le site très intéressant de Steven Tanzer
réponse à un débat sur le vin "Dead Arm" noté 98 par Parker et 85 par un autre critique
Just a quick note to say how much I've enjoyed this string:
lots of sensible opinions, not to mention persuasive writing
and a willingness to admit that wines of vastly different
styles can both have their appeal, and their adherents. I feel
compelled to comment on the original question about how
ratings of the same wine can vary so widely between the
IWC and The Wine Advocate (or other publications). I am a
great admirer of Bob Parker. When I started the IWC back in
1985, Bob was certainly one of my role models: for his
independence from the trade; for his work habits; for his
willingness to criticize boring, strictly commercial wines; for
the sheer volume of wines that he covered. As long-time
IWC subscribers know, through the years I have far more
often than not agreed with Bob on the relative merits of
various wines, even if our scores are not always in sync. In
recent years, however, Bob has been giving higher and
higher ratings to increasingly extreme wines, not just bottles
from Australia but also wines from Spain, Southern France,
California and elsewhere. I love some of these wines because
I feel that they are truly new and exciting AND possess
adequate balance. And I know that many wine lovers prize
these wines highly as well. So, while I would not generally
recommend to subscribers that they bury these mostly
unproven bottles in their cellars (the last thing I want to do
is set up subscribers for very expensive future
disappointments), I do not hesitate to recommend the ones I
like for near-term consumption, for consumers who like the
style. But obviously, all critics, as well as wine consumers,
have different definitions of balance. So now--and this really
appears to be a recent phenomenon--it's entirely possible
that a wine that rates an extremely high score in The Wine
Advocate (95 points or higher) may score ten points lower in
the IWC or even merely be listed under the rubric "also
tasted" (i.e., not recommended), either by me or by an IWC
contributor, for the simple reason that we consider the wine
to have significant shortcomings: excessive extraction,
unacceptably high levels of volatile acidity, dangerously low
acidity, overripe or even cooked flavors, lack of site and/or
varietal character, general hamhandedness. I personally do
not regard size for the sake of size (alcoholic clout and sheer
thickness of texture) as an automatic virtue in a wine. On
the other hand, I am convinced that careful readers of
tasting notes in either the International Wine Cellar or Wine
Advocate can use the scores and prose descriptions to get
wines that they are likely to enjoy--which, after all, is the
point of these publications.
by Steve Tanzer
on Sep 12,2003
Auteur du sujet
