Do you want to read negative reviews besides the majority which are positive?

[Roy Hersh]

When you are reading the TN section of the FTLOP newsletter, do you want to see Ports, Madeiras and Douro wines included that mention bottles that are corked, or poorly made?

I know from other wine forums from the past nearly 2 decades, that some people feel it is a waste of space to write about anything negative. Others like to read which are corked or clunkers so that they can avoid them.

What is your view on this?

I will take this to heart in future reviews, so please participate and share your thoughts on this.

[Luke W]

Being very new to Port I find the good and the bad useful. There is so much out there to try that reading a negative review saves me time.

[Tom D.]

Like most other people, I don't necessarily find my palate aligned with the majority of people on certain wines. In fact, I'm amazed how often I taste a high scoring wine and it really does not appeal to me. So it's nice to have the outlier scores and notes, as these help round out the picture. In fact, it's usually the NEGATIVE reviews and lower scores that I read FIRST.

As a non-Port example, consider a slightly aged Bordeaux that almost everyone is scoring in the 92-96 point range and saying only glowing things about in their notes, but two people have given it significantly lower scores and complain about the wine's strong dill and soy components. This is very useful information for me, as I don't particularly like that profile in my Bordeaux. But perhaps the majority of old Bordeaux lovers don't mind these attributes, so they didn't even bother mentioning them in their notes. Or it could be alcohol level, oak treatment, tannins, or countless other aspects of wine on which there is not universal unanimity of preference, whether it be in Port or any other wine.

Even if it's an outright flaw, such as TCA, it's worth posting the TN, as occasionally patterns do emerge. Same for simple "off" bottles, as excessive bottle variation is something that's worth knowing about.

As a slight digression, I think really useful tasting notes are somewhat rare and take a lot of effot to write. Not because they need to be poetic or clever, but because they DO need to be thorough and mention a broad range of the wine's attributes, giving me enough information to get a sense of whether I'd like it or not. I have to laugh when a reviewer tries too hard and waxes lyrical about a wine he loves and how it reminds him of his first true love and blah blah blah. Dude you are wasting my time as we may have very different taste in women! Not to be too cold and objective about it, but I just want to learn as much as possible about the wine, and for that reason I absolutely want to read all the notes I can, positive and negative.

[Andy Velebil]

My personal opinion is to post any TN on a wine, good or bad. I think any reviewer is doing a disservice in holding back lower scoring wines simply because they feel it's too low. Most wine makers I know or have talked to know when they don't make a good wine and admit it, albeit usually quietly. What frustrates me is this is caused by the perception that one low score will ruin a producers reputation forever. I don't know where this started, and I think it's b***s**t and wish it would stop. There is no shame in having an odd wine here or there that doesn't necessarily live up to peoples preconcieved expectations. After all wine is a product of nature and nature doesn't always cooperate in ways we want it to.

[Paul Fountain]

A combination of good and bad reviews from a reviewer helps me understand whether the reviewer's tastes align with mine. I certainly don't want to see glowing reviews all the time, but it is important that if the review is negative that the reasons are listed. In theory a reviewer should be able to put away their personal preferences and judge on technical merit alone, but in practice I think this is really difficult to achieve and makes for some pretty dry reading so the descriptors are important

[Eric Menchen]

If something is poorly made, definitely say so. And if a bottle is corked, that is good to know as well. As others have mentioned, this could be indicative of a pattern. And if it is a TN posted here, it gives others a chance to respond. "Well, I just had a 1983 Cockburn and it was wonderful--no TCA at all!"

[Derek T.]

I like to see both good and bad being reported. What I find frustrating is when people give a score/rating to a bottle that is flawed or damaged as it serves no purpose.

For example, if someone consistently rates Fonseca 1963 as 96-98 points, there is no point in that same reviewer scoring a heat damaged, corked or a leaker of Fonseca 63 as 86 points, where "NR" is more appropriate in an instance like that.

[John M.]

I always have faith this is a port site for port lovers seeking honest opinions from other port lovers--good and bad--without corporate influences/agendas. To only include "good" reviews just smacks of the marketing ploys I've come to loath...sort of akin to wine reviewers having a vested interest in a wine. To me it is just important to know which ones to avoid (and sometimes I try them anyway just to have my own experience) as well as which ones are good to buy.

[Rune EG]

I agree with the general view of the others posting their replies.
There are too many wine magazines / journalists that are concentrating only on the good reports.
This is a forum / tasting note base for people specially interested interested in a few wine products, and then we want to know the full story.

When I am considering to buy a port or Douro wine, then I use the TNB on before hand.
From time-to-time there are bigger variations than normal for one particuar wine, and then a check more carefully before buyng.
Also for those vintages where there is a relatively high percentage of cork problems (Cockburns 1983?), then that is very important to know.

[Glenn E.]

+1 to everything above.

The way I see it, if you try a Port write a TN for it. Good or bad, the TN helps everyone else in the future.

I'm quite certain that my taste in Port is not the same as everyone else's here. There are some Ports that I don't like, which I score low, that I know others here like a lot. So I'm going to keep writing TNs for those Ports and others like them, because even though I don't like the Port someone else may see my TN, recognize that the TN is similar to another that they liked, and be able to find a new Port that they really like.

[Luc Gauthier]

Well since provenance should be a major buying factor , who is writting the reviews is just as important .
If the review comes from , I don't have a second thaught .

[Moses Botbol]

I say rate what you are drinking, good or bad as long as it's honest.

We'd all be running out to get '83 Cockburn if all we read was Roy's review and no other on the how bad the TCA can be...

[Luc Gauthier]

We'd all be running out to get '83 Cockburn if all we read was Roy's review and no other on the how bad the TCA can be...

At least in Montréal the '83 Cockburn is no where to be found
Then again , we have the SAQ