Moderators: Jenise, Robin Garr, David M. Bueker
David M. Bueker wrote:Jim,
I think you are being very judgmental & unfair to David Schildknecht. Let's not forget that he is not independently wealthy & writes for the Wine Advocate to make a living for himself and his family. Giving a wine a score out of 100 is a requirement for the job. Was everything you ever did for your job exactly in line with all of your personal belief system? Everything?
Points are not the evil that some folks make them out to be. As I stated earlier, I think they are the great leveler in wine. I think that really bothers some folks.
David M. Bueker wrote:One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.
David M. Bueker wrote:One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.
Daniel Rogov wrote:My lawyers are currently talking with the lawyers of one winery that earned scores of between 50-65 (I use the 100 point scale).
Florida Jim wrote:Daniel Rogov wrote:My lawyers are currently talking with the lawyers of one winery that earned scores of between 50-65 (I use the 100 point scale).
Daniel,
Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?
I can think of several others that post scores in the 80 to 90 range, but not the other two standards.
It does seem odd in a system that is very much like what we used in school, that any reviewer would restrict his/her/their publishings to only those of 90 and above.
So far, the reasons I have heard for such behavior are confounding and hence, I am left to consider several alternative explanations; some fairly self-serving.
Best, Jim
David M. Bueker wrote:Indeed, Parker used to publish all sort of low scores (I have back issues all the way to #1 that were given to me to prove it). He has stated that the number of good wines out there preclude the use of space for lower scoring bottles. As a substitute the WA staff will sometimes say that they "could not recommend" a wine, which is the narrative equivalent of a sub-80 score.
Florida Jim wrote:Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?
Daniel Rogov wrote:Florida Jim wrote:Can you recall any other wine critic or reviewing group that has published their scores when the points earned drops below, say, 70? How about 80?
Not in the USA perhaps but certainly among the more respected critics of the UK, France, Italy and Spain.
David Lole wrote:I've got Parker's buyer's guide going back to the mid-eighties. Has anyone noticed how the scores back then, were, on average, much lower than today. Bags and bags in the low to mid-eighties; very, very few in the mid-nineties or higher. Am I right in thinking these days scores are, in general, somewhat higher? I wonder why?
Florida Jim wrote:David M. Bueker wrote:One last thing: David was never a proponent of the 100 point system, but he never "railed" against it. Criticism, yes, but nothing nearly as shrill as some of the foot stomping that goes on here or on Therapy/Disorder.
I'll buy that.
I'm a whole lot more in the "rail against" category than he.
Best, Jim
David Lole wrote: Am I right in thinking these days scores are, in general, somewhat higher? I wonder why?
Lou Kessler wrote:Jim, I have to go along with David Bueker on this subject. I had the pleasure of breaking bread & tasting wines in a home setting with David S. on a few occasions before and after he went to work at The Wine Adcocate. He never railed against Parker, he just always seemed comfortable in his own skin and his own palate. I'm personally happy with his reviews in the Wine Advocate because I know exactly what he likes and why. I have never seen a review of his in his present job that I felt had been "influenced" by RP's preferences. I've always respected David S as a person and a wine reviewer and his stint with Parker has shown me nothing to alter that opinion. We all have our tendencies to criticize, I felt the necessity to praise when it was deserved.
David M. Bueker wrote:Jim - he is in your camp. But it's a lot like being offered a big contract by the Yankees. When the big dog calls you go.
ChefJCarey wrote:This thread. Sigh.
Florida Jim wrote:Lou Kessler wrote:Jim, I have to go along with David Bueker on this subject. I had the pleasure of breaking bread & tasting wines in a home setting with David S. on a few occasions before and after he went to work at The Wine Adcocate. He never railed against Parker, he just always seemed comfortable in his own skin and his own palate. I'm personally happy with his reviews in the Wine Advocate because I know exactly what he likes and why. I have never seen a review of his in his present job that I felt had been "influenced" by RP's preferences. I've always respected David S as a person and a wine reviewer and his stint with Parker has shown me nothing to alter that opinion. We all have our tendencies to criticize, I felt the necessity to praise when it was deserved.
Lou,
Just so we're clear; I did not criticize David's integrity, expertise or person. My only problem was when he took on the 100 point system after speaking against it. A single event, not a character attack.
And I admit that, had I been offerred the job, I might well do the same thing for such a prestigious job.
I too like David's body of work, find him to be both articulate and incisive, believe he is not under any influence and respect his palate more than most others in the biz.
I have a large problem with the 100 point system and several times have "railed" against it. Perhaps, my response here is predicated on my feelings about someone I respect (and thought was in my camp on this issue) saying one thing and then doing another.
Best, Jim
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 6 guests