Comments on: The Steve Heimoff Interview: Hippie to Oenophile http://sacrebleuwine.com/sacre-bleu-wine/the-steve-heimoff-interview-hippie-to-oenophile/ Wine, Music, Pop Culture, Musings Thu, 02 Sep 2010 13:08:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Jo Diaz http://sacrebleuwine.com/sacre-bleu-wine/the-steve-heimoff-interview-hippie-to-oenophile/comment-page-1/#comment-54 Jo Diaz Mon, 10 Aug 2009 02:16:06 +0000 http://sacrebleuwine.com/?p=1067#comment-54 Classic image of Steve! Classic image of Steve!

]]> By: Ashley Lauren http://sacrebleuwine.com/sacre-bleu-wine/the-steve-heimoff-interview-hippie-to-oenophile/comment-page-1/#comment-37 Ashley Lauren Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:36:22 +0000 http://sacrebleuwine.com/?p=1067#comment-37 You've really echoed my sentiments here. I love the Ivory Tower reference. Wer'e also on the same page about the 100 point system. It is tired and useless and the only thing interesting about it is that anyone at all bothers to come to its defense. And grading wine and rating wine, while having some practical aspects, is mostly entertainment. Well stated, Tish! You’ve really echoed my sentiments here. I love the Ivory Tower reference. Wer’e also on the same page about the 100 point system. It is tired and useless and the only thing interesting about it is that anyone at all bothers to come to its defense. And grading wine and rating wine, while having some practical aspects, is mostly entertainment.
Well stated, Tish!

]]> By: Tish http://sacrebleuwine.com/sacre-bleu-wine/the-steve-heimoff-interview-hippie-to-oenophile/comment-page-1/#comment-36 Tish Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:44:57 +0000 http://sacrebleuwine.com/?p=1067#comment-36 Interesting interview with one of wine's most interesting peeps these days. Steve has become both a role model and whipping boy for other bloggers, primarily because he so often chooses to pit print vs. online wine media, which most observers consider to be on opposite trajectories. His points on the rising popularity of both wine and blogging are spot-on, which is why even those who occasionally take exception to his op-ed stuff value his experience. Three quick things I would add: 1) There will be a "chasm" between the established wine writing guard and the new wave of online bloggers as long as there is a chasm of transparency and authenticity. THe issue of ethics and shilling in print and online have yet to shake out; bloggers are clearly ahead in this regard, and millenials above all are noticing. There is virtually no transparency among the traditional wine print magazines, a perhaps worse: there is virtually no acknowledgment of expertise among any writers beyond their ivory towers. The self-appointed authority stuff is so 20th century. 2) I think you and Steve alike need to reconsider this notion "evidence of the [100-point] system’s relevance is the fact that so many critics continue to employ it." Since when? I have been a wine writer and blogger for 20 years, and just because the U.S. has developed a penchant for retailers re-gurgitating Parker and Spectator scores (above all others) does not mean it represents anywhere close to a majority of wine writers. Even before blogging blossomed, the bulk of wine writers in the U.S. eschewed 100 points; and if you want to add in European writers and now bloggers, the actual amount of individual critics/reviewers who use 100-points is a virtual handful. 3) On the theme of numeric scales, in truth they vary widely in their criteria or lack thereof. Parker's scale is actually a 50-point scale and has a set of criteria by which he assigns point values. WS's is pure critic preference whose only criteria seems to be the calibration of a critic's palate each time he sits down to plow through 25 new wines. WE's "20-point" scale is also pure preference, made even more useless by the fact that while they claim to run no scores below 80 their insistence on not even listing such wines vis a vis the statistical rarity of even 80-82 point scores adds considerable strain on WE credibility. (GO ahead and do a head count: Wine & Spirits is the only major mag that transparently demonstrates the selectivity of its panels. Which, by the way, represent a completely different approach to grading wine, weven though W&S seemingly uses the "same" scale. 100 points is not 100 points is not 100 points, as the famous wine critic Gertrude Stein might have said. Interesting interview with one of wine’s most interesting peeps these days. Steve has become both a role model and whipping boy for other bloggers, primarily because he so often chooses to pit print vs. online wine media, which most observers consider to be on opposite trajectories. His points on the rising popularity of both wine and blogging are spot-on, which is why even those who occasionally take exception to his op-ed stuff value his experience.

Three quick things I would add:

1) There will be a “chasm” between the established wine writing guard and the new wave of online bloggers as long as there is a chasm of transparency and authenticity. THe issue of ethics and shilling in print and online have yet to shake out; bloggers are clearly ahead in this regard, and millenials above all are noticing. There is virtually no transparency among the traditional wine print magazines, a perhaps worse: there is virtually no acknowledgment of expertise among any writers beyond their ivory towers. The self-appointed authority stuff is so 20th century.

2) I think you and Steve alike need to reconsider this notion “evidence of the [100-point] system’s relevance is the fact that so many critics continue to employ it.” Since when? I have been a wine writer and blogger for 20 years, and just because the U.S. has developed a penchant for retailers re-gurgitating Parker and Spectator scores (above all others) does not mean it represents anywhere close to a majority of wine writers. Even before blogging blossomed, the bulk of wine writers in the U.S. eschewed 100 points; and if you want to add in European writers and now bloggers, the actual amount of individual critics/reviewers who use 100-points is a virtual handful.

3) On the theme of numeric scales, in truth they vary widely in their criteria or lack thereof. Parker’s scale is actually a 50-point scale and has a set of criteria by which he assigns point values. WS’s is pure critic preference whose only criteria seems to be the calibration of a critic’s palate each time he sits down to plow through 25 new wines. WE’s “20-point” scale is also pure preference, made even more useless by the fact that while they claim to run no scores below 80 their insistence on not even listing such wines vis a vis the statistical rarity of even 80-82 point scores adds considerable strain on WE credibility. (GO ahead and do a head count: Wine & Spirits is the only major mag that transparently demonstrates the selectivity of its panels. Which, by the way, represent a completely different approach to grading wine, weven though W&S seemingly uses the “same” scale. 100 points is not 100 points is not 100 points, as the famous wine critic Gertrude Stein might have said.

]]>