Who are the main reviewers these days?

With the passing of the torch from Parker to others, and with attrition in the ranks of the Spectator reviewers, who are now the key California reviewers for the Advocate and the Spectator, what are the differences in preference, sensory qualitywise, between now and yesteryear, and how will this change the future direction of California wines, specifically by varietal preference, and stylistically with reference to Cabernet and Bordeaux-varietal blends? While it is understood that many wineries wish to cultivate the PR and marketing influence that these 2 publications have to offer, few actually come right out and say they are selecting a winemaker based upon his past history of 90(+) point wines in these publications. I recently ran into one which is doing just that. Since the landscape is probably unavoidably changing due to the differential of the personal taste of these different reviewers, and since the wineries wish to continue achieving their goal of high point count, an analysis of what it will take makes sense both from the perspective of the winery and the winemaker candidate.

[David M. Bueker]

Well Antonio Galloni is now covering California for The Wine Advocate, but he seems to be giving blockbuster scores to blockbuster wines, just like Parker did before him. I don't see much changing.

The more meaningful shift could be with David Schildknecht, who prizes wines of elegance and balance, reviewing Oregon and Washington.

When I had my own winery, it never occurred to me that wineries would put so much stock in the reviews of a particular wine writer. Now, it seems the norm rather than the exception. I never had a subscription to the Advocate, and allowed my subscription to the Specatator to lapse in the early '90s. I understood the controversy with Parker by understanding the types of wines being touted in the trade using his scores, and by the Pavie controversy, rather than reading his reviews. I would have imagined somewhat different preferences from different reviewers, even though presumably the Galloni was picked because of his adherence to Parker's views on wine, and probably a history of convergence with Parker in terms of scores. Obviously, Parker would not choose someone with polar opposite tastes to his own, but that does not suggest that differences could not be present. I always thought that based upon what I had tasted (which admittedly was only kosher, so a small cross section), Parker liked big and mushy rather than big and tight. When you describe wines as blockbuster, that tells me that both of them like big, rich wines, but doesn't really say anything to how the wine is ultimately structured. What I'm looking for is nuance. It sounds as if you are saying there has been too little time to observe differences in nuance, because there must be some.

[David M. Bueker]

Craig,

Galloni has only done one set of California reviews. No way to pin him down yet. His preferences may emerge over time. I think he's too smart to make seismic shifts from day 1.

I like Dan Berger, tho he walks a different path than most; methinks he is tune with many palates in these parts.

I like Dan Berger, tho he walks a different path than most; methinks he is tune with many palates in these parts.

I've followed Dan Berger's writing and have met him a few times over the years. He's surely no adherent of the types of wines that Robert Parker admires the most. Not exactly the same but Dan is closer to Schildknecht in likes.