James Suckling: Is any man this arrogant?

Is James Suckling playing with us, or is he really serious?

In the latest WS: “I give 2005 98 points in this region (compared with 99 points for 2000) because some of the big names of the Medoc underperformed slightly. Still, 2005 is an amazing vintage in general. In some cases, chateaus made better wine in 2000. Chateaus Lafite Rothschild and Latour certainly did (both scored 100 points in 2000), although they also made fantastic wines in 2005 (98 and 99 points, respectively).”

I love the “I give” followed by merely “is” and then “certain” as if God is in agreement. And he is totally comfortable with his ability to discern a one-point difference between an eight year old vintage and one that just recently came out of the barrel, while mortals might require multiple examinations over 10 to 20 years to understand the quality differences, - if they could even justify a case that such a thing could be unraveled independently from stylistic differences. But he was beneficent in making sure we understand that the top chateaus only underperformed slightly in 2005, lest the chateaus might feel bad that their failures had been made public. But I am sure that the owners and winemakers from Lafite and Latour are thankful for the definitive ruling as to how their wines stack up relative to the two years and each other. I wonder if Suckling prepared them in advance or if they had to wait until the magazine came out to receive the final enlightenment.

[David M. Bueker]

He's serious, but you are taking him too literally (or broadly).

First off for the Lafite & Latour, he gave both 100s in the 2000 vintage. He thought they were ever so slightly better than the 2005 editions. Given the 2005 vintage reputation for tannic wines and 2000's softer rep I am not at all shocked there.

As for the top names. You change his statement in your own. He said "some of the big names" were not as good. Pichon Lalande has been widely assessed by multiple critics as not up to the standard of the vintage. 2005 Mouton also is notably below the 2000 performance. That's the sort of thing he's talking about. Later in your commentary you say "But he was beneficent in making sure we understand that the top chateaus only underperformed slightly in 2005" which is a notably broader statement.

And Covert, remember that it is his job to be decisive. Nobody will buy/read a magazine (except maybe you) where the reviewer says "This could potentially be a very nice vintage, but we really won't know for 15 years, so buy some wines and see for yourself."

And somehow I think the owners of Lafite & Latour are already laughing their way to the bank & really don't care what anyone says at this point.

Not wanting to comment on the arrogance thing I can see that I tend to agree with Suckling on that 2000 is better than 2005.

based on my tasting experience of 2005 I would say 2005 is less good compared to 2000. That is more than the tiny difference indicated by Suckling. Still a very good vintage, in my book from 1-5 I would probably give it a 4.

Who many that have tasted 2005s agree with me? Will be interesting to see the reaction of those that paid the ridiculous prices of 2005 when they taste the wines, maybe they wont be able to admit the vintages defects.

Covert, as a Bordeaux lover, have you had any 2005s?

Best
Fredrik Svensson. Luxembourg

[David M. Bueker]

Fredrik,

Do you think the 2005s are too tannic? I've had some inexpensive bottles that make me wonder.

He's serious, but you are taking him too literally (or broadly).

First off for the Lafite & Latour, he gave both 100s in the 2000 vintage. He thought they were ever so slightly better than the 2005 editions. Given the 2005 vintage reputation for tannic wines and 2000's softer rep I am not at all shocked there.

As for the top names. You change his statement in your own. He said "some of the big names" were not as good. Pichon Lalande has been widely assessed by multiple critics as not up to the standard of the vintage. 2005 Mouton also is notably below the 2000 performance. That's the sort of thing he's talking about. Later in your commentary you say "But he was beneficent in making sure we understand that the top chateaus only underperformed slightly in 2005" which is a notably broader statement.

And Covert, remember that it is his job to be decisive. Nobody will buy/read a magazine (except maybe you) where the reviewer says "This could potentially be a very nice vintage, but we really won't know for 15 years, so buy some wines and see for yourself."

And somehow I think the owners of Lafite & Latour are already laughing their way to the bank & really don't care what anyone says at this point.

I plan to follow up on this when I get a few minutes free. It is an interesting area to me. Is Suckling an American? I agree that it is how to sell magazines and I don't begrudge that at all. And I don't expect anything different. I just get a kick out of it. And I buy the magazine mostly because it is pretty and I learn stuff from time to time, especially about places. For example, in this same issue, I happened to read about an amazing new restaurant near the mouth of the Hudson River, on the water, called X20, in Yonkers, of all places, and stopped there a couple of evenings ago for a most delightful dinner, with a gorgeous associate, who took me to task for implying that the views of the two bridges at twilight could compete against her visage. I rescinded immediately, of course, but the views there, even without the lady, are most remarkable, and the staff, impeccable. Anyway, thanks for responding, David. Looking forward to following up on the topic of my original post.

Covert

Covert, as a Bordeaux lover, have you had any 2005s?

Hi Fredrik. As I said to David, I want to expound soon, but my point is kind of that nobody has tasted a 2005 Bordeaux, in the same way as nobody has made love to a six-year-old; although a few reprobates of course think they have. I have drunk several 2005 Cru Bourgeois and find them lovely.

Will be curious to hear further thoughts on this. I don't read Suckling much, but the quoted passage didn't seem any more arrogant than any other critic (to me, anyway).

I think all critics are arrogrant to a degree, after all, arrogance means someone is disposed to exaggerate their importance in an overbearing manner.

I think in today's Internet-based world - information is spread so fast on chat boards and otherwise, that the role of critic has changed.

Rather than empowering consumers with useful information, they are essentially cheerleaders for the regions they cover. Reminds me of CNBC back circa 1998-2000 just before the market crash. Balloons actually dropped from the ceiling of the set when Nasdaq 5000 was reached. Werent they supposed to be journalists covering the financial news, emotion detached?

Anyone else feel that way or just me?

I have a great solution to this -- I never read Wine Snobtator!

easy!

I'm with Craig. I realized some time ago the Spec wasn't for me when I saw an ad in it for private jets.

[David M. Bueker]

Spec comes to me for free somehow. It's like a train wreck brought to my front door for viewing.

[Robin Garr]

I'm with Craig. I realized some time ago the Spec wasn't for me when I saw an ad in it for private jets.

I give the Gulfstream a 96. Lear jets are way too Parkerized, though.

[Robin Garr]

Is James Suckling playing with us ...

I cite you his cameo appearance in Nossiter's Mondovino, a characterization so crisply defined that nobody could have played the role but Suckling himself. That 60-second vignette pretty much said it all.

I love the “I give” followed by merely “is” and then “certain” as if God is in agreement. And he is totally comfortable with his ability to discern a one-point difference between an eight year old vintage and one that just recently came out of the barrel, while mortals might require multiple examinations over 10 to 20 years to understand the quality differences, - if they could even justify a case that such a thing could be unraveled independently from stylistic differences. But he was beneficent in making sure we understand that the top chateaus only underperformed slightly in 2005, lest the chateaus might feel bad that their failures had been made public. But I am sure that the owners and winemakers from Lafite and Latour are thankful for the definitive ruling as to how their wines stack up relative to the two years and each other. I wonder if Suckling prepared them in advance or if they had to wait until the magazine came out to receive the final enlightenment.

Well, if you buy into a points system with this level of precision, this is where it leads. What's sad is that there are probably buyers out there who will purchase one of those vintages over the other based solely on this one-point difference.

-Paul W.

point systems should only be used in competition judging, and consumers should never see these numbers

describe a wine, give your opinion on it, try to explain who might like this sort of wine, and suggest meal accompaniments

then shut up

[David M. Bueker]

Ok I am not an advocate for points. I have tried using them and just can't do it.

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.

The vast majority of people don't have access to truly helpful shop staff to guide their choices, nor do they have the expertise to understand winespeak. Points are easy for them & do actually help guide peple to a good wine; maybe not one to your taste, but a good wine.

As for someone buying the 2000 or 2005 Lafite based on the ratings - it really does not matter. It's Lafite! It's great wine if they've got the money. They won't be disappointed either way (quite possibly because they don't know enough about wine to be disappointed).

you are right - we can't go back now

it's a shame a point system was ever used - that created this sort of consumer, i suppose

who thinks 89 is different from 90? show of hands?

it makes and breaks wineries, and might put someone out of business

it's silly

who thinks 89 is different from 90? show of hands?

I do. About 20% lower pricing on the 89 pointer, plus the chances are I will like it a lot better than its 90 point cousin.
'Winger

I’m with David B on this one. Someone’s “grapefruit” might be someone’s “lemon”. I think everyone that that went to elementary or high school in the US (in the 1960's or 1970's) understands what a 70, 80, or 90 means.

Salute

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.

The vast majority of people don't have access to truly helpful shop staff to guide their choices, nor do they have the expertise to understand winespeak. Points are easy for them & do actually help guide peple to a good wine; maybe not one to your taste, but a good wine.

Great point - my dad is the aforementioned.

He isn't a wine geek, but does enjoy wine and knows what he likes. But he needs some guidance when he strolls into a shop - or else he'd buy the same 6 wines over and over again, afraid to stray out of his comfort zone. I think if he sees a Chablis with a shelf-talker of 90pts Parker or WS - he might feel compelled to try it rather than the same ol' Fevre Royeaux.

I think it's a gray area really, I just wish critics weren't cheerleaders and went back to pointing out values/sleepers in the wine world, which seems to me how the "profession" began. As David pointed out, just about anyone with a brain knows Lafite is a nice wine regardless of points. But for folks like old man Czyryca ( he turns 61 today!) - he could use a little prop to navigate the wine shelves.

i only recommend under $25 wines, 90% of the time

but i give no scores

just saying "It's a good value and worth a try" and "it tastes like this, in my opinion, and that is why I ate this with it" really helps consumers

a nscore is neither necessary nor useful, if the writing is good

Points vs no points is an old argument, too tired today to even choose a side,

But besides that argument, I didn't see anything there that seems "arrogant," I agree with David that strong/firm opinions are expected from critics.

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.

Is James Suckling playing with us, or is he really serious? .

This is an attitude that I find very pervasive in the writings in the WS for all their writers, save, perhaps, MattKramer.
I find so much of their prose literally drips with this same arrogance that you've highlighted here in Suckling's.
It's an attitude that seems to convey that the WS is the world's sole authority on wine (and lifestyle) and that all the
rest of the world should hang onto their every word if they want to be in the know. It starts in the front with the piece by
ol' Marv and Matthews, but is particularly irritating in the prose penned by both Laube and Suckling. Makes me wanta
barf at times.
Every time my subscription comes up for renewal (and they start hounding me about 6 months afore it's to expire),
I ponder and cogitate..."should I re-up or not??" But I've subscribed since Vol1#1 and, in a moment of weakness, I always
seem to send that danged card back in.
For all that, there are, from time-to-time, some useful information gleaned from it. I usually find MattKramer's writings
interesting, thought-provoking, if not controversial. And it's kinda neat to see the picture of some new/hot/up&coming
winemaker that they've just "discovered" that I've followed from the very start year's ago.
So much for today's Spec-bashing. In epee...we call it "easy target"!!
Tom

[Jenise]

For all that, there are, from time-to-time, some useful information gleaned from it. I usually find MattKramer's writings
interesting, thought-provoking, if not controversial. And it's kinda neat to see the picture of some new/hot/up&coming
winemaker that they've just "discovered" that I've followed from the very start year's ago.
So much for today's Spec-bashing. In epee...we call it "easy target"!!
Tom

I'll re-subscribe the day they show cellars like yours in that regular feature on wine collectors--real people with a real love for wine.