Steve Plotnicki

He's completely out of whack in Burgundy. worse in red then white though. The wines he is good at are the big wines made by producers like Leroy and DRC. They are gigantic, massive, alcoholic wines that are meant to age for 25+ years. He completely misses the boat, and underscores, wines that are a more classic example of typical Burgundy and that have a drinking window of 15-25 years. Burgundy is a different style wine then other regions. Based on the Burgundy codification system, the key to Burgundys are the subtle nuances between vineyard sites. Mainstream Burgundy drinkers drink the wines to experience those nuances. They can tell a Gevry from a Nuit. And when the wines are big and massive, it muffles the terroir from coming through. This is why you hear people accuse Parker of liking and promoting an international style that is devoid of terroir. The best examples of that are his high scores for Ca. wines. They are void of terroir, loaded with overripe fruit and high in alcohol. In almost every region in the world, RP like wines made in this modern/international style and the traditionalists disagree with him. Another area of wine where is considered extremely weak are regions and varietals that offer lots of minerality to the wines and are not as focused on opulent fruit. So places like the Loire, Alsace, Germany his opinion isn't revered by those who drink wines from those regions. Parker is a great resource for the new collector who has moved past the level of expertise they offer at the Wine Spectator. But anyone who spends time collecting, and who moves past drinking Claret/California Cabernet Sauvignon and Super Tuscans into drinking more nuanced varuetals and regions (and I don't mean that as a slight to those regions) finds out that Parker isn't necessarily the best resource. Not that he isn't a resource, but that there are better opinions out there. But it doesn't really matter to his readership because when they hear him say that the 2001 German wines are great, they will buy a case or two. Their relationship with those regions are superficial. But there are people who drink German wines as their primary region and they might buy 30 cases from the 2001 vintage. They need a greater level of detail and expertise then Parker offers. In fact, you will find that many of them know much more about the wines in the region then RP does.

But it's really just part of his business plan. They are all assumed behaviors because they help to protect his position in the marketplace. That is why taking him on is a function of adopting an editorial position that is based on expoiting his weaknesses. Whether someone does that purposelly or just naturally doesn't make a difference. The key to building a truly competing publication is to offer different, or better advice.

That's because you don't really know. From what I see, you have listed a tourist trap in Lake Como, and the mixed fishfry at the Milan airport. Yum, thems eats.

I've eaten at the Locanda Del Isola on Isola Camicina albeit 20 years ago. It's that touristy place on the small island in Lake Como that you have to get to by boat. They do that silly fire ceremony in the middle of your dinner. I don't remember the food as being anything special though. I do note that Robert S.'s and Peter's lists seem to be more about dining experiences they remember fondly because of the setting (like isn't the spaghetti & vongole on this beach wonderful, or, hasn't the airport prepared my fritto misto well) then particular dishes that might hold up to a worldwide standard outside of the spectacular (or homogenized if we are talking about the misto) ambiance. I mean part of my liking the scampone on the Amalfi Coast is because of the terrific ambiance when sitting on a terrace overlooking the sea. But what makes me pine for them is the fact that you can't really eat them anywhere else. They taste unqiue and they are indiginous to that part of Italy. How about people are more specific about the dishes they ate and where they ate them? And Shonfeld, that your two classic meals happened 18 years ago doesn't do a great job of supporting your contention about Italian cuisine. Mind you, I said cuisine, not food.

Let's see. Graham Tigg is correct, although I can't see giving credit to the messenger for the boom in wine. As James Carville said, it's the economy stupid. All of those baby-boomers who became professionals and earned good wages needed something to do with their disposable income. Parker just organized one of the categories they could easily spend money in, in a way that made it easy for them to spend it. So he deserves credit for that. But it would have happened anyway without him, albeit maybe differently. But then Porkpa raises the issue of "blindly" and the reason for that is there is really no significant competition. I think Tony's explanation of tables and statistics and how consumers like it made easy for them is correct but misses what really makes Parker popular. He asserts a loud and clear opinion. Whether it is through the numerical scores or the text, there is no doubt about where he stands regarding a wine. If you read other critics like Clive Coates, they are sort of wishy washy about many wines. That is my point here. His competition has not put forward a compelling argument that their opinion is sufficiently different then his, nor are they able to articlulate their differences in a clear way. It makes no sense to me. I know so many knowledgable people in the wine industry who have a clearly stated opinion that is diametrically opposed to Parkers. Yet they are unable to, or are apprehensive about, taking the guy on head to head. It's such an easy thing to do as well. Yet it happens in private but never in public. Anybody who is going to take him on, has to start with a list of wines or regions he is wrong or is off about. God knows its quite a long list.

Actually I thought a nice bottle of Vega Sicilia Unico would go better with Talk to Her. And it can only be Retsina with My Big Fat Greek Wedding.

Considering how much you guys like Italy, this thread is certainly lacking specifiity. Let's see if I can add anything. The thing I like to eat best in Italy; Grilled Scamponi- Anywhere on the Campania coast. They are juicy little suckers and the burnt shell imparts a nice char flavor to the meat. Drizzle with some olive oil and shower with herbs and it makes a great simple meal. Beat Pastas Riso al Salto at Alfredo Gran Bernardo in Milan. So flavorful that it is almost worth eating it a grain at a time. Perfectly al dente so you have something to chew on Polenta Rosso at da Cesare is comfort food extraordinaire. Polenta with a raw egg in the middle that has a red yoke. I can eat it for breakfast. In truffle season you can really gild the lily Bombolloti Sparacedo at Alberto Ciarla in Rome - Pasta coated with a sauce made from a finely choppped broccoli/asparagus like vegetable. Sort of a dry (meaning not much liquid, nit tasting dry) as the sauce really clings to the pasta. But the most unique tasting pasta you will ever have Best Italian wine 1961 Giacomo Conterno Monfortini - I think I can still taste the finish on this wine that I drank almost a year ago. One of the great wines of the last century. If you can find a bottle with good provenance, it's worth the price you have to pay as it is half the cost of the top '61 Bordeaux yet this offers much more then half the quality 1961 Gaja Barbaresco - Possibly the most finesse I've ever experienced in a wine. Hard to find a good bottle these days but when I first started collecting they were around. 1978 Giacomo Conterno Monfortino - Again storage is an issue but good bottles of this wine are simply staggering. I'll stick my neck out and say this is better then the '61. A monster of a wine with the complexity to match 1982 Gaja Barbaresco Sori Tilden - A worthy successor to the '61. So polished but so much depth. Not ready to drink yet but 5-10 years and it will be perfect. I ran into a sommelier friend of mine recently and he asked me what I have been drinking lately. When I mentioned this wine to him his eyes bugged out of his head and he said 'That wine rocks!" 1982 Aldo Conterno Gran Bussia - Waves of fruit and waves of complexity. Astonishing finish. Looooooong. Signor Conterno himself was so happy when I raised this wine with him on a recent visit. So many people fawn over the '85 which is a modern, easy to drink vintage. But the lovers of classic Barolo know that the '82' will drink long after the '85's are dead I could list some more wines, but these wines were especially good. I wish they used better corks in the old days in Barolo and cared more about storage. The wines are great but they are often in lousy condition.

I thought Tommy was going to disappear. I was going to use my special vision remember?

You know if you live near rue Cler, Alleose isn't that much farther a walk then Barthelemy is. And the rue Poncelet market is sort of fun. But as good as Alleose is, I think Barthelemy crushes it. Barthelemy is the cheese shop of my dreams. Ceneri in Cannes is a good cheese shop if anybody is ever down that way.

Cod cheeks are great too.

My, Blondie is being cheeky this week. I guess she is just going to have to experience the magic herself .

Or I use my special vision that only I have because I have practiced using it so many times and you haven't?

Thanks Mr. Jones .

Can someone quickly post the address for New Tayyeb? I have a friend who is in London waiting eagerly by the phone so she can have dinner there tonight. And of course the concierge in her hotel can't find the place.

You know you are describing people who regularly drink wines like 1928 Latour and 1947 Cheval Blanc as having taste that is "idiosyncratic" when you don't have any real knowledge that Parker has similar experience to theirs. Some of those people were drinking those wines before RP ever drank wine. So I wouldn't dismiss them so lightly. And actually, the opposing argument is that Parker's point of view is idiosyncratic and somewhat goes against what traditionally has turned out to be great Bordeaux. I am not taking a position on this mind you but I am recounting what numerous people who I consider expert on the topic have told me. Personally, I happen to think Parker is reliable about Bordeaux although I can't speak to this ageability issue. But like I said, if 20 year old Bordeaux is starting to drink, there has to be some truth to what those people are saying. But there are other regions where Parker's advice is clearly erroneous like Burgundy and where his opinion is so idiosyncratic about the region that the wines he likes resemble Bordeaux more then they resemble Burgundy. I mean I can give you a very long list of where Parker is amiss, and there are others on the site who can do a much better job of it then I can, but that would be a long and meaningless exercise. Point is, there is lots of rumbling among the trade, professionals and amateurs about how good a job Parker does. Whether that is true or not has nothing to do with the fact that the right wine critic should be able to rally those who are non-believers into a following of his own.

You've lost me. Subsidies are not related to core businesses. Loss leaders are because they generate sales directly related to that item. Two different line items on your balance sheet. So Sony Classics gets a more direct benefit from sponsoring the opera then Mercedes does.

I know a number of people who say that. Of course they have experience with pre 1982 Bordeaux, especially pre 1962 Bordeaux, which I don't have so I can't assess their assessment. But for example, the owner of what I feel is the best wine shop in Paris stated that opinion last week. That starting with the 1982 vintage, they changed their equipment and style of winemaking in a way that reduced ageability. And he also has an entire dissertation about single malt scotch and how and when they lost their artisanality. And I guess it also depends on what you mean by ageable. I think they will say that the wines can age for 25-30 years but they are comparing them to wines that could age for 50 years or more. In fact I have met a number of people recently who believe that 1982 Bordeaux are already starting to crack up and will never hit their prime. Then I know the owner of a famous NYC restaurant who is one of the biggest wine collectors in the world who says that 1982 Bordeaux are starting to drink. Whatever, either of those assessments is not great news for those who like their claret mature. Top quality Bordeaux, especially first growths should not be drinking at 20 years. They used to be for the long haul.

Easy. When someone subsidizes the opera, they don't intend to make any direct profit out of it. The best they do is to get their name posted somewhere as a sponsor. If someone wants to do business with them as a result of their being good guys, it is ancillary to their core business. When Columbia subsidizes the next Dylan recording, they do so for a variety of reasons that are all related to increasing the sales in their core busines. When there is a new Dylan album released, it allows their sales people to market the entire catalog. Same with when they do press for him. When writers write about the new album, they will probably reference his old recordings. In fact it is only a loss leader when you create a balance sheet that is discreet to that recording. But if you create a balance sheet of the entire Dylan catalog over what we would call the lifespan of the recording as a current release, it is probably extremely profitable to them. In reality the term "loss-leader" might be nothing more then hype that is intended to make them seem like good guys by supporting "art.". But in reality, they are doing it for the ancillary sales to the catalog that the new recording generates.

But how would someone who has bad taste but who who doesn't know that be convinced? How do you formulate a discussion if taste is a matter of personal preference and not objective standard? Or if is a function of just sensual and visceral reaction and not an acquired skill?

But that's what I've said. Someone needs to make a list of things he is wrong, or potentially wrong about and show how that is the case. And if you simultaneously state your own opinion on these subjects that make sense, and with great clarity, you should have an audience. This is the famous retailer across the street concept. You open a small retail shop across the street from the Virgin Megastore and you feature all the things they do a poor job merchandising. They drive the traffic to your street, and you pick up the crumbs. And if the crumbs are sufficient in size and number, you have a good business going. And you also have the basis for creating a retail philosophy of your own that competes with Virgin if you are capable of dreaming one up. As for '82 Clarets, yes they taste lots of wines, some of them drink as much if not more old claret then Parker does. And what they say isn't that post '82 wines aren't ageable, just that they won't age as well or as long as pre 1982 wines. Their comment is that consumers have been led to believe something about the wines that isn't true.

I would gladly order a bottle of Ostini-Hartley Pinot Noir if I happened to be dining at The Hitching Post. And I would probably enjoy it too. But in any other location I would probably think it sucks. So it's okay to break the rules, but it also has to be worth it.

Well it isn't like I chose an unusual reference point. My feelings about this are pretty standard among "serious" collectors. Unless you are a new world wine fanatic. But that's sort of like thinking that Die Hard is a better movie then Citizen Kane because you like action movies.

Gee this is where I was a few hundred posts ago. You are describing people not food (relativism.) And when you describe people and not food, the standard is fungeable. But that is not the case when people tie themselves to a standard and when the dining process becomes a quest for those standards and keeping them. Eating, like any other hobby that people might have where you practice your analytical skills through repetition, is about learning how to taste things better. And the loss of sensuality you are describing (really ignorance) is replaced by ever increasing standards. And the sensuality of the dining process is not lessened by the increased knowledge, in fact it is heightened because it is now combined with high intellect. What does occur is a loss in the frequence of it occuring because the standard is higher so it is harder to find. But the intensity of the emotion when it does happen does not. If I can once again shift the discussion to music, I enjoy far fewer CD's in my middle age. But the ones I enjoy I listen to intently. Now that I have whittled down the ones that make profound statements down to just a few, I can listen to them over and over again to the exception of the others. I always joke and say I want to hear them perfectly. But I hear them in a way that is much more profound then I heard them when I was younger and they move me much more deeply now then they did back then. It's one thing to bemoan the loss of a raw emotional response that one used to experience when they were exposed to certain aesthetics. But if what you are really describing is naivety and what was really a superficial appreciation of things, face it, you were just turned on by the wrong things. That is what acquiring taste is all about. It is about learning that a better standard is available if you care to apply it. And in reality, I believe that this is what each and everyone of us does, including the people who are arguing against me.

No you are misunderstanding what I said. First of all, they would do it because it is a good business plan. It defines yourself differently from the competition and anyone who doesn't like those attributes about the competition will immediately be attracted to you. Secondly, you wouldn't do it by creating a different scoring system, what you would do is change the ranking of wines within the existing system. For example, I have a few friends who are quite expert in Bordeaux. Let's say that they are as expert as RP is, possibly more. They complain that since 1982, all the Claret has been made in a way that is mass-produced and that the wines will not have the ageability that pre 1982 wines have. Meanwhile RP has been touting post 1982 Bordeaux as being wines that can age as well and can be as profound as wines from say 1961. So if you come straight out and say that you think RP is wrong, offer proof or sound credible on the topic and then rearrange the wines based on which wines might actually be ageworthy, you will gain an audience. It's like a religion you know. Which prophet are we going to believe? Well we will believe the one who seems like he speaks the truth. None of Parker's competition is wired this particular way. Nobody comes out and directly says that he is wrong. Some people politely disagree, and you hear a lot of mumbling behind the scenes. But there is no single reviewer who has aggregated all of his weaknesses and created a wine tip sheet based on offering an alternative view. What you have are people offering their point of view. And to be hinest, their point of view isn't sufficiently different to attract a large audience.

Bitter, who is bitter? And monochromatic you must be joking. I am pointing out that the stuff is usually junk. What does pointing out that Ca, wines are one dimensional fruit bombs that do not show terroir have to do with my disposition? I don't understand why anyone would have the time or the inclination to drink a Ca pinot when you can drink a D'Angerville Clos des Ducs? Or a Meo-Camuzet Vosne-Romanee Brulees. Or countless other wines I can name? Or central coast Rhone wines. You know I bought 1998 Chateauneufs like Les Cailloux and Clos Mont Olivet for $16 a bottle. Why when you can drink those wines would you bother drinking Babcock? Varied schmarried, I want to drink good wine. Not plonk for two to three times the price. And if you want to refute my opinion about this, I don't see how you can do that by commenting on how I live my life? Which you neither know anything about, nor is appropriate to comment on even if you did know. Keep the conversation to wine please.