James Suckling: Is any man this arrogant?

I agree with Dale that I bring up a tired and weary argument, going on as long as the difference between yin and yang has been recognized. I think it is interesting (as opposed to saying “it is interesting”) that some of us see insufferable arrogance in Suckling’s words, while others see none at all. Kind of like an evaluation of a wine, don’t you think? I think this could make my point to the first group and to the second, wouldn’t mean a thing.

Now an indulgence which to some might seem more overweening than anything James Suckling could conjure. I have been struggling with a book called “The Ambassadors,” written by Henry James. It’s about an American who has been transplanted into Paris around the turn of the last century, and is slowly being seduced. James himself pretty much declared the work to be a masterpiece and warned even the most learned not to attempt to digest more than five pages at a sitting.

At first I could hardly understand a word of it. I would read the same sentence over and over again and ask erudite friends to explain it to me, which they couldn’t do out of context. The more I read, the more I felt I was in a psychedelic time travel backwards, and then at some point, I got it. It is the flip side of the spec zeitgeist. Something we have all but lost. It is an appreciation for what matters – the only thing that matters. It’s not about plot, or about anything that anybody did, or about things. It is about seeing. Not seeing anything in particular, just seeing.

Here’s a passage from the mind of this protagonist from Massachusetts, Strether. He is in the parlor of a Parisian, looking at her things. He could have been talking about Lafite or Latour. I read it just prior to beginning the Suckling article. My sense and shock of the contrast inspired my post.

“Chad and Miss Gostrey had rummaged and purchased and picked up and exchanged, sifting, selecting, comparing, whereas the mistress of the scene before him, beautifully and passive under the spell of transmission – transmission from her father’s line, he had quite made up his mind – had only received, accepted and been quiet. When she hadn’t been quiet, she had been moved at the most to some occult charity for some fallen fortune. There had been objects she or her predecessors might even conceivably have parted with under need; but Strether couldn’t suspect them of having sold old pieces to get “better” ones. They would have felt no difference as to better or worse. He could but imagine their having felt – perhaps in emigration, in proscription, for his sketch was slight and confused – the pressure of want or the obligation of sacrifice.”

I have the luxury of navel gazing because I don’t do anything. The only thing I do is try to see. I don’t think you can see. I think you can only try.

[David M. Bueker]

I agree with Dale that I bring up a tired and weary argument, going on as long as the difference between yin and yang has been recognized. I think it is interesting (as opposed to saying “it is interesting”) that some of us see insufferable arrogance in Suckling’s words, while others see none at all. Kind of like an evaluation of a wine, don’t you think? I think this could make my point to the first group and to the second, wouldn’t mean a thing.

You miss the group who can understand both sides of the discussion, and really don't see that there's all that much to care about.

As for the rest of your response, I would love to know what the heck you are talking about, but as usual you lost me after the carriage return. You said you were going to respond, but really didn't.

However, I'm sure if you did an interview with most of us here it would be easy to edit to 60 seconds that made us appear an ass.

very true - some would say they might not even have to edit!

[Robin Garr]

Mondovino is another thing. He did seem like an ass. However, I'm sure if you did an interview with most of us here it would be easy to edit to 60 seconds that made us appear an ass.

Point well-taken, Dale. Still, it appeared that Suckling provided Nossiter a target too fat and juicy to ignore.

But, you guys are missing something very crucial, and that is the huge number of people who don't understand "a nuanced wine with alluring black cherry and earth tones, accented by sweet vanilla oak and silky tannins." You think points are useless??? Try being the average consumer/Spec reader/shelf talker reader for a second. On sites like this one we are discussing the astrophysics of wine appreciation, while most folks just want directions to the Cabernet section.

You're right. I've been there. I started out there. When you're just starting out, and you're clueless regarding fine wine, except that you can appreciate great wine when you taste it, point scores have great appeal. They seem to simplify everything. I started out buying wine based on vintage point scores. I pretty quickly got disabused of that false notion. I clung to individual point scores for a while longer.

The reality is, points are useless. Much as the wine newbies (and the critics who promote point scores) would wish it were otherwise.

The Broadbent-style 1-5 star system is still a point system, while being honest concerning the accuracy and precision of the system.

Robert Parker, the King of the Points Ratings, has always maintained that the prose description of his reviews is more important than the raw points score. And I've always found it more instructive.

But the reliance on points by the critic lemmings seems to be unstoppable. Until those who are really serious about wine eventually learn and grow beyond it.

Stuart Yaniger's Stooges point system still is #1 in my book regarding honesty, precision, and accuracy.

-Paul W.

[David M. Bueker]

Robert Parker, the King of the Points Ratings, has always maintained that the prose description of his reviews is more important than the raw points score. And I've always found it more instructive.

But the reliance on points by the critic lemmings seems to be unstoppable. Until those who are really serious about wine eventually learn and grow beyond it.

Stuart Yaniger's Stooges point system still is #1 in my book regarding honesty, precision, and accuracy.

And in that Parker is absolutely correct. I don't buy in to the anti-Parker "if he rates it less than 90 I am more likely to enjoy it" argument. He has given top scores to some wonderful wines that I happen to love, but it all comes down to the note. He is easy to understand, and if one takes the time to read the notes there is a great deal of useful information in the WA.

Lemmings? You mean there are lemmings? Actually with the sheer volume of lemmings (in all areas of life) it's a wonder we dont run out of cliffs.

I like the Stooge system as well, except I don't care for the Stooges. I've thought about rating wines on a Lord of the Rings scale, but defining a wine as a Frodo/Galadriel/Boromir sounds kinky. bad ratings would be easy though. A Gollum is bad. A Sauron is truly evil and unstoppable (e.g. Mollydooker).

If one of the gurus thinks the 2000 is better (if only a smidgen so) than 2005s, can someone explain why the latter are selling at higer prices, when they are 8 years younger and the dollar is so much weaker?

David,

Points are shortcuts for people who don't have time or knowledge.
There is obviously a need for such a shortcut, but the thing has sadly gotten way out of control, which is why so many wine lovers, including myself, rise up against the tyranny of points, the shallowness and fake objectivity they imply.

Attributing points is a rational potshot at something that is not rational.
In that, it is either laughable or pathetic, depending....

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

If one of the gurus thinks the 2000 is better (if only a smidgen so) than 2005s, can someone explain why the latter are selling at higher prices, when they are 8 years younger and the dollar is so much weaker?

David,

Points are shortcuts for people who don't have time or knowledge.
There is obviously a need for such a shortcut, but the thing has sadly gotten way out of control, which is why so many wine lovers, including myself, rise up against the tyranny of points, the shallowness and fake objectivity they imply.

Attributing points is a rational potshot at something that is not rational.
In that, it is either laughable or pathetic, depending....

Best regards,
Alex R.

For your first point - the weak dollar makes the wines more expensive. And the secondary market is not nearly as efficient (except in the case of trophy wines) as the primary market where the Chateau and distribution chain can mark up the prices until they see resistance. This is what they have done, and at least for the 2005 vintage there is no resistance.

As to your second statement - it's true that points are a shortcut when time or knowledge fails. That happens to be the case for many folks, even some of those who claim to know and love wine. We live in a culture of referrals and recommendations, and points are a very quick way of making a recommendation. The tyranny is something that the anti-Parker/Spec crowd has made up for themselves. It is not the points you should be upset about, but rather those who follow them blindly like the proverbial lemmings off the cliff. Until points are no longer popular they will continue to be given. It is not arrogance on the part of the critics, but rather pure marketing that has made them substantial money. Parker himself has said that in the upper echelons of points it comes down to emotion. There is no objective standard for a 97 point wine, and Parker does not claim one, yet those with little knowledge snap up 97 point wines as if such a standard existed. They get their comeuppance when wines like Mollydooker garner high points (and praise in the notes by the way) but fail to satisfy 50% or more of the supposedly knowledgeable buyers.

So in summary, I think the venom is directed in the wrong direction. Parker, Suckling and Tanzer (I wonder why nobody ever calls him out for using points) are merely giving the people what they want. As a case in point I will direct you to David Schildknecht, the Wine Advocate reviewer for Burgundy, Alsace, Germany, Austria, the Loire, etc. He used to write for Steve Tanzer, and used a different system whereby he could recommend a wine, give it a single *, or give it **. The idea was that * wines were those that were well worth seeking out, as they had some special quality, and ** wines were those that truly stood out as outstanding. I loved the system, as it let me know much more how David viscerally felt about a wine. Well I tasted with David at a few events, and people would invariably ask him to convert the * to points. In a fit of exasperation he finally did so, equating * to 88-91 and ** to 92+. Needless to say the lemmings were distinctly unsatisfied. He has since converted to points (though his prose is some of the bets in wine) in order to write for Parker's Wine Advocate, and is clearly one of the stingier reviewers (along with Antonio Galoni who covers Italy). what's interesting is that the lemmings have not stopped. They have merely realized that a 93 point score from Schildknecht is roughly equivalent to a 96 from Parker.

It's not tyranny if people are willing subjects. Nor is it laughable or pathetic, except in the way the public laps it up.

Robert Parker, the King of the Points Ratings, has always maintained that the prose description of his reviews is more important than the raw points score. And I've always found it more instructive.

But the reliance on points by the critic lemmings seems to be unstoppable. Until those who are really serious about wine eventually learn and grow beyond it.

Stuart Yaniger's Stooges point system still is #1 in my book regarding honesty, precision, and accuracy.

I've thought about rating wines on a Lord of the Rings scale, but defining a wine as a Frodo/Galadriel/Boromir sounds kinky. bad ratings would be easy though. A Gollum is bad. A Sauron is truly evil and unstoppable (e.g. Mollydooker).

I'm sticking with that, from now on - I'll refer to MD wines as "Sauron's Carnival of Love" and "Sauron's The Boxer."

[David M. Bueker]

I'm sticking with that, from now on - I'll refer to MD wines as "Sauron's Carnival of Love" and "Sauron's The Boxer."

There's a reason they call him Sparky!

I like the Stooge system as well, except I don't care for the Stooges. I've thought about rating wines on a Lord of the Rings scale, but defining a wine as a Frodo/Galadriel/Boromir sounds kinky. bad ratings would be easy though. A Gollum is bad. A Sauron is truly evil and unstoppable (e.g. Mollydooker).

Any Morgoth wines out there?

I've had several Wormtongue wines in my day.

I suppose one could do a Harry Potter-based system, too. A Goyle for something that's big and clumsy.

-Paul W.

David,

You wrote:
(sorry, icon bar doesn't seem to work for me)

>>>It's not tyranny if people are willing subjects.

My first reaction was an admittedly outrageous one, thinking of Nazi Germany, and the tyranny willingly embraced...
However, a wine critic and Adolf Hitler don't have much in common, I agree!

I went and looked up the meaning of "tyranny" to refresh my mind.
The first meaning in the Merriam-Webster is "oppressive power".

I think that would describe the situation to a great extent.

If you get wine people together in Bordeaux, most will agree that the upper echelon wines are made to a recipe to attract certain critics.
Thus, the wine is denatured, the flashy, oaky, over-extracted wine endured.

People who buy wine by points can choose to disregard, yes, but it is stomach-turning to see ads in the newspaper with Parker points.
Consumers are force-fed this stuff.
And that is tryannical.

Were that the wine trade had more cojones...

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

I hope it was clear that I was restricting my statements to wine.

Why should the trade reject points? They sell lots of wine. It wouldn't be "ballsy" to reject points, it would be stupid.

Lemmings? You mean there are lemmings? Actually with the sheer volume of lemmings (in all areas of life) it's a wonder we dont run out of cliffs.

David,

It would be ballsy to reject points because it would show:

- knowledge of the trade
- initiative
- independence

I realize it is so much easier to do it the other way however.
I would just question how professional it is.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[David M. Bueker]

David,

It would be ballsy to reject points because it would show:

- knowledge of the trade
- initiative
- independence

I realize it is so much easier to do it the other way however.
I would just question how professional it is.

Wine shops are in business primarily to make money. To reject points is to deny that fact.

David,

Sure they are in it to make money, but this is hardly a virtue!

The easy way out is to sell products that are already "pre-sold" by guru-points.

This is the B-movie, mass culture way of selling wine.
Yes, it works.
But works for whom?
Arguably, not for the consumer.

I may be over-simplifying or misconstruing your argument, but you seem to be saying "If it sells, its good. People want it, they buy it, they come back for more.
End of story".

However, there are all sorts of things that sell well that are not exactly commendable
(Hostess Twkinkies anyone?=

OK, let's nuance things a little. Point buying might be a good introduction to the jungle of wine appreciation.
But, surely, the more one knows about wine, the less attention one pays to such nonsense - no?

Best regards,
Alex R.

I went and looked up the meaning of "tyranny" to refresh my mind.
The first meaning in the Merriam-Webster is "oppressive power".

I think that would describe the situation to a great extent.

If you get wine people together in Bordeaux, most will agree that the upper echelon wines are made to a recipe to attract certain critics.
Thus, the wine is denatured, the flashy, oaky, over-extracted wine endured.

Alex, it is not just the American critics who praise Parkerised wines. Most of the French ones do too, although their influence is only local. Take the case of that quintessentially Parkerised wine, Perse's Château Pavie. RVF's Les Meilleurs Vins de France 2008 gives 19/20 to 2005 and Bettane/Desseauve's Le Grand Guide 2008 gives it 18.5/20, whilst Guide Hachette awards ** to 2004.

And on the subject of arrogance Bettane is hard to beat. Perse's first vintage at Pavie was in 1998, less than 10 years ago, yet Bettane (I presume him not Desseauve) has the god-like prescience to anticipate their full maturity and to write in 2007 "....certain observers have judged them too quickly. If you give them time to open up, you will understand the extent to which the silky texture and natural freshness of great Pavies are similar to those in the most classical expression of great Bordeaux. It is only necessary to know how to wait."

That is a good lesson for my compatriots Robinson, Coates and, I think, Broadbent, who take a contrary view.

I have never had the (mis)fortune to taste these efforts myself, so I cannot add a modest personal opinion.

David,

Sure they are in it to make money, but this is hardly a virtue!

Hey, Alex, i can see that you have really absorbed French culture.

My point of view is simple. If a wine merchant does not make money, he (or she) goes out of business.

If he is selling a lot of wine wine praised by Parker/WS, it is natural for him to use that as a selling argument. There is one reputable Belgian merchant who not only gives Parker (and WS, etc.) points but also extracts from Parker's tasting notes, which is helpful because it allows consumers to aim off accurately for Parker's taste.

There are other merchants, of course, who are aiming for a more geek public and stock a lot of wine from outside Parker's/WS's comfort zone, and these naturally rely on other arguments to sell.

[David M. Bueker]

David,

Sure they are in it to make money, but this is hardly a virtue!

The easy way out is to sell products that are already "pre-sold" by guru-points.

This is the B-movie, mass culture way of selling wine.
Yes, it works.
But works for whom?
Arguably, not for the consumer.

I may be over-simplifying or misconstruing your argument, but you seem to be saying "If it sells, its good. People want it, they buy it, they come back for more.
End of story".

However, there are all sorts of things that sell well that are not exactly commendable
(Hostess Twkinkies anyone?=

OK, let's nuance things a little. Point buying might be a good introduction to the jungle of wine appreciation.
But, surely, the more one knows about wine, the less attention one pays to such nonsense - no?

Best regards,
Alex R.

It may not be a virtue, but it is a business.

I have been oversimplifying my postings merely to save a little bandwidth, but indeed your summary simplifies it too much. Certainly as one comes to knwo more about wine the ratings of critics can become less important. But that presumes a couple of things:

1. The person in question really comes to know wine, rather than just know they like Cal Cab or Bordeaux or Aussie Shiraz or Cote Rotie. People like you (who truly knows Bordeaux) and me (who truly knows German Riesling) are the rare exception in the world. There's not many folks who invest so much of their passion on wine as we do.

2. That the person buying the wine has the opportunity to taste widely before buying. While I get to do that with German Riesling (and I suspect you do with Bordeaux, at least before buying in quantity), I certainly don't get to do that with Red Burgundy, and so must rely on a critic I trust (namely David Schildknecht) to point me in the right direction. It's not at all an ideal situation, but it's the real situation. Certainly there are some wines I now know well enough to buy blind (e.g. Jadot's Beaune Clos des Ursules), but I'm not throwing down $100 for a bottle of Premier Cru Burg I know nothing about unless I have some solid info from someone I trust.

I should point out that the important thing about David Schildknecht's reviews for me(even more than his fantastic writing) is that I have tasted with David on several occasions and know his palate well enough that I can safely buy what he recommends. Other people who know and love wine have "calibrated" their palates to Parker (even the recent Parker who is nothing like the original incarnation), and can do the same.

2. That the person buying the wine has the opportunity to taste widely before buying. While I get to do that with German Riesling (and I suspect you do with Bordeaux, at least before buying in quantity), I certainly don't get to do that with Red Burgundy, and so must rely on a critic I trust (namely David Schildknecht) to point me in the right direction. It's not at all an ideal situation, but it's the real situation. Certainly there are some wines I now know well enough to buy blind (e.g. Jadot's Beaune Clos des Ursules), but I'm not throwing down $100 for a bottle of Premier Cru Burg I know nothing about unless I have some solid info from someone I trust.

I should point out that the important thing about David Schildknecht's reviews for me(even more than his fantastic writing) is that I have tasted with David on several occasions and know his palate well enough that I can safely buy what he recommends. Other people who know and love wine have "calibrated" their palates to Parker (even the recent Parker who is nothing like the original incarnation), and can do the same.

I agree. Burgundy is the area where I also tend to have to buy somewhat blind. Lots of wines made in such small quantities that waiting to taste often means unavailable (at least at reasonable prices). I don't subscribe to WA, but do subscribe to The Fine Wine Review and View from the Cellar. I have never met Claude Kolm, but his notes have been mostly quite dependable for me in Burgundy and Germany (and to lesser extent Rhone and Piedmont). I regularly taste with Gilman, and find we match well for Burgundy (and Germany, we can agree to disagree re some Bordeaux). While the notes are the most important, I'll "admit" I also look at scores. If Gilman or Kolm gives very positive notes to 2 equivalently priced 1ers from a good producer, with one getting a 92 and one a 94, I'll probably buy the 94 one (or 4 "94" and 2 "92").

I haven't subscribed to WS in 7-8 years (there was one year I got courtesy issues through Zachys), don't particularly like Suckling, don't buy based on his opinions (or scores). I do find declaring Suckling the ne plus ultra in arrogance for giving his scores a bit much. Why not just go ahead and call the thread "I hate points" rather than pick on Suckling.

Robin, I was trying to be balanced, but you're right about Mondovino. Hard to believe that he's not at least 68.3% ass on that performance, no matter how much editing is done. Just pointing out maybe not 100%.

Speaking of points and Kolm, I'll mention again I like his dual grading system. He uses a 100-pt scale , but usually adds a letter grade that is how this wine compares within its category. So, a Bourgogne might get a 90/A, while a Grand Cru might get a 91/B. Similarly a 90 might get a Kabinett an A, but an Auslese GK a B-

Hard to explain, but easy to understand when reading his notes.

I agree with Dale that I bring up a tired and weary argument, going on as long as the difference between yin and yang has been recognized. I think it is interesting (as opposed to saying “it is interesting”) that some of us see insufferable arrogance in Suckling’s words, while others see none at all. Kind of like an evaluation of a wine, don’t you think? I think this could make my point to the first group and to the second, wouldn’t mean a thing.

You miss the group who can understand both sides of the discussion, and really don't see that there's all that much to care about.

As for the rest of your response, I would love to know what the heck you are talking about, but as usual you lost me after the carriage return. You said you were going to respond, but really didn't.

Didn't want to waste anybody's time talking about middle grounders.

That was my response. I liked it.

[David M. Bueker]

Didn't want to waste anybody's time talking about middle grounders.

That was my response. I liked it.

The middle ground is never a waste of time. Compomise, tolerance and understanding are vital parts of life. I'm not suggesting people settle for anything less than the best they can get, but society would devolve even further than it already has if no one could find common groud/see the merits in other people's positions.