I too disregard Sam Kim reviews. In fact, I actively avoid wines/wineries that only have Sam Kim reviews.
"typical reviewer for hire" - he's one of very few who require a payment to review a wine, I'm not sure how that makes him "typical" or having "zero integrity". His admittedly formulaic reviews often have more useful information about the wine than many recent Halliday reviews.
If you look at the scores of wines he reviews compared to other (more "reputable"?) reviewers, there is often not much difference in the scores, some higher, some the same, some lower, admittedly probably more higher than the other two.
It's interesting to consider the evolution of scoring, the old 20 point system allocated points our of 3 for colour, 7 for nose, 10 for palate, with the hundred point system the number is just plucked out of the air by the reviewer, based on experience and how they feel about the wine on the day.
Objective wine review? Objective: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." I'd suggest a review on DM is almost certainly not objective and since there is no fixed objective definition of quality in a particular style of wine and all that matters to me is my subjective opinion of a wine, I just look for and follow reviewers that I tend to agree with.
The "objective definition" is possibly arguable for old world styles that have a long history of consistent style, but in Australia you just have to look at the changing styles of Cabernets, Shiraz and Chardonnay over even the last 20 years, certainly 40 years as various styles come in and out of favour in the same region due to the support of influential reviewers, the Show system and consumer demand.
There are many other reviewers around in Oz that seem to write mostly glowing reviews, for some (IMO) quite ordinary wines, but at least the score they allocate matches more the quality of the wine than the complimentary words. But I think that's just as bad an approach as the Sam Kim formula.
www.cellarone.com.au
