Gary,

I’m a Wine TV fanatic! So when do you get your own show of the Food Network? I’m still catching up on your back catalog of shows. I’m in South Jersey by Philly and I’m considering a road trip to the Wine Library (maybe when the price of gas drops a bit, so I can buy more wine of course 😉

In one of your shows you described the new Wine Room, do you keep all of your wines at 55 degrees?

Keep up the great work! Truly educational for a budding oenophile.

Peace, Bob

Gary,
Tonight’s show and format were great. It might be interesting to use this same format with older wines,(in the 6 yr & older group), that may have went under the radar upon release, but have come into their own.

i too am a wltv fanatic! i might legitimately be your biggest fan. i loved this episode. once again educational & interesting while being completely entertaining. keep up the great work! i think everyone would agree that we appreciate how you are incorporating all the comments & emails while still maintaining your fresh style!

Hey Gary,

Would u comment on how u think the Girard P S will age. My experience suggests many petite sirahs of higher caliber will go 5-10 years (at least). Thanks

Hugh

Agree with the Girard, a great wine. The reason why i don’t like many PS is that the palette dosn’t deliver what the nose suggests. some of them tend to be a bit lean

Kids- I see most Petite Sirah’s lasting for 5-7 years easy, as for this monster Girard,10-20 easy!

Your scoring is perplexing. Bogle gets 87 and 85. Franciscan gets 88 and 87. But more than that, the range between wines you don’t really like and ones you rave about is so slim, there is no meaningful correspondence between scores and commentary.

Steve thanx for the comments the scores that i ended the shows with are the final scores I know what i said when I was tasting. BUT to be honest scores are just a range, I think people take scores to far …meanin an 89 sells slowly but it wold have sold out in seconds had it been a 90. I try to let you know what I think through my tasting notes.

“the range between wines you donâ??t really like and ones you rave about is so slim, there is no meaningful correspondence between scores and commentary.”- I will look at that and try to do a better job, sorry man!

I am also somewhat confused by your scoring system. here is how Wine Spectator defines their scores:

95-100 – Classic; a great wine
90-94 – Outstanding: a wine of superior character and style
85-89 – Very good; a wine with special qualities
80-84 – Good: a solid, well-made wine
75-79 – Mediocre; a drinkable wine that may have minor flaws
50-74 – Not recommended

Your describe a wine as mediocre yet give it a score that equates to a WS very good wine with special qualities. In fact, many of the WS recommended “best buys” and “smart buys” are ine the mid to upper 80’s but you will pan a wine and give it a similar score. You also, in a previous show, described your score ranges omitting a “good” range.

I agree with Gary in that people take scores way too seriously. The first thing you have to understand about “scoring” wines is that it is a totally subjective process. What 1 person thinks is a great wine or a 90+ point effort, may not be enjoyed at all by someone else who does not feel the same way and thus would “score” it lower.

I think the whole point of WLTV is too disseminate information out there about wines that the average person probably has never tried or even heard of and to that Gary is doing a great job. I will admit, I do enjoy the scoring episodes too but just because Gary thinks a wine is spectacular, I may not like it, and vice-versa. I just tend to buy what I like and what I know is good while also trying new wines that fit that same sort of profile.

Keep up the good work Gary!

In response to Rich S, I agree that the scoring system is sometimes treated with too much attention. But when it is used it should match the description of the wine, including its recommendation. In more than one instance Gary has described a wine is falling short, having flaws, would not recommend it and yet he gives it a score that he himself has indicated represents a very good or above average wine. I would rather it not even be given a number.

“he gives it a score that he himself has indicated represents a very good or above average wine” Julius where did I do that? I think this

any wine under 88 points is nice but there are so many wines out there you should be able to find wines that are YOUR 89+ or better everytime. Wine spectator says 85 and 86 are good, I never did that!

i think wine spectator might want to take another look at their scoring description….from what i have been able to tell from many scorings i have read and tested is this:

50-79: swill
80-84: uninspired
85-87: decent
88-89: good
90-91: very good
92-94: great
95-98: amazing!
99-100: you might see, but will not be able to afford it…haha, but in my opinion nothing should theoretically reach this score

just some thought

-kw

Bottom Line I hope WLTV and everything I stand for is trust your own palate and don’t take a point here and there serious, trust your own flavors and if you find someone maybe even me) that matches up with you then you are ahead of the game! I am so sorry to anyone I have mixed up, I am trying very hard for all the viewers!

you’re doing very well gary…don’t sweat it!

This is not really related to the rest of the posts here but I was wondering if anyone knows details about fun wineries to work for while they are harvesting. I am just graduating from college and might have some free time to travel after I work this summer.

I’ve heard working in France is pretty great but I wonder if you can do the same kind of temp work at American vineyards.

By the way… Gary, you’re show is great and I hope you don’t listen to everyone telling you to change your tasting habits. The huge bucket and all of your great facial expressions are what makes the show worth watching. Also, I hope that people stop trying to always correct your pronunciation. It gets pretty boring to read 18 posts about who has a better understanding of French.

I think what would be helpful when giving scores to wine are:

1. Adherence to a scale similar to that of Wine Advocate, Wine Spectator and International Wine Cellar. Their scales are all pretty compatable. If your 100 point scale is entirely different than theirs (as your comments here seem to intimate), it is just too confusing.

2. If you want to go with a different scale, a clear exposition of what your scale is – what scores correspond to what levels of quality.

I agree that scores are overrated as a means of conveying the qualities and characteristics of wines. I also agree that scales have become so compressed that the 100 point system is becoming almost meaningless. I tend to think broad ranges are more effective at conveying what the quality of a wine is. I think wine critics have painted themselves into a very unsatisfactory corner with this system. The “puff” system starts looking better every day. 8)

I also recognize the difficult position Gary is in as a retailer scoring wines that he is selling.

But, in this episode for example, there is no way I can get my hands around the juxtaposition of the Bogle being even an 85 and the Girard being a 92 based on the commentary.

Steve,
Let it go! It’s wine, just enjoy.

Gary, don’t sweat the scores. I rate wines by the look on your face when you taste them. 🙂 I’m much more interested in what you say about the wine than the score you give it. You so obviously love wine that your feelings about a wine come through in your expressions and your descriptions. It’s nice to score the wines, but I think you could skip the scoring and we’d get just as much out of each episode. I do like the rankings and comparisons between the wines, please keep that.

I learned so much just when you talked about how the Bogle changed from the mid-palette to the finish. That is what I watch WLTV for.

So just keep on keepin’ on. You are the best thing to happen to wine on the Internet. I feel very lucky that I became a WL customer in time to catch the beginning of WLTV.

And thanks for further coverage of California wines! I’m fortunate to live within a few hours drive of several of California’s wine producing areas, and can’t get enough about Cal wines. I particularly would like to see more tastings from smaller wineries. It’s getting to be my experience that the most interesting things happening in California wine are happening at the smallest wineries – often just mom and pop operations. These people are less concerned with mass marketing to millions of taste-challenged consumers and more interested in exploring the true capabilities of wine in their patch of vineyard. There is a revolution in wine going on right now in California, but it isn’t the big wineries that are doing it. It’s the tiny operations in Mendocino, Santa Rita Hills, Shenendoah Valley (CA), Paso Robles and other lesser known AVAs that are breaking new ground and creating stunning new wines. Napa wines are great, but if you take the time to look, you can find just as outstanding wines for a fraction of the price in other areas – and you can talk for hours with the wine maker him or her self without busloads of tourists or glitzy marketing. I’d love to hear more about these kinds of California wineries.

And thanks for including Petite Sirah. One of my favorite wines when done well!

Scotty – It’s *not* just wine – it’s commerce, too. You have to acknowledge that at least some of Wine TV with Gary V is advertising. That’s one of the things people like Parker and Tanzer have been very disciplined about – they have nothing to sell but their opinions. And that independence has added a lot to their reputations and credibility.

I personally don’t take Gary’s scores seriously, partially for the reasons I set forth initially in these comments. But there are a lot of consumers who *do* take scores seriously, no matter what you or anyone else says. Why do you think retailers give scores to wines? If nobody is taking them seriously, why bother? Do I need to tell you why?

Given that we’re talking about advertising here (I’m not denying that there is also “dissemination of information” involved, but come on), I think there is a duty to be as clear and accurate as possible. Maybe you don’t, but there’s a pretty bright and fine line that should be tread, imo.

steve, if you think gary is only trying to sell wine, then you really shouldn’t watch the vlogs….i mean, who wants to be patronized by someone just out to screw you over? personally, i find gary to be quite independent from his sales…i have heard him completely obliterate wines that are big sellers for him, and have tried wines that he has recommended and been very impressed…
don’t get me wrong, i understand the advertising aspect in that gary, on occasion, selects certain wines to feature, but what else should he do…it seems an intelligent way to go about it…i mean, look at the production quality and tell me the man is trying to manipulate you….i suggest you go back in the archive and watch the previous 37 episodes…you will see what all of us who have been watching the entire time have seen…just a guy trying wine in a room with stacks of boxes and a little video camera.
also, wine is a deep passion of mine, but at the end of the day it is just fermented grape juice…just wine…for real.

always with respect,
kw

I really enjoyed this episode and would like to see more in this format (i.e. several wines from a given region). Washington state (reds specifically) would be at the top of my list for regions to explore. I also enjoy the comparisons between multiple producers of a given varietal (like the napa cabs in ep. 22).

As far as scores go, I think the number is just a reference point. Gary’s comments and tasting notes give the true picture of his thoughts on a wine. I haven’t had any difficulty in deciphering his thoughts on the wines tasted in any of the episodes I have watched. I also agree with Kevin’s redesign of Wine Spectator rating system. Read an issue and try to tell me they are scoring based on their posted system for wines they rate in the 80s.

Kevin – No offense, but I didn’t say “gary is only trying to sell wine”. There’s no denying that Gary is sincerely enthusiastic about wine and his reactions to the wines seem sincere also. Initially, I merely pointed out his scoring was perplexing and that the point range between “blech” wines and “great” wines was so narrow that the scores were meaningless when matched to the commentary. Hearing his explanation of his scale just reinforces my opinion. At least this discussion led him to explain his system.

If I were Gary, I’d be leery about scoring wines for a lot of reasons. I’d probably skip scoring them. But if he’s going to score, he should, as he now has, disclose his scale – or he should follow reasonably close to an “accepted” scale (I think that would be more helpful – a “personal 100 point scale” {like each of us has our own} that doesn’t correspond to some standard just seems silly). Hearing his scale, I think his personal 100 point scoring system is inherently flawed and almost useless (why do you need 100 points if you have only about five quality levels of wines? Why *not* use a puff system?) – much less viable than those of Parker, Spectator, IWC, etc. It makes me long for the old days when retailers would tell you whether they recommended a wine or not – and why. ;^)

And I don’t understand the mentality that if I don’t enjoy the vlog the way you do, I shouldn’t watch them. I mean even if I watched them just for giggles, that would be alright – wouldn’t it? 8)

Steve I understand your points and I have been in essence using the wine spectator or Parker scale but just the “new” real world version, what I mean by that is that we have ZERO customers that think an 85 score is good, heck ask any retailer the “90” isn’t even what it use to be. I will re look at WS,RP and Tanzers description of what they think wines are given to the range and try to do a better job making it fit in those terms. BOTTOM LINE I hope everyone is enjoying the videos, learning things and trying new wines! 🙂

Thanks, Gary, for your open-minded candor. It’s funny, because 20 years ago, I drank a *lot* of really nice wines that Parker scored in the low-to-mid-80’s. I don’t think those wines don’t exist anymore – they’re just being scored as 90 point wines. 8)

But in the long run, point inflation and resulting compression has made the 100 point system increasingly irrelevant. I can say that over the past year, I’ve bought more and more wines that haven’t been “scored” by *anyone* and I’ve never been happier drinking wine.