Could this possibly be different palates?

OK, I know everyone's palate is different, but these guys are the pros, so just curious if WLDG folks think differences like this are due to inconsistencies in a particular wine or if two famous wine guys could possibly have such a different take on a wine. I notice this sort of divergence is not uncommon.

Williams Selyem 2011 Papera Zinfandel:

Robert Parker:

The only Zinfandel I tasted was the 2011 Zinfandel Papera Vineyard. Among all the high octane, monster Zins this winery has made, this one came in at only 14.8%, which reflects the cold growing conditions and extremely late harvest of 2011. Although good, the vintage is responsible for its limitations. It offers some attractive berry fruit, and there is nothing herbaceous or angular about it. It is just a lightweight red to drink over the next 3-4 years.

Steve Heimoff:

This is huge in fruit, like Godzilla trampling skyscrapers underfoot. Yet it’s so exquisitely balanced in all its parts, it possesses a Zen-like stillness at the center of all these massive, swirling elements. This is easily Williams Selyem’s best Papera Zin yet. So rich in black raspberry jam, red currant, mocha, pepper and sweet sandalwood flavors, yet so focused, it just blows your mind.

Yikes, can these be the same wine? Gotta open my bottle and see what gives.

Sounds like same wine to me. I'm not really that familiar with Heimoff (who I think just left WE), but I can see many people regarding a wine that as balanced and full of fruit that Parker thinks is a 14.8% lightweight.

Any wine that comes in at 14.8% (even with the word "only" in front of the percentage) is never going to be lightweight in my book!

To answer the question, though, I never cease to be amazed at the different notes experts can make about the same wine, sometimes the same bottle. This is often glaring in The World of Fine Wine where typically 3 reviewers have their notes one after the other. There are a couple of (abbreviated to avoid copyright infringement) examples from WoFW in this blog post, and a few more thoughts on the subject: http://www.winenous.co.uk/wp/archives/832

To reiterate a point I make in the post... I think it is fine that people, experts even, should have very different takes on a wine. It is just a fact of life that we need to accept and learn to live with. There is no point getting aggressive or defensive about it.

Any wine that comes in at 14.8% (even with the word "only" in front of the percentage) is never going to be lightweight in my book!

To answer the question, though, I never cease to be amazed at the different notes experts can make about the same wine, sometimes the same bottle. This is often glaring in The World of Fine Wine where typically 3 reviewers have their notes one after the other. There are a couple of (abbreviated to avoid copyright infringement) examples from WoFW in this blog post, and a few more thoughts on the subject: http://www.winenous.co.uk/wp/archives/832

To reiterate a point I make in the post... I think it is fine that people, experts even, should have very different takes on a wine. It is just a fact of life that we need to accept and learn to live with. There is no point getting aggressive or defensive about it.

Steve, Don't know if you were referring to me or not, anyway, I am not crazy about it, just find it amazing because it's SO night and day. I mean I know it's a subjective "art form", the professional evaluation of wine, nonetheless it seems certain characteristics pretty much just are, an "easy drinker" and Godzilla referring to the same wine just strikes me as surprising. I know of Parker's fondness for monster wines, but, and I am a subscriber off and on, he also is capable of appreciating more subtle wines such as for instance Riojas.

he also is capable of appreciating more subtle wines such as for instance Riojas.

I think this statement proves the title of your post. No two palates are alike, be they professional or simply wine enthusiast. Sure, Rioja is no "Godzilla Zin", but I would hardly call a wine that is so oak driven and full bodied "subtle". Capable of being delicious, wonderful and complex, in the best examples, yes. Subtle, no. Maybe if we are talking rose...

Hi Tom,
The term “Godzilla” used in Steve’s tasting note is his impression of the wines “fruitiness” and not the wine as a whole (the "shyscrappers" representing non fruity components of the wine). Parker on the other hand only got “attractive” fruitiness.

Salute

Well, for clarity Heimoff used the Godzilla imagery about the fruit, but then says it's well balanced. While the descriptions are different (as tasters are different), I think in totality they are not as diametrically opposed as Godzilla vs easy drinker. I'm with Steve - let a thousand TNs bloom.

As to Rioja, Rioja can indeed subtle and elegant, especially with age. CVNE, La Rioja Alta, Lopez de Heredia, even older Murrieta. But I think my memories of Parker high scorers tend to be Torre Muga, Artadi El Pison, and the like. Subtle they ain't.

The term “Godzilla” used in Steve’s tasting note is his impression of the wines “fruitiness” and not the wine as a whole. Parker on the other hand only got “attractive” fruitiness.

you beat me to it!

Well, for clarity Heimoff used the Godzilla imagery about the fruit, but then says it's well balanced. While the descriptions are different (as tasters are different), I think in totality they are not as diametrically opposed as Godzilla vs easy drinker. I'm with Steve - let a thousand TNs bloom.

As to Rioja, Rioja can indeed subtle and elegant, especially with age. CVNE, La Rioja Alta, Lopez de Heredia, even older Murrieta. But I think my memories of Parker high scorers tend to be Torre Muga, Artadi El Pison, and the like. Subtle they ain't.

Well yes, I should have prefaced the word Rioja with "subtle and elegant", didn't mean the bruisers but rather the La Rioja types which I do recall Parker reviewing highly.
What can I say, I'll have to ruminate on these comments and see what I'm missing here, have a hard time finding "just a lightweight red" (not easy drinker, my mistake) akin to "huge", "like Godzilla trampling skyscrapers underfoot" and "massive".

No one is saying that the descriptors are akin. Clearly they view the wine differently. But if one is comparing, has to compare the whole review, not just phrases. I could say Parker said "14.8%, attractive berry fruit, nothing herbaceous" and Heimoff said " exquisitely balanced, Zen-like black raspberry jam, red currant, yet so focused" and differences would seem minor.

I pretty regularly have vastly different opinions over wines with people that I am sharing a bottle with.

As to Rioja, while one can argue from a Lahart-esque viewpoint that Parker is a model of diverse tastes, my limited experience is that he strongly favors the bigger styled wines. I actually was given a Parker's buyers guide (6th edition) many years ago. A quick glance reinforces my prejudices. His Spain section focuses more on high octane regions, but he includes some Rioja estates of note. Of wines where he gave a score above 90, we have 6 different Artadi bottlings (-92-97+), 2 Remierz de Ganuza (94 & 95 points), 2 San Vincentes, a Torre Muga, and a lone La Rioja Alta 890 (a 92 for the 1985). He considers Sierra Cantabria and Valcona more important than Lopez de Heridia. And that was 10 plus years ago. Plus I think whatever appreciation Parker might have had for subtlety is fading based on recent rants.

No one is saying that the descriptors are akin. Clearly they view the wine differently. But if one is comparing, has to compare the whole review, not just phrases. I could say Parker said "14.8%, attractive berry fruit, nothing herbaceous" and Heimoff said " exquisitely balanced, Zen-like black raspberry jam, red currant, yet so focused" and differences would seem minor.

I pretty regularly have vastly different opinions over wines with people that I am sharing a bottle with.

As to Rioja, while one can argue from a Lahart-esque viewpoint that Parker is a model of diverse tastes, my limited experience is that he strongly favors the bigger styled wines. I actually was given a Parker's buyers guide (6th edition) many years ago. A quick glance reinforces my prejudices. His Spain section focuses more on high octane regions, but he includes some Rioja estates of note. Of wines where he gave a score above 90, we have 6 different Artadi bottlings (-92-97+), 2 Remierz de Ganuza (94 & 95 points), 2 San Vincentes, a Torre Muga, and a lone La Rioja Alta 890 (a 92 for the 1985). He considers Sierra Cantabria and Valcona more important than Lopez de Heridia. And that was 10 plus years ago. Plus I think whatever appreciation Parker might have had for subtlety is fading based on recent rants.

While I agree that you have to consider the whole review Dale, I do feel, despite the fact that I readily acknowledge and highly regard your encyclopedic knowledge of wine matters ( sincerely meant ), that the gist of the two reviews is closer to my understanding than yours.

Checking Parker's site, of the last 11 vintages of the 890 he reviewed, 9 of them were rated between 96 and 92 and the other 2 were 91 & 90. The three most recent were 95,94 & 96, which may or may not be significant.

Anyway, the reason I brought it up was to see what folks thought about it, so I appreciate the all the comments.

Any wine that comes in at 14.8% (even with the word "only" in front of the percentage) is never going to be lightweight in my book!

To answer the question, though, I never cease to be amazed at the different notes experts can make about the same wine, sometimes the same bottle. This is often glaring in The World of Fine Wine where typically 3 reviewers have their notes one after the other. There are a couple of (abbreviated to avoid copyright infringement) examples from WoFW in this blog post, and a few more thoughts on the subject: http://www.winenous.co.uk/wp/archives/832

To reiterate a point I make in the post... I think it is fine that people, experts even, should have very different takes on a wine. It is just a fact of life that we need to accept and learn to live with. There is no point getting aggressive or defensive about it.

Steve, Don't know if you were referring to me or not.

About being aggressive or defensive? No - not at all. Sorry if it came over like that.

But some experts react that way when others disagree with them (did anyone say Pavie?). And others get defensive when you argue that their views are not objective - they seem to think their expertise is being challenged.

Any wine that comes in at 14.8% (even with the word "only" in front of the percentage) is never going to be lightweight in my book!

To answer the question, though, I never cease to be amazed at the different notes experts can make about the same wine, sometimes the same bottle. This is often glaring in The World of Fine Wine where typically 3 reviewers have their notes one after the other. There are a couple of (abbreviated to avoid copyright infringement) examples from WoFW in this blog post, and a few more thoughts on the subject: http://www.winenous.co.uk/wp/archives/832

To reiterate a point I make in the post... I think it is fine that people, experts even, should have very different takes on a wine. It is just a fact of life that we need to accept and learn to live with. There is no point getting aggressive or defensive about it.

Steve, Don't know if you were referring to me or not.

About being aggressive or defensive? No - not at all. Sorry if it came over like that.

But some experts react that way when others disagree with them (did anyone say Pavie?). And others get defensive when you argue that their views are not objective - they seem to think their expertise is being challenged.

OK Steve, gotcha

Tom,
as I said, it's clear they regarded the wines differently. I was just pointing out that Parker refers to "only 14.8%'"- while Zin handles/needs alcohol better than most grapes, 14.8 requires an "only" or makes a wine "lightweight?" No wonder Parker doesn't like Dashe.

As to the 890 scores, I'd assume the recent ones are Neal Martin (certainly the 96 points for the 1995 is, just got an offer on that). Parker hasn't done Rioja for years.

[Jenise]

What can I say, I'll have to ruminate on these comments and see what I'm missing here, have a hard time finding "just a lightweight red" (not easy drinker, my mistake) akin to "huge", "like Godzilla trampling skyscrapers underfoot" and "massive".

I hear what you're getting at Tom. However different tasters respond to wines differently, you'd think two 'experts' would at least agree on body. At first glance, there's no reconciling "lightweight" and "Godzilla".

Hi again Tom,
He is not referring to the wine as a whole as a “Monster Zin “ or a “Godzilla Zin”.
Here’s my take on Steve’s TN- It’s the “huge”, “Godzilla”-like fruit “trampling skyscrapers” (non fruity and structural components of the wine) “underfoot” causing a “massive swirling (balanced, well mingled and married) (of) elements” and in the “center” (possible untouched) is a “Zen like stillness” (for me this would be my “tell-tale sign” for Zin- spicy, zesty, slightly raisiny, underbrush like qualities and/or maybe a slight dose (but pleasant) of VA funk).

Salute

Hi again Tom,
He is not referring to the wine as a whole as a “Monster Zin “ or a “Godzilla Zin”.
Here’s my take on Steve’s TN- It’s the “huge”, “Godzilla”-like fruit “trampling skyscrapers” (non fruity and structural components of the wine) “underfoot” causing a “massive swirling (balanced, well mingled and married) (of) elements” and in the “center” (possible untouched) is a “Zen like stillness” (for me this would be my “tell-tale sign” for Zin- spicy, zesty, slightly raisiny, underbrush like qualities and/or maybe a slight dose (but pleasant) of VA funk).

Salute

Victor,

Bless my soul! Hey I'm not saying you might not be on target here Victor, but if tasting notes require this level of deconstruction and insight, then I would say they are in all likelihood thoroughly inscrutable and useless to the average wine lover, myself included. Hey, wait, a moment of enlightenment?...maybe that's why they so often make little sense to me!

At first glance there's no reconciling "lightweight" and "Godzilla".

Yes Jenise, that was that contradiction that I found most surprising.

Tom,
as I said, it's clear they regarded the wines differently. I was just pointing out that Parker refers to "only 14.8%'"- while Zin handles/needs alcohol better than most grapes, 14.8 requires an "only" or makes a wine "lightweight?" No wonder Parker doesn't like Dashe.

As to the 890 scores, I'd assume the recent ones are Neal Martin (certainly the 96 points for the 1995 is, just got an offer on that). Parker hasn't done Rioja for years.

Yep, I missed that Dale. The 4 most recent reviews were a mixed bag with 1 Luis Gutierrez, 1 Jay Miller, and a pair of Neal Martins. The other 9 were Parker's but the most recent of those goes back to '04, so I guess that doesn't say much about whether or not Parker is leaning more and more away from the subtle & elegant. I'll have to watch for that now that you mentioned it.

Since I am more in a drinking mode than a buying mode at this point, I focus more on the older reviews and the few high end Cali's that I still buy from mailing lists, so it wouldn't be as apparent to me as if I were reading a lot of current reviews with the idea of getting input on possible purchases. The thought of a more monster leaning Parker is, I must say, a bit scary!

However different tasters respond to wines differently, you'd think two 'experts' would at least agree on body. At first glance, there's no reconciling "lightweight" and "Godzilla".

I suppose. But I am no longer VERY surprised by things.

I would also, for example expect experts to recognise the quality in 1st growth clarets, and rate them more highly than much more modest ones in blind Decanter panel tastings, but they regularly fail to do so.