say you're ranking the quality - disregarding your own personal taste - then how does it work to follow like-minded reviewers? You suggest all reviewers would in theory come out with the same score for the same wine because they all understand the objective features of a good wine and score accordingly.
All good reviewers can recognise quality, and I am certain will score it somewhat similarly. This does not mean 'the same', as some reviewers may see some things that others will not, or see them from a different perspective. I don't disregard a wine if it is made well, but I dont like it. I'll often call it out in the note. Who am I to say the style is not worthy? It doesn't float my boat but it pleases many. BUT, when a wine absolutely does float my boat, and is made well/high quality, I'll include my own preferences here. You'll see that in most of my very high pointed wines. I try to be as fair as humanly possible to the wines, regardless of style.
As MW folk go, I quite like Konstantin Baum for world wine, and Erin, Halliday and Hooke for Oz - then again, I quite like Langtons ratings system as well; albeit it can be expensive🥹
I love Konstantins channel but for Konstantin to taste a “world wine” it has to have a fantastic distribution and a good scale and even if that happens, tasting would be so rare that he wont have an frame of reference and it would be very hard for him to judge a obscure grape, region or a style. its one thing when you are tasting california cabernets and scoring them and its a totally different game when you are judging Saperavi made in Qvevri, which you probably never had.
MWs are only worth listening to when they're talking about wines with high typicity, ie wines that would show up in a MW exam.. you'd be a fool to read anything except winefront for aus wine (comments and all)
Thanks Shaun! My first alignments with wine writers were Halliday and Hooke - I fell between them in preference and score at the time. It was a very handy barometer.
This is such an important video. Fundamentally what i think you’re saying is that scores are really no help to the average consumer, especially when taken out of context. But of course people sell on the basis of score alone. Add into that the fact that some critics work for supermarket chains and allow their scores to be used to sell and you’ve got a potentially toxic mix.
Independent review is absolutely crucial for drinkers/consumers. Us. I include myself fully in this group, as well as being a reviewer. I never accept/take money from wineries for reviews and I never will. (There's undoubtedly a video in that). Yes, many retailers sell on score alone, which is ludicrous given consumers won't buy a wine scored under 90 points, yet most of the time a reasonable mid-week drinking wine will sit 87-89pts...
Great summary, thank you! I do actually encourage people in my life who are getting into wine to give their own scores. It’s a great form of aesthetic orientation, despite all the flack scores get.
It puts them into a ranking, where words can’t. I think both are crucial: one for context, one for qualitative assessment. Thanks for watching!
What wine drinkers have learned are to find someone whose wine ratings match with their experience. Jancis Robinson for example scores out of twenty points, uses reduced descriptors and rarely rates over 17.5 out of 20. That score is less than 90 on the 100 point scale and therefore below the cut for most consumers using those 100 point systems. However in wine show judging that's a solid Silver. The great thing about the 20 point system used in show judging is the rules the chief judge sets for the wine class. Example - not looking for high levels of battonage in a Chardonnay class. One only has to look at how few wines in a category at shows get solid golds eg 18.5 and above. Compare that with the almost endless lists of wines rated 90 plus by Aussie wine writers. The 20 point system is therefore less inflated, at shows meets certain standards and frankly is the only system that avoids the 90 plus tendency of most wine writers in Australia.
The 20 point system is very different, and judging at shows when we used to use the 20 point system, a 14, or 15 was acceptable and good. 72.5 points in the hundred point scale. It's a complex debate, but ultimately, consumers will not accept a wine scored under 85 points. Chicken and egg, now.
Well spoken Erin, aligning with a wine judge/writer that you agree with is important. As I still use the 20 point system after listening to what you have said I will do more research on the 100 point system. Thank you for the education.🍷
Thanks Greg. I've had lots of passionate discussions with people still choosing to use the 20 point system. As I talked about in the video, there's no problem with it, or the 100pt system, it's just about relating to the numbers. Jancis is a steadfast proponent of the 20pt system, and she uses it to great effect.
One of your best Erin, very well explained, thanks and Merry Xmas & Happy New Year 🙂
Thanks Steve!
Thank you for going through this. This video has been the most helpful that I have found to break down wine scoring. I have only found one other that discussed the differences in scoring pre-2000 and post-2000 (average scores have gone up). It explained my scores (being 1-5 lower than my wife's) since I learned before 2000 and my wife that has started paying attention and doing research within the past 7 years. Something that we have started doing it discuss all of the notes and quality and then expressing how much we like it in a 1-10 scale, in .25 degree increments.
Thank you! 🙏
At the end of the day when I am having a glass, did I enjoy the wine? That is the only thing that matters. I do not save the good wines for the weekend. Something about opening a Henschke Mount Edelstone 2015 on a Wednesday.
And using the 'good china' every day of the week. Wholeheartedly agree with you here Paul!
Really interesting, thanks Erin
Some of this definitely resonated with me. I am a Halliday subscriber and it took me a couple of years to learn that the first thing i needed to do when checking a Halliday review is to see who the actual reviewer was!
Finding a reviewer or two whom you can trust, no matter where they write, can really take some of the guesswork out of buying wines you haven't tasted yet!
Exactly right Duncan. I still do it myself!
Have to love your passion Erin, this is why you have a great following and your soo good at what you do, very hard to find people today with as much passion as you do, once again a fantastic video and a pleasure to learn from you. Have a fantastic Christmas and I wish you all the best to both you and your family. X❤
Thanks Chris!
Thanks for a great video, the explanations on the differences in scoring was very interesting. I have to agree with your view on finding a reviewer who mirrors your own palette.
It's everything. You might only go to a particular reviewer for their views on one variety, or one thing... but it's worth trying to finding alignment somewhere.
Talk about transparency Erin! One of your best videos ever. I really like the point you make about 'very well made wines'. I stumble around wines that I regard as average or maybe not as striking is a better word. As in I don't mind them, nothing wrong with them but they are just not for me. I still buy these kind of bottle just because they are well made and i can share them with family/friends who might enjoy them more than I would . Taste is subjective but Quality is very easy to spot!
Thanks Paul, I thought it would be a useful video to release. Quality vs style!
Great video. The 100 point scale invented by Robert Parker is the most reliable and flexible in m view.. Allmost aeveryone use it now. I agree about what you say regarding tasters who aligns with your palate. My top tasters are Jeb dunnuck. Neil Martin. Antonio Galloni and Lisa Perroti. I trust their palate. Of course Robert Parker where the best rater ever. Sadly he had to stop.
Great palates you mention here Nikolaj. I'm sure its helped you many times with purchasing decisions!
Excellent video....big responsibility on MW and other wine reviews that they dont throw big scores around like confetti like James Suckling does
Quite right, Jez
Really well explained, I hadn't quite thought about picking wine writers that suit my palate. It's also provided context on how you scored the Xanadu black label
Exactly Minka!
Great analysis. Thanks
Thanks for watching Gerard!
I've been waiting for this explanation for some time. I know when I like a wine, and most of the time I can work out why I like it. For me, the added dimension is experience or range. I can try a wonderful Vouvray which I think is 90 points given the descriptors you have shared (for example). But unless I have experience of tasting a lot (or enough) Chenin Blanc from the Loire by score lacks context. That's where other people scores become helpful as you mention. So broadening my tasting experiences within a typical area, or grape variety, or from a specific producer etc can only come with practice. From now on I will start to practice giving scores to wines I drink. Thanks for a very educational video Erin. PS: I have just had a 2019 Domaine de Villargeau Cotes du Giennoix Sauvignon Blanc which I have given 90 points. I now have a good excuse to try more to see how close to reality I am!
Great video, thank you for this. It explains so much nuance that is lost the vast majority of the time. Your voice is a breath of fresh air in a sometimes stuffy industry. An industry we all love, because there’s endless discovery, learning and enjoyment :)
Thanks Jacob! As I ask the winemakers who question scores... 'did you read the words?'
@@erinlarkin as someone who sells wine (Langton’s), I’m often suggesting wines based on points, but often the points alone don’t tell the story, and doesn’t provide any context either. I’ve tasted ‘perfect’ wines that I felt were a bit underwhelming, and discovered other ‘imperfect’ wines I’ve loved and bought, only to find later their scores don’t have the same numbers. And some of my favourite and most successful wines don’t have any points at all (Travis Earth as one example).
And THAT is one of the beauties/challenges/idiosyncrasies about wine reviewing. It’s actually what stokes my curiousity… the differences in opinion and assessment. Good that you know what you like and know how to find it. The best skill a drinker/buyer can hone!
Always enjoy your videos Erin and being born and raised in Perth you have been my 'go to' for knowledge on wine. As someone who is fairly new to wine something that has always confused me is the economics. I believe this question is closely related to grading as the vast difference in cost is not really matched by the difference in scores. I bought some Larry Cherubino Pedestal Cab Sav as you guys at Halliday had rated it 96. Cost me $20 a bottle. Then there is Diane Madeline Cullen Cab sav that I paid $130 for. Over 6x more. Further, in a previous video you mentioned that even at $800 henschke hill of grace is still great value!! For what it's worth I have always wondered what it is exactly people are paying for. I assume you would agree it is not that the Diane Madeline is 6x better than the Larry Cherubino. My only guess is that it must be to do with uniqueness of taste. So just thought I'd let you know that that is something maybe worth educating us about.
A video on value, and price of wines is a really good idea, and one I've been working on a while now. Thanks for the detailed comment - lots to consider here. To answer your question (very briefly), I would say that cheap wine is made with the intention of it being drunk by the consumer in the short term. It is not made with long term ageing in mind, and for that reason, it is unlikely that a cheap wine will attract an extremely high score for quality. 'Deliciousness', sure. It's made that way. But 'quality', less often. The Diana Madeline will live many decades, whereas the $20 Cherubino (I assume Avant Gardener or something like it) may go a decade or so, and will be bloody delicious in that time, but won't hold up in the long term. That's ok - that's not what it was made for. Doesnt stop it being cracking value for money... Hope that helps?
Thank you for this great video
A pleasure Jonnhy!
Nice and very informative video Erin! From your perspective as a wine judge, what are your perspective about wine score inflation among critics? Is that a growing issue?
I would say it's always been a challenge, and as long as we all live and breathe, it will be a challenge. External imperatives can sometimes drive wine score inflation (hence why independent voice is so vital), but sometimes it is possible to 'run out of runway', as I have heard it described. We all try, with every wine we taste, to be consistent, and not to creep north with scores. It's difficult to rein it in once the horse has bolted... so to speak... prevention is better than a cure.
Experts simply don't weight the aspects of a wine the same as the average consumer for a number of reasons. When you're part of the crowd like I am, learning to read what's in a score/review for yourself becomes a skill of its own. I've made huge mistakes and bought things I definitely shouldn't have, but I won't accept sole responsibility. To be fair, some critics are very good at keeping this stuff in mind, and manages to communicate something that will inform a broad spectre of premises.
I identify as both a buyer/drinker, and critic. My technical knowledge and experience in tasting helps to give shape and detail to my assessments, but at the end of the day, my life as a wine collected/drinker means I value drinkability very highly. As well. In tandem. The best wines are excellent, and delicious. Reading into scores and notes is a skill, I agree, that’s why I made this video. Hopefully it gave you another perspective that you could find useful? Thanks for watching 🙏
Not all 100 point scales are created equal. Suckling’s, for example have 15 points for colour. There is no 50 for ‘turning-up’. He has a video where he explains all this. So a RP 95 and JS 95 are two very different things.
By the way, when you review for WS, is it blind? (As JS does)
Have only just discovered you and love your work.
Thanks for watching 🙏 I don’t taste blind, as I think it robs me of the ability to understand intention and producer story which is important to the story of the wine. I do a lot of judging by at wine shows at that is obviously all blind so I get my fair share of both methods. They both have benefits.
Interesting you said you are not into high alcohol shiraz, given I am sitting on a couple of bottles of 18% Shiraz, wonder how they will turn out long run. 😂
What wines do have at 18%? Must be intended as VPs, surely?
You can let me know about that...!
If you are scoring a wine 99- 100 pts to a wine tasted today and it is supposed to improve with age does this make sense I don't think so no wine tasted today that is getting better with age should score 99- 100 at time of tasteing what is you view on that
The decision to point a wine 100 points is an interesting one. I have never reviewed a wine to which I have given 100 points. I grapple with a similar thought - if the wine is going to improve, how can it be 100 points? But. The answer to that is; a 100 point wine ready has all of its greatness. It will evolve, and morph, and some may say it will be ‘better’, but the fact is, great wine in time, always starts out as great wine.
My first 100 point wine is still in front of me.
Who knows when it will be!
there has to be something said about old school pure technical, degustation and scoring… does wine industry at this stage of development really need assessment of faults? I mean literally anybody with enough money can make a textbook Sauv Blanc but is that an archivment and should they be rewarded for that? I am not sure. I think wine industry itself has moved forward but wine tasting, scoring, journalism around wine has not :)
It's a complicated topic, but I'm not sure I agree with you about the wine industry moving forward and wine journalism remaining static - perhaps you are following the wrong people! I think the Australian wine show system and its judges are the most technically focused in the world. The wine writers are the ones who must navigate fault and style when forming a critical opinion - in a show, the faulty wine is booted. In real life, the faulty wine must be described, explained and a picture painted. It's an incredibly complex juggle of priorities.
@@erinlarkin I understand that but my point is that wines been faulty is least of the current problems of wine industry globally.
In your videos you say you're ranking the quality - disregarding your own personal taste - then how does it work to follow like-minded reviewers? You suggest all reviewers would in theory come out with the same score for the same wine because they all understand the objective features of a good wine and score accordingly.
All good reviewers can recognise quality, and I am certain will score it somewhat similarly. This does not mean 'the same', as some reviewers may see some things that others will not, or see them from a different perspective. I don't disregard a wine if it is made well, but I dont like it. I'll often call it out in the note. Who am I to say the style is not worthy? It doesn't float my boat but it pleases many. BUT, when a wine absolutely does float my boat, and is made well/high quality, I'll include my own preferences here. You'll see that in most of my very high pointed wines. I try to be as fair as humanly possible to the wines, regardless of style.
As MW folk go, I quite like Konstantin Baum for world wine, and Erin, Halliday and Hooke for Oz - then again, I quite like Langtons ratings system as well; albeit it can be expensive🥹
I love Konstantins channel but for Konstantin to taste a “world wine” it has to have a fantastic distribution and a good scale and even if that happens, tasting would be so rare that he wont have an frame of reference and it would be very hard for him to judge a obscure grape, region or a style. its one thing when you are tasting california cabernets and scoring them and its a totally different game when you are judging Saperavi made in Qvevri, which you probably never had.
MWs are only worth listening to when they're talking about wines with high typicity, ie wines that would show up in a MW exam..
you'd be a fool to read anything except winefront for aus wine (comments and all)
Thanks Shaun! My first alignments with wine writers were Halliday and Hooke - I fell between them in preference and score at the time. It was a very handy barometer.
@@Ruirspirul Fair comment here. But he clearly does very well with the wines he tastes!
@@dumb_as_rocks Excellent guys, excellent palates, excellent commentary in the threads. Nothing not to like, I agree!