John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post Reply
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by jal »

Not the most flattering photograph, but some of you might find the article interesting.

http://goo.gl/DQ74Jj
Best

Jacques
User avatar
JCNorthway
Posts: 1546
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:31 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by JCNorthway »

Thanks for sharing the article. Nice PR for him. And I did not know his NYC restaurant history.
User avatar
Tom In DC
Posts: 1564
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:10 pm
Location: Colorado Foothills
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Tom In DC »

Thanks, Jacques.

Wish I'd known about the 50th Anniversary tasting for Emidio Pepe... :cry:
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by JimHow »

I've never read anything by John Gilman, is he good?
User avatar
AlohaArtakaHoundsong
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun Sep 02, 2012 5:12 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by AlohaArtakaHoundsong »

No, Jim. He only likes classically-styled Bordeaux.
User avatar
Musigny 151
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:06 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Musigny 151 »

AlohaArtakaHoundsong wrote:No, Jim. He only likes classically-styled Bordeaux.
:lol:

Yes he is good.
User avatar
pomilion
Posts: 254
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 6:58 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by pomilion »

JimHow wrote:I've never read anything by John Gilman, is he good?
He's an entertaining writer. In terms of taste he wants to be seen as the anti-Parker. I often don't agree with his preferences, but he's colorful and not boring... The one rather big issue I have with him is that he's so eager to establish a name and niche for himself and get attention that he engages in a lot of what I would call, for lack of a better expression, stunt scoring. He's a provocateur who wants more than anything to be known as the anti-Parker. He was included in the panel rating new bordeaux for World of Fine Wine magazine (to which I subscribe) a few years ago, and (on the British scale) he would score the likes of Pavie and Angelus "3" or "8"... In other words, when he doesn't like a wine he goes overboard x 10 in trashing it and assigning an absurdly low score. So he's entertaining (and a skilled writer), but often frustrating to read if you don't share his ultra-traditional, conservative palate. Tying this into some recent threads here, he's not at all high on the 2010 bordeaux vintage and believes 2008 is a truly superb vintage overall (the '08s are "significantly better than the 2010s in terms of purity, balance, structural integrity", he says). I've tasted the '08s and '10s pretty extensively, including going to the UGC tastings for both vintages, and it's hard to imagine he's doing anything but being intentionally provocative (rather than truthful) with this judgment -- 2010 is clearly a better overall bordeaux vintage than 2008 (many of the '08s are under-fruited and give the impression of being overly acidic -- not that there aren't exceptions) -- I don't know of a single other wine critic in the world who thinks '08 is head and shoulders above '10... Aside from his provocateur hyperbole and stunt scoring, he is a talented, engaging writer.
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Chateau Vin »

Granted, wine tastes are subjective, but the gap in his subjectivity seems to be as wide as grand canyon. :roll:
pomilion wrote:....Tying this into some recent threads here, he's not at all high on the 2010 bordeaux vintage and believes 2008 is a truly superb vintage overall (the '08s are "significantly better than the 2010s in terms of purity, balance, structural integrity", he says). ... I don't know of a single other wine critic in the world who thinks '08 is head and shoulders above '10... Aside from his provocateur hyperbole and stunt scoring, he is a talented, engaging writer.
I believe these two issues do not go hand in hand. If the talent you are referring to is about his writing, then that's a different issue...
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by DavidG »

Interesting article, thanks for posting the link.

I've always thought Gilman calls 'em as he sees 'em, then uses hyperbole to emphasize his position and be a provocateur when he hands out an ultra-low score to a Parker favorite. So I don't think he's being dishonest about 2008 vs. 2010. Just a different perspective.

Even more radically different than his scores, in my opinion, are his drinking windows. He'll often list a Bordeaux as just starting to reach maturity years after the end-date of a Parker or Wine Spectator review. I think I align better with him on drinking windows than on styles, but as time passes my Bordeaux preferences are starting to lean more towards the Figeacs than the Pavies.
User avatar
Musigny 151
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:06 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Musigny 151 »

As a friend of John's, and as someone who tastes with him frequently, I think your post deserves a little examination.

He is an extremely good taster, and does not define himself by anything other than his own palate. He certainly does not see himself as an anti Parker; it would be ridiculous position for someone as good as him to be seen as only an anti anything. I may not always agree with John, but not only is it absurd to say he scores low in order to market himself, but it is also extremely insulting. There are plenty of people who share his views, and John finds wine for them that they will enjoy.


The thing I value most about him is that he tastes a wine and his scores reflect whether or not he likes a wine. He does not extrapolate and say, I hate the wine but others may like it, so I will not give it the 68 points I think it deserves, instead I will give it 91. Think about how valuable that is. There are two parts to a tasting note; the analysis of what you are tasting, and then putting it into context (including scoring it). John's descriptions are very clear, anyone reading the newsletter will have a very good idea what the wine will taste like.


I also thought the Pavie 2010 was horrible; you may disagree with him, but at least he is consistent. And that consistency is worth a lot, you know exactly what you are getting if you look for wines based on John's notes. He likes terroir, he likes balance, he likes a certain elegance to the wines, so conversely the wines that he scores low, the Pavie 2010s and Cos D' Estournel 2009s this world are fair game. And so they should be; in both cases, they have extraordinary terroirs, and the winemakers obliterated them.




pomilion wrote:
JimHow wrote:I've never read anything by John Gilman, is he good?
He's an entertaining writer. In terms of taste he wants to be seen as the anti-Parker. I often don't agree with his preferences, but he's colorful and not boring... The one rather big issue I have with him is that he's so eager to establish a name and niche for himself and get attention that he engages in a lot of what I would call, for lack of a better expression, stunt scoring. He's a provocateur who wants more than anything to be known as the anti-Parker. He was included in the panel rating new bordeaux for World of Fine Wine magazine (to which I subscribe) a few years ago, and (on the British scale) he would score the likes of Pavie and Angelus "3" or "8"... In other words, when he doesn't like a wine he goes overboard x 10 in trashing it and assigning an absurdly low score. So he's entertaining (and a skilled writer), but often frustrating to read if you don't share his ultra-traditional, conservative palate. Tying this into some recent threads here, he's not at all high on the 2010 bordeaux vintage and believes 2008 is a truly superb vintage overall (the '08s are "significantly better than the 2010s in terms of purity, balance, structural integrity", he says). I've tasted the '08s and '10s pretty extensively, including going to the UGC tastings for both vintages, and it's hard to imagine he's doing anything but being intentionally provocative (rather than truthful) with this judgment -- 2010 is clearly a better overall bordeaux vintage than 2008 (many of the '08s are under-fruited and give the impression of being overly acidic -- not that there aren't exceptions) -- I don't know of a single other wine critic in the world who thinks '08 is head and shoulders above '10... Aside from his provocateur hyperbole and stunt scoring, he is a talented, engaging writer.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Jeff Leve »

Musigny 151 wrote:As a friend of John's, and as someone who tastes with him frequently, I think your post deserves a little examination. It is amazing to me that so many people criticize him without having read one of his newsletters. He is an extremely good taster, and does not define himself by anything other than his own palate. He certainly does not see himself as an anti Parker;
Come on Marc... Seriously? Like most struggling writers, he is trying to get subscribers and he purposely makes statements like the poster addressed earlier to say if you do not like Parker's palate, this is a good mag to subscribe to.

As long as I am in the sandbox today, for Bordeaux, he is an awful taster. But I agree, he writes well. I would hate to end up with cellar of so many of the wines he... and you favor. Like, love or hate his palate, But to say he does not make statements to grab attention is silly. I have seen his notes on rare occasions quoted for Burgundy and German wines, but for Bordeaux, stores, negociants, merchants and chateaux completely ignore him. As they should. I am sure he is a nice guy. But as a Bordeaux critic.... Seriously?
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Comte Flaneur »

I was at a Rhys tasting dinner tonight sitting next to a close friend of his...I have not read him extensively, but a lot of what I have read I tend agree with...I understand he has serious misgivings about Bordeaux 2010... I would like to read his critique first before passing judgement. But what I did learn tonight that every time he goes in for road kill he gets black-balled. The tyranny of the conventional wisdom appears to be sacred sometimes in wine: e.g., Ausone 2003 is a horror show versus the conventional wisdom that it is a 100 point wine.
User avatar
RDD
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by RDD »

I am curious who is black balling him. He's shutout of tastings? Turned from the doors of properties. I've not read much of him but since he likes John Crabtree and the Kittle House he's all right by me. In the end my tastes direct my spending.
User avatar
Musigny 151
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:06 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Musigny 151 »

First of all it is Mark, not Marc.

I am of the opinion that one does not trash another person's palate. I seldom agree with you, I have tasted with you, and I remember wines like Magdelaine 1998, Giscours 1970 where you just didn't get it. OTOH I did not get Cos 2009, Pavie 2010 and the like. Any comment you make about John's "awful Bordeaux palate" should take into account where you are coming from and the wines that you love. For me it is no contest, John's Bordeaux palate is infinitely more reliable than yours. But there will be others who will side with you.


As for this vendetta Jeff, and this very tired accusation that you trot out every so often that Gilman sensationalizes low scores to sell his newsletter, it is of course ridiculous. He is writing for people who share his taste for a certain type of wine; the wines I mentioned are the very antithesis of wines that he values. So why score them high or even give them an average score?

Nobody accused Parker of sensationalizing even though in the first few issues of the Advocate he was taking pot shots at the English writers that preceded him. Like it or not, much of what has gone wrong in the wine world is directly attributable to Parker and his powerful grip on the marketplace. Gilman's low scores reflects the fact that he doesn't like the wines. It is an honest approach-and what more can one ask from a critic?

We have had this argument before on the Berserker board, and Squires when I was still a member. In the intervening years, I find it interesting that the Parker/Rolland paradigm is losing ground. Perhaps in another few years, the outlier will be you and your palate; I can only hope the wine world finds its sanity again.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Jeff Leve »

Critics get critiqued. That is part of the job. A think skinned critic needs to find another job. Critics that call wines road kill, rate wines that I personally find stunning, as do others, in the 60 Pt range have earned equally harsh criticism.

Fair is fair and that is the game.

You can repeat until your are blue in the face, or until you end up liking wine made from ripe fruit that Gilman is not agenda driven I call it BS. And I am not the only person that thinks that way. Even in this thread others see it for what it is. If it works for him, great. There are people like you, and Asimov that appreciate his taste. There are those like me that don't.

It's not that i do not get wines like 98 Magdelaine. The opposite is true. I get it. The wine is not very good. It's a light, simple, underripe boring wine. Consumers did not like the wine either. That is why it no longer exists. What is there to get? On the other hand you love it and so does Gilman. That my friend, is it in a nut shell.
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Chateau Vin »

FWIW, 10 Pavie might be made in a style not preferred by some. I have not tasted it, and if it's over alcoholic, extracted, fruity, etc., that's not my taste either.

But JG I think gave it a score somewhere around 47-50!!! It's good for the public to know that he does not like the wine. As Mark said, you should not elevate the score just because some people might like. But on the otherhand, what's the point of trashing it? If some taster/reviewer is good and people value his/her tasting opinions, a score of 70, 75 or whatever less than average score would have communicated the point across that it's a wine he/she does not like, and that the customers should not bother even tasting it, let alone buying it. But what's the point of giving such as meaningless score, other than grab attention and making a splash? It works as a good marketing ploy and good for him in that sense.

He might be a good taster, he might be an entertaining writer. But I don't know him, and I don't follow him. Why would I want to read him if he indulges in self-serving dead-horse beatups? Well, that's just me...
Musigny 151 wrote: .....Like it or not, much of what has gone wrong in the wine world is directly attributable to Parker and his powerful grip on the marketplace.....
Now that's a statement that's debatable and I think we had similar discussion on this forum...
User avatar
jal
Posts: 2931
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:30 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by jal »

Well, what's the point of a 100 point rating scale if you can't use it all? :D

I like John Gilman, I tasted with him a few times and he was always a perfect gentleman, never tried to convince me when I disagreed with him, always just stated his opinion. If I have one criticism of him it's that he's too slow, we were on the fourth flight and he was still pondering the second one! How rude! (tongue firmly in cheek, here)

Also, John takes the high road whenever one mentions any critic who likes a wine he hates. He has never taken the bait (at least when I was present) to dismiss anyone's palate. He will again just give his opinion, and leave it at that.

I really didn't post to defend him, he doesn't need defending. I just want to convey my opinion of the guy and it is very positive, I will always vouch for his integrity. He is a straight shooter but as far as his palate and mine go, I have said this before and I will say it again: I like everything he likes, but I also like a lot of wines he dislikes.
Best

Jacques
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Chateau Vin »

IMO, you don't need to use literally 0-100 to get the point across. That's my point. An F is an F, even if you get 10 out of 100 or 60 out of 100.

In this day and age with improved resources and wine making techniques it's hard even for a respectable chateau to warrant a score of 40s, let alone for the classified ones. Some people might have observed him from close quarters and he might be a gentleman, and I applaud that. From a distance, I can see only the his reviews/critiques as far as wine is concerned. And for me, his once in a blue moon scoring antiques do not come across as gentlemanly... :shock:
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by stefan »

If a critic trashes wines whose style he does not prefer, how can the critic be useful for people who appreciate that style? I try to judge wines according to what are expected characteristics for wines in that style and, consequently, sometimes rate wines I don't like higher than wines I do like. IMO personal preferences account for only a small percentage of a critic's score of a wine. The reader should read a note to understand the style of the rated wine. If a critic cannot differentiate among wines of a certain style, the critic should not review wines of that style. Jeff Leve considers a all Burgundy to be watery plonk (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much) and likely does not bother to try to differentiate Burgundies on the rare occasions when he must drink them, but he also does not pretend to rate them.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Jeff Leve »

stefan wrote:If a critic trashes wines whose style he does not prefer, how can the critic be useful for people who appreciate that style? Jeff Leve considers a all Burgundy to be watery plonk (OK, I exaggerate, but not by much) and likely does not bother to try to differentiate Burgundies on the rare occasions when he must drink them, but he also does not pretend to rate them.
To be fair, you forgot to mention I also find Burgundy to be tart and unipe, as well as dilute :mrgreen: However, I would not read me for Burgundy. That is why there are about 50 tasting notes on Burgundy out of close to 9,000 wines on my site. Although, the number of Burg notes is going up by 8% next as three 1989 DRC wines were tasted double blind last week.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by stefan »

Well, you are counting a bunch of white Burgs to get up to 50. Actually, I found it fun to read the few notes you posted on red Burgundies even if I don't share your distaste for the genre and like the finesse ones more than the (relatively speaking) powerful ones that you can drink without spitting.
User avatar
Musigny 151
Posts: 1258
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2009 12:06 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Musigny 151 »

Jeff,
I did not realize you were so into conspiracy theories. Please send me an address so I can send you a colander to put on your head when those pesky flying saucers go by.

As it's John's newsletter, he chooses how he uses the full 100 point scale. As a subscriber, I would want to know exactly what he thinks of a wine, not have him provide some mealy mouthed phrase that doesn't begin to describe what he tasted, all in the name of politeness.

The most vehement of the people who want this "gentlemanly"approach are not subscribers. It's a pity, if they had read the notes describing the Pavie 2010, they would have realized how much John disliked it; this isn't some perfectly mediocre wine that doesn't make the grade, this is something truly nasty. Having tasted the wine, I also never want to taste it again.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by stefan »

Mark, obviously Gilman can grade however he wants, but his scores are not useful for wines whose style he does not like. On the other hand,

"1988 Hubert Lignier Clos de la Roche

Another reason I am not ever going to be a Burgundy drinker. Tough, tart, lean and drying tannins, the crisp red frut, herbs and dirt personality was not a turn on for my palate. Where is the pleasure? 87 pts."

gives information that I, as a Burgundy drinker, might use. I would rather have your opinion of this wine than Jeff's if I were considering purchasing it at auction as my palate is more closely aligned with yours, but the note and score do tell me something.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Jeff Leve »

For a good look at Gilman on Bordeaux... Here's a few of his scores for 2005 Bordeaux


05 Pape Clement 72 Pts
05 Angelus 84 Pts - He called the wine scrawny!
05 Canon La Gaffeliere 69 Pts
05 Larcis Ducasse 80 Pts
05 Conseillante 87 Pts


These scores show someone that does not understand Bordeaux. That is how I see it. I am sure others on this board have tasted those wines. Does anyone here agree with those scores?

There was this gem of wisdom Gilman wrote about 2005 as well....

"...The sad fact is that twenty or thirty years from now the 2005 vintage will be best remembered for the large number of imbalanced and flawed wines..."

We are coming up at ten years after the vintage and that comment is even more silly today than it was a few years ago when he wrote it. I taste wine and post notes so people can find the best wines they can. When I see people getting bad advice, I also try to help.
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by greatbxfreak »

I think Gilman is way off the charts concerning 2005 vintage - ...."large number of imbalanced and flawed wines..." C'mon man, are you joking or just utterly provoking?

I don't recall tasting the other four wines Jeff mentiones after bottling.

I tasted 05 La Conseillante 5 months ago at the property during primeur - rated it 95p.

Tasted four times - last time in March 2014. Consistent notes. Yield - 38 hl/ha. Great stuff coming from this outstanding vintage. Truffles, seductive nose. elegant and incredibly classy wine, red meat, very sophisticated and with excellent length and structure, incredibly long aftertaste. Fantastic wine and I wonder if 2010 will turn out to be better.

For me 2005 vintage is a rare threat, maybe going to be a bit behind 2010.
User avatar
JimHow
Posts: 20105
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2008 10:49 pm
Location: Lewiston, Maine, United States
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by JimHow »

What does this Gilman guy think about 2002?
User avatar
Chateau Vin
Posts: 1522
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:55 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Chateau Vin »

JimHow wrote:What does this Gilman guy think about 2002?
Didn't we have similar thread before on this forum? I think he rates 2002 ahead of 2010....
User avatar
DavidG
Posts: 8280
Joined: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:12 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by DavidG »

JimHow wrote:What does this Gilman guy think about 2002?
I posted this back when we were debating 2000 vs. 2002 in anticipation of our BWE mini-blind tasting.

Here's John Gilman's take on the vintages of the new millennium. He's got both 2000 and 2002 in the bottom half of the decade.

In terms of vintage, one has to remember that Bordeaux makes outstanding wines in a much larger number of vintages than those that are accorded "greatness", and I have been very happily drinking wines from the vintages of 1962, 1964, 1966 and 1971 over the last several years and paying lower prices for my temerity to not exclusively shop for "the best of the best". Global warming has also exacerbated the difficulties of handicapping young vintages, as the previous barometer of the ripest vintages often being equated with the highest quality (which may have indeed been the case in the first six or seven decades of the 20th century, when the region's unpredictable autumns often found the vines struggling to fully ripen crop loads) is far more problematic today, where superb ripeness is attained in eight vintages out of ten at the present time and it seems quite clear that ripeness is no longer (if it ever was) the preeminent consideration of ultimate vintage quality. However, it seems to me that ripeness is still accorded the same prominence in vintage handicapping as it was back in the '60s and '70s, despite the very real and dramatic changes in climate on the Gironde in recent times. I know that I am considered a contrarian when it comes to Bordeaux vintages, but in the first decade of the new milennium, my personal hierarchy of vintages runs thusly: 2005, 2008, 2009, 2001, 2006, 2000, 2007, 2010, 2002, 2004 and 2003- not exactly mirrored in most other claret commentating circles. But, I am not swayed primarily by ripeness in a given vintage (which is rather routine to obtain these days in any case), but by questions of balance, purity and freshness in young claret, as I find these are the attributes that most reward cellaring and often find their greater expressions in this day and age in what are termed "lesser vintages" by the "ripeness is all" circles. it is just a different approach to a complex region, which all too often has been painted as "easy to master" and defined by very, very broad bush strokes. Perhaps, when claret prices were lower, it was easier to to just focus one's purchasing on the top twenty estates, but not only the dramatic increases in prices that we have discussed already in this thread, but also dramatic stylistic changes amongst these properties makes such an approach far more likely to deliver disappointment than was the case when the 1982 vintage was released. But, the opportunities in the Bordeaux firmament are still out there and they are very real, not illusory, but one has to poke a bit below the surface to find the gems that remain relatively undiscovered.
User avatar
RDD
Posts: 853
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 4:45 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by RDD »

Odd perspective. Ripeness was what made 47 59 61 82 etc great. Maybe he likes green persimmons. But to each their own.
User avatar
Comte Flaneur
Posts: 4863
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:05 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Comte Flaneur »

That's interesting. So his antipathy to those 2005s Jeff listed does not extend to the whole 2005 vintage - only to a few - unless he thinks the decade is a disaster.

I quite liked the 2005 La Conseillante but it is borderline OTT and the 2010 is much better

I must admit I have a love hate relationship with the modern Magrez era Papes. They can be excellent as in 2004 and 2010, or they can be an oaky shitshow as in 2001. None should be rated in the 80s...they should either be rated 70 something or 90 something.

I can understand someone like JG wanting to give a wine 50 if it is offensive. I guess he defines that in relation to wines that go all out for power and extract with no regard to terroir. And if you are being cynical this is being done to achieve high scores from influential critics.

Pavie clearly fits the bill here. I find it virtually undrinkable like a few Australian wines like Mollydooker, a wine where I couldn't even finish the glass. I tend to agree with those who predict that people soon won't buy such grotesque monstrosities, just like flares and mullet haircuts went out of fashion at the end of the 1970s. Eventually the likes of Pavie may again be more terroir driven.

I was really upset when Pavie and Angelus got promoted to equal status with Cheval Blanc and Ausone. It is like promoting bands like Kiss and Status Quo equal status with the Doors and Led Zepellin. Angelus is a parvenu of a wine. Clearly there is something rotten in the enclave of St-Emilion.
User avatar
Jeff Leve
Posts: 318
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 4:22 pm
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Jeff Leve »

Comte Flaneur wrote:That's interesting. So his antipathy to those 2005s Jeff listed does not extend to the whole 2005 vintage - only to a few - unless he thinks the decade is a disaster.
To get an idea on how Gilman views 2005 Bordeaux... These are direct quotes from Gilman

"...The sad fact is that twenty or thirty years from now the 2005 vintage will be best remembered for the large number of imbalanced and flawed wines... The obvious fact to anyone who will take the time to taste the wines, rather than read the press clippings, is that a significant majority of these wines utterly fail in their attempt to produce exemplary claret..."
User avatar
greatbxfreak
Posts: 909
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:09 pm
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by greatbxfreak »

Comte Flaneur,

What's wrong with KISS? Name a band except RS to entertain fans for more than 40 years. Funny you name DOORS, short appearance. LZ clearly a class band but what about Deep Purple MK II?

Back to wine. Angelus is a interesting story. I met Hubert de Bouard first time in September 1985 just one day after I met Jacques Thienpont of Le Pin accidentally on the street past La Croix St.Georges. He's just arrived at Angelus. Following years, he made astonishing 1989 and 1990, true expression of the terroir and St.Emilion. Few years later he told me " Izak, I will never make garage wine" relating to Jean-Luc Thunevin's Valandraud.
After 1995, he changed his mind anyway and the style went dramatically to extracted and modern style. Both Pavie and Angelus remind of each other and are certainly not my style. I wish Tertre Rotebouef was in place of either of these two properties. TR has 10 times more personality and terroir expression than Pavie and Angelus. Does JG like TR?
The funny thing is that Valandraud went opposite way than Angelus, from technical wine to terroir wine, especially in recent years, thanks to Jean-Luc's wife Murielle, who's been making wine since 2008.

2000 vintage is imho better than 2006 and 2008.
User avatar
stefan
Posts: 6224
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:08 pm
Location: College Station, TX
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by stefan »

"my personal hierarchy of vintages runs thusly: 2005, 2008, 2009, 2001, 2006, 2000, 2007, 2010, 2002, 2004 and 2003."

After reading his comments, I cannot tell whether he is rating best to worst or worst to best. :)
User avatar
Jay Winton
Posts: 1836
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 9:06 pm
Location: Rehoboth Beach, DE USA
Contact:

Re: John Gilman in Westchester Magazine

Post by Jay Winton »

Can anyone get JG here to answer for himself?
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 17 guests