Examining Antonio Galloni’s Palate
The appointment of Antonio Galloni to the California reviewer position at Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate a year and a half ago was an important event in the world of California Wine. For years, Robert Parker’s palate was the source of reviews of the state’s wines at the influential Wine Advocate. How things might change under a Galloni palate has been the topic of some conversation.
No matter who might have been appointed to the California Chair of the Wine Advocate, any new reviewer would labor under the same kind criticism that has long been pointed at Robert Parker and other influential critics: The influence is too great and the 100 Point rating system is too reductionists. The former complaint can’t be addressed by the reviewers or publications. The latter complaint is more interesting.
In my view, the 100 point rating system would be too reductionist were the points the only thing a review offered the reader. But of course it isn’t. Along with the rating comes a written review; a description of what the reviewer smells, feels, tastes and understands about the wine. This is the meat of the review and too often ignored as an important component among critics of the 100 point system.
It was with this part of the review in mind that I sat down to examine how Antonio Galloni has approached the position of California Wine Reviewer at the Wine Advocate since he took over that position in February 2011.
In an email to me, Mr. Galloni succinctly outlined his approach to reviewing wine:
“I start with the premise that wine criticism is first and foremost really about wine education. I want to help our readers find wines that they will like and enjoy. I view aromatic and flavor descriptors an important part of tasting note, but only a part of the whole picture of what a wine is about. In my opinion, a wine’s structural elements are at least as important.”
What I wanted to do was understand the “Galloni Vocabulary” that allows him to explain the aromatic, flavor and structural elements of the wines he tastes. How does he describe California wines? Do wines rated higher tend to be described in a certain way? What words are most often associated with Galloni reviews and with Galloni reviews of highly rated wines?
This approach to understanding Antonio Galloni’s palate amounts to examining the frequency of word use across his reviews of California wines. It can be argued that this approach to understanding a reviewer is every bit as reductionist as using numbers to rate wines. So be it. In defense, I would argue that a modern wine description amounts to carefully communicating the character of a wine by issuing a set of adjective and nouns that best describe what a reviewer smells, feels and tastes. To do this, a vocabulary is necessary. In fact, that vocabulary probably needs to be consistent. Certain aromas, for example, will show up across an array of wines. For a reviewer to truly serve their audience, there must be some consistency in the use of the descriptors they use to describe the wines.
This is not an easy thing to do. In an email to me, Mr. Galloni explained what is unquestionably true about using descriptors in wine reviews:
“As you know, aromas and flavors are highly personal sensations each taster perceives in a wine. I might find cassis, you might find blackberry, while a third taster might find blueberry. Obviously there is some commonality there, but also differences.”
Another complaint of wine review vocabulary is that it is often filled with reference that are far too obscure for the average reader to appreciate. The question becomes, how specific should a descriptor be within a written wine review. Galloni is also well aware not only of this critique of wine reviews, but appreciates its validity. Again, writing to me in an email, Mr. Galloni explains:
“My objective is to write tasting notes and reviews that people can relate to, while avoiding the natural tendency towards verbosity that is an easy trap for writers to fall into. Should I say a wine smells like ‘lemon,’ ‘Meyer lemon’ or ‘Sicilian lemon?’ I trust my instincts, but at the same time, if readers don’t have a point of reference, those descriptors risk being just fanciful language that has no meaning. That is one of the reasons I might say ‘spices’ instead of ‘cinnamon,’ ‘nutmeg’ or ‘allspice.’ So, the goal in my view is to educate, but without the intimidation factor that keeps so many potential consumers away from wine.”
What follows is a statistical examination of word use in Antonio Galloni’s reviews of California red wines from the vintages 2006-2010 and various combinations thereof. It was undertaken using the very handy wine review search engine at eRobertParker.com.
ANALYSIS OF WORDS USED BY ANTONIO GALLONI IN REVIEWS OF RED CALIFORNIA WINES FROM THE 2008 AND 2009 VINTAGES
|WORD||ALL REVIEWS||90+ REVIEWS||95+ REVIEWS|
Two primary questions arise upon looking at this list of words and the frequency with which they appear in Mr. Galloni’s reviews: 1) Which discriptors is he most likely to use in reviews of red California wines and 2) which words are more or less frequently used in high scoring wines?
THE ISSUE OF DESCRIBING STRUCTURE
Taking the second question first, I think it is noteworthy that no descriptor falls significantly in usage as the score goes higher. This suggests to me that few if any words on this list are to Mr. Galloni inherently negative. However, there are certain words that are used much more frequently the higher the score including “striking”, “silk” “tar”, “nuance”, “structure”, and “finesse”. What is interesting about this collection of words that show up more often in higher scoring words is that all but one of them, “Tar”, is a description of a wine’s structure, not its aromatics or flavors.
Antonio Galloni noted this interesting fact and had this explanation:
“One of the main challenges reviewers face is how to differentiate wines that within a category are very similar. How many times can you use ‘petrol,’ ‘gasoline’ or some derivative when discussing Riesling, or ‘tar’ and ‘roses’ for Barolo, or ‘oyster shells’ and ‘minerals’ for Chablis? If I taste 20 red Burgundies in one cellar, what are the differences? Not the grape or overall flavor profile, in most cases. The differences are about structure, potential age-worthiness, and, in places where terroir is an important part of the wine culture, the extent to which a wine reflects its origins. I think that is why the analysis of structural terms in your chart reveals much broader diversification of terms.”
His explanation of the importance of a wine’s structure in describing a wine matches my view of wine evaluation and I would expect many others also. Within a category of single varietal wines, the flavor profile will be different, but not extraordinarily so. What often sets one wine apart from another is its structural profile. It is reasonable to conclude that Mr. Galloni has a higher regard for wines in which he notes greater or striking levels of “silk”, “nuance”, “structure” and “finesse”. Along these same lines, it is also noteworthy that the words “Rich” and “Balance” show up often in more highly rated wines, but not significantly more than in all the reviews of red wines.
FLAVOR AND AROMA: THE “LICORICE” ISSUE
Then there is the issue of which flavor and aroma related words are used more often in Antonio Galloni’s reviews. Here, there are not too many surprises, with the exception of one: “Licorice”.
The term “licorice” turns up in fully 46% of the written reviews of the 2008 and 2009 red California wines. When the wine receives 90 points or more, “licorice” is noted in 49% of those reviews. And when the wine is given 95 points or more, the word “licorice” shows up in 57% of all reviews.
The relatively high frequency of use of the term “licorice” in Antonio Galloni’s reviews of red California wines from the 2008 and 2009 vintages seemed unusual to me. It’s not an unknown descriptor for wines, but it seems put to use less frequently in general than does Mr. Galloni. I confirmed this in asking around to a number of friends as to their own frequency of use of the term. They all agreed that they don’t use the term this often.
I wanted to determine if Mr. Galloni’s seemingly frequent use of the term “licorice” set him apart form Robert Parker’s usage of the word. So, I compared usage of the term “licorice” from Mr. Galloni’s reviews of Cabernet, Pinot Noirs and Syrahs to Mr. Parker’s use of the term from his reviews of the 2005 vintage—a vintage in which Mr. Parker was quite prolific in his reviews of California wines.
USE OF THE TERM “LICORICE” IN WRITTEN REVIEWS BY ANTONIO GALLONI AND ROBERT PARKER BY SELECTED VINTAGES AND VARIETAL WINES
|Licorice Used||90+ points||95+Points|
|Galloni ’09 Cab||49%||47%||64%|
|Parker ’05 Cab||23%||27%||34%|
|Galloni 06-’10 Pinot||34%||39%||31%|
|Parker ’05 Pinot||2%||4%||0%|
|Parker ’05 Syrah||16%||20%||38%|
It’s fairly clear from this comparison that Antonio Galloni has put the term “licorice” to use far more often than his predecessor, at least where it comes to California red wines. Furthermore, it seems reasonable to conclude that Mr. Galloni is positively inclined toward wines that exhibit for him a “licorice” quality. However, with the exception of Pinot Noir, it also appears that Mr. Parker has a predisposition toward wines exhibiting “licorice”—at least in the selected group of wine reviews I chose from Mr. Parker’s work.
As Mr. Galloni notes in his email to me, aromas and flavors are highly personal. This is unquestionably true. And again to refer to Mr. Galloni’s note to me, it’s entirely reasonable that “Cassis”, “Blackberry” and “Blueberry” might easily be used by different tasters to describe the same flavor or aroma. They are different, but of a distinct type.
With regard to what seems like an excessive use of the term “licorice”, Mr. Galloni explains what he means when he uses this term:
“When I think of licorice, I think of black licorice, while anise is a more floral and at times herbal note.”
This explanation of the terms “licorice” and “anise” match the explanations of received from a number of others I asked about the two terms.
Finally, Mr. Galloni addressed the frequency of the use of the word “Licorice”: “It seems pretty clear I may be overusing licorice as a descriptor, and I thank you for pointing that out”.
An interesting question to ponder here is if in fact Mr. Gallon is “overusing” the term “licorice”. One could do a pretty simple statistical analysis of the use of words in his reviews and at least say that he is far more likely to use this word than most other discriptors. But is it “overuse”?
From a purely stylistic perspective, it probably is overuse. But from the perspective of his palate, it may in fact be a perfectly valid frequency. It may be that some combination of flavors that are common in red wines (or at least California red wine) strike him as mimicking the flavor or aroma of licorice. It is impossible to dispute this notion since no one can perceive taste and aroma exactly as the next person.
ON “SPICE” AND EDUCATING THE READER
Finally, I want to look at the use of the term “Spice” or “Spices” in Mr. Galloni’s reviews. From the first chart above you will note that the term is used in 45% of all reviews of California red wines and is second only to “licorice” as the most frequently used word to describe a flavor or aroma. What’s notable is that Mr. Galloni rarely uses another word in conjunction with the term “spice”. For example, you don’t see “cinnamon spice” or “asian spice” used much at all in his reviews.
As Mr. Galloni noted above in his email to me, his use of the term “spice” or “spices” without more specific modifiers such as “asian” or “peppery” or “cinnamon spice” is a strategic decision on his part with the intent of educating consumers “but without the intimidation factor that keeps so many potential consumers away from wine.” It’s the same reason he is likely to use the term “lemon” rather than “Sicilian Lemon”.
I understand this approach. Too often consumers admit they are turned off by elaborate descriptors and too often wine lovers are mocked for their use of obscure wine terms. However, in the case of the term “spice”, I think we have a word that, for wine descriptions, is akin to the word “fruit”. Neither of these words, left alone, tell me very much about the wine. However, “berry fruits” or “stone fruits” or “tropical fruits” do tell me what I need to know without being too elaborate or obscure. In the same way, I think a somewhat more precise use fo the term “spice” would benefit readers of The Wine Advocate.
As I mentioned above, I derived this information about Antonio Galloni’s word usage in reviews from the eRobertParker.com Advanced Search Engine for wine reviews. I want to say again that this search engine is extraordinarily generous. It’s clear that Mr. Parker had in mind allowing his subscribers to search the voluminous number of reviews in nearly any possible way they want to. It is a search engine of unusual complexity, density and depth.
I have long been an admirer of Mr. Parker and his Wine Advocate. His dedication to delivering 1000s of reviews is matched only by his success in doing so. Mr. Galloni appears to be on his way to delivering an equally comprehensive accounting of California wines in his position as the state’s wine reviewwe for the Wine Advocate. My hope, knowing it is a chore, is that he tastes widely and broadly, seeking out wines that may not necessarily show up in the large group tastings he does and that may not be currently counted among the very top wines of the state that, as a thorough critic, he is obligated to evaluate. It’s not an easy job. Getting to all California wines will not happen. But I only note that there are a terrific number of wines produced in California that have not been on Mr. Parker’s radar and are likely not to be on Mr. Galloni’s radar. My hope is he finds a way to look well beyond the well known and semi known.
Agree it would be nice if Antonio can discover new producers and regions like he said he would.
Tough to give notes on a dozen or more wines of the same variety and appellation without beginning to sound repetitive. The solution, to be more specifically descriptive, brings in a more flowery (and off-putting to some) vocab. It’s a thin line to try walking.
I would agree. It isn’t easy work.
Great post, Tom. This is the Baseball Prospectus of wine analysis.
Can I beg you to take it one step further? How about comparing Galloni’s words to Parker’s for the same wines? Granted you’ll have to use different vintages, but in theory terroir should provide similar flavors.
I think it would be interesting to do this with ANY reviewer – by dissecting their reviews, my guess is that you’ll find similar ‘repetitiveness’, but probably with different terms.
Thanks. I suppose I could do this. I looked at only a couple examples and couldn’t draw many conclusions. But I might look again.
The numbers don’t lie Tom, fantastic story you’re telling here. I would hazard a bet that fondness for black licorice is diagnostic for a certain subtype of palate.
As a follow-up, these individual words could be put into classes, such as “bitter flavors” “fruit words” “aromatic terms” etc. Then look at the correlation between scores and use of words of the various classes for different critics.
Furthermore, power users could rate their own fondness for a pool of 50 descriptors and little program could simply spit out which critic is best matching their own prefs. Good stuff.
How lame to hide behind education and then say people don’t have a sense of reference. Education should give them that sense of reference.
Blind leading the blind….
He should have stuck to finance and not purport to educate people about wine or sensory neurphysiology.
Tom, I think that dissecting North Korean politics is far easier than trying to figure out Parker/Galloni’s methodology. You did a stellar job with the latter.
Hang on…the Secretary of State is on line 1. No doubt she wants your current take on Lil’ Kim.
David, you may be right. But North Korean politics isn’t nearly as fun and interesting, plus, there is no searchable database to play with.
very cool analysis
@Antonio – Please taste some different/new wines and sub-regions. Its almost impossible for a new winery to have their wines reviewed by the WA. Maybe they need a second reviewer to help with California.
Watch for Antonio’s upcoming review of Central Coast Wines. It will be the broadest review of these wines ever in the Advocate and include many never reviewed in the publication.
The same wines (presumably different vintages) would provide similar flavor stimuli; but Galloni’s and Parker’s palates are different, hence different thresholds of perception, mental interpretations and memory associations. I’d be surprised if the reviews ended up very similar with this kind of analysis.
BTW, very entertaining and interesting post Tom.
Thank you. It was interesting to do and Antonio was very helpful too. It would be cool if the same thing could be done at winespectator.com, winemag.com, etc.
Insightful. I especially enjoyed your commentary. With this precise dissection of language you seem to have a legal beagle streak (thanks to a lifetime of 3-tier/regulation analysis?). FYI I just spotted a Google search trend emanating from Napa for “How to make red wine taste like licorice.”
But they still seem to avoid giving FACTS about residual sugar, alcohol %, and truly useful info on oak. For me oak comes on more strongly the longer I have the wine on hand, such as 30 or 40 minutes. Do I have a faulty perception of it, or do others share this? And this is a major problem with mass reviews, the wine changes a lot more in the 2nd half hour opening than in the first 30 or 60 seconds of a taste & swish.
Fabulous story. Any plans to do the same with Jay Miller vs. David Schildknecht ? Those of us in the WA wine industry would love to see it. thanks for the hard work.
Clinton, I hadn’t connected the two things…But now that you think about it….
Tom, nice analysis on this. I agree with Michelle that doing the same for Schildknecht, but perhaps skip Jay for now.
I think I could help you find some techies to use that data and apply some stuff to turn it into a device to sell to wineries looking for better Advocate scores. But Leo Mcloskey & Enologix might sue us.
I think the current professional TN/score model is more a fanciful conceit than genuine reference tool. They were intended to be a consumer guide but have become the primary wine trade marketing tool.
If he wishes to educate with reviews, I suggest he begin a wine type or region review by specifically describing in detail his understanding of what the wines should be, what style variation is acceptable and what isn’t, what he looks for and why, what modest examples offer, what the top potential is to him, what the vintage character seemed to be, etc, and then do the review with that clear context all laid out. Then, rather than attempt to communicate what is not really possible to communicate anyway (what this bottle tastes like exactly), just evaluate the extent to which each bottle matches or fits into the context and how so.
When ever the Wine Advocate publishes a set of reviews, they almost always focus on a region and a vintage (or two). They (including Mr. Galloni) always offer an analysis of the vintage and the region with the reviews.
Nice work, Tom.
Interesting piece, and as others have noted, it would be worthwhile to apply this exercise to other wine reviewers, perhaps even yourself. I wonder about the motive behind your premise, though.
You close with a general phrase of support for Parker and his publication, “I have long been an admirer of Mr. Parker and his Wine Advocate.” Then you add, “His dedication to delivering 1000s of reviews is matched only by his success in doing so.” This smacks of a backhanded compliment, if not a smug or cynical qualification of what began as words of support.
Is it bad that Robert Parker has been successful? I’m certainly not going to defend Mr. Parker, The Wine Advocate, or the 100 pt. scoring system, but it’s my opinion that, on balance, the average wine consumer in America and the rest of the world is a lot better off with these things than without them. Parker has democratized the access to fine wine and the way we talk and write about wine. In this light, it’s no coincidence that he’s an American. All this is to the better, because before Parker and Wine Spectator, the world of fine wine was relatively closed, elitist and not inclusive of lay people or average consumers.
Having said this, I don’t particularly prefer overripe, high alcohol, over extracted wines with 15% abv.
I’ve met Galloni, heard him speak, and tasted wine with him. On balance, I think he’s a fair, serious, conservative wine writer. He is not given to hyperbole and he doesn’t hand out 90+ pt. scores very often. So he uses “licorice” with great frequency. As you’ve noted, perhaps his palate is sensitive to this and perceives it a lot in CA wines.
Let’s give him a chance with CA wines before we condemn him or his work.
Thanks so much for your substantive comment.
You’ve misunderstood me somewhat. I AM a big admirer of the Wine Advocate, Robert Parker and, now, Antonio Galloni.I was going for neither smug nor cynical. Dedication to something is admirable. Success is an altogether different thing. Mr. Parker’s Wine Advocate has demonstrated both.
As for Mr. Galloni, I have a similar assessment of him as you do.
@ Steve Heimoff
This is a list of wineries that appeared in the Wine Advocate for the first time in my reviews of new releases from Napa Valley. Yes, a lot of these wineries/labels are new, but I am out there, doing the work, looking for the properties, tasting the wines and reporting on them.
Bello Family Vineyards
Vine Hill Ranch
The idea that I am not interested in discovering/tasting new wines and/or regions, or that it is almost impossible for a new winery to have their wines reviewed by the Advocate is FALSE. The facts speak for themselves. Of course, no one can do everything, and there will undoubtedly be wineries that I miss, but it is not because of a lack effort or interest.
Between Bob’s 10 year-retrospectives, verticals and other articles, my reviews of new releases and our video series, the truth is that the Wine Advocate’s commitment to California wines has never been greater in our 34 year history than it is today.
Now, on to Tom’s research. This is part of my email to Tom, which he chose not to use for this article, but which I share with readers who are interested in a little more perspective:
I view aromatic and flavor descriptors an important part of tasting note, but only a part of the whole picture of what a wine is about. In my opinion, a wine’s structural elements are at least as important.
As you know, aromas and flavors are highly personal sensations each taster perceives in a wine. I might find cassis, you might find blackberry, while a third taster might find blueberry. Obviously there is some commonality there, but also differences.
The biggest challenge with relying on flavor descriptors is that over time, the aromas and flavors in a wine will change. So, back to my example above, if I write ‘cassis’ in a tasting note, some percentage of my readers will identify with the term, but some may not. The bigger problem is that with the passage of time, those primary flavors are likely to develop into something else, or acquire shades of complexity that aren’t present in a young wine.
However, when I describe a wine as ‘opulent,’ ‘full-bodied’ or ‘taut,’ (i.e. structurally) I feel a higher percentage of readers will agree, or at least understand my point of view, because those qualities are a bit less subjective. Just as importantly, though, those traits are likely to remain part of a wine’s DNA for all or most of its life, unlike primary sensations of fruit, and are therefore ultimately more useful. As an example, from time to time I will get an email from a reader along the lines of “I don’t find the mocha note you did in wine X.” By the time the reader tastes the wine, that nuance may be gone, or simply isn’t perceived. I rarely, if ever, have gotten the parallel comment with regard to a descriptor about a wine’s structure.
Holy smokes, Batman.
Tom, this was indeed an awesome post and Antonio you are a prince for allowing yourself and your work to be put under the microscope in this way; I guess a kind of Perestroika for wine critics is underway? The naysayers about wine ratings contend that wine ratings are useless, arbitrary, unfair, too subjective, ad nauseum. These are the same people that state that the substance in wine ratings is in the text itself, and if you must use a rating, only the text should be considered – drop the scores.
My opinion is just the opposite and I actually rely on the number, not the text. As Tom just so deftly proved, text is so subjective as to be easily misunderstood, misconstrued, or not useful at all. A number tells me all I need to know about the quality of the wine (which has nearly everything to do with structure), not about flavor or aroma nuances. I don’t care a lot about critics’ descriptors because, exactly as Antonio pointed out, we will almost never taste the same bottle of wine at the same time and sometimes not even at the same temperature. Yes, wine quality is also subjective but once one’s radar locks on to a critic’s palate, it becomes very useful.
In terms of quality, I knock off two or three points from a Robert Parker review, add a couple to Tanzer, with Suckling (France & Italy) and Heimoff (CA of course) being pretty much right on. Time will tell with your scores Antonio, but so far I like the conservative approach you employ. The only thing you can do is call it as you see it.
As far as tasting descriptors, they are almost irrelevant unless I’m sitting next to one of these guys, tasting the same wine at that moment. What’s better? A 90 point wine with licorice notes or a 99 point wine with licorice notes?
Best regards to you both,
Tom, I’m late to this party but nonetheless astonished at the work you’ve done here. I too would love to see an analysis of David Schildknecht done in similar fashion. One thought that occurred to me re: the abundance of licorice references is that Mr. Galloni has tasted massive amounts of Italian wines, which are noted for the elements of licorice, tobacco (not the cheap and cheesy oak bag tobacco – the real, terroir-driven thing). In the better Italian wines there is also a penchant for finishing with a slight bitterness, and that could also be attributed to this streak of licorice. So it is no surprise that a licorice reference in a Galloni review is quite positive. It may also be a case of a reviewer finding what he/she is already looking for.
[…] kind of proper and open response from Galloni is a trend. I myself wrote a piece that might be considered critical of Galloni when I analyzed his reviews of California wines and […]
[…] kind of proper and open response from Galloni is a trend. I myself wrote a piece that might be considered critical of Galloni when I analyzed his reviews of California wines and […]
[…] August EXAMINING ANTONIO GALLONI’S PALATE […]