Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[Tony Finch]

I've been unceremoniously shunted off the UK board and over to here for ranting on ad nauseam about my contempt for the Parker wine scoring system and those who slavishly follow it.

My argument is not that Parker rates wines.Most wine guides have some sort of rating system.But instead of offering us a rough guide to quality,Parker's 50 point system attempts to foist on us a degree of scientific exactitude in wine scoring  which is as false as it is futile.

Parker would have us believe that his expertise is so attuned that he is able to assign any wine to one of 50 levels and make incredibly nuanced judgments regarding one fiftieth variations in quality.Thus a wine scoring 88 is one fiftieth better than a wine scoring 87.Does that REALLY ring true to you?

You could argue that no-one has to pay him the slightest attention.However lots of people do,especially(but not only) in the USA.His status has grown to the point where he has become a kind of wine guru and it is well known that a high/low score from Parker has a profound effect on how that wine fares in the marketplace.

I'm not saying that Parker himself is anything less than a model of probity but when one man has that much power you can see the potential for all kinds of problems.

We don't need this bogus system.To me wine is like food,music,art.You can enjoy rating them if you wish but once pseudo scientific  scores as bestowed by one man become THE overriding indicator of quality we are all lost.

[Ron Johnson]

Tony:  there are many who share your feelings.  The 100 point system is inherently flawed, especially when no wine scores below 50, making it in effect a 50 point system.  

My approach to Parker is simply to acknowledge his predisposition toward huge, oaky, tannic monsters, with highly concentrated fruit and obvious over-extraction.  These wines have a folllowing, and Parker serves them well by rating these wines, usually between 90 and 99 on his scale.  Parker is a champion of the winemaker over the the varietal, the vineyard, or the vintage.  He is a testament to the power of man over nature.

However, thats his right and I don't begrudge him one bit for it.  Rather I simply do not choose wines based on his numbers.  

Instead of gnashing your teeth over it, Tony, I suggest you find a reviewer that you like.  I like Claude Kolhm of the Fine Wine Review, and I also go to the Robin Garr's Wine Lover's Page for tasting notes from people who have a similar palate to mine.

Best of luck to you.

[Andy Lynes]

eGullet exists in order for people to gnash their teeth, lets have more of it.

[jhlurie]

Shudder.  I have nightmares about "huge, oaky, tannic monsters".  I'm serious.

[Ron Johnson]

jhlurie:  They hide in your wine cellar and only come out when people who subscribe to Cigar Afficianado come to your house.  Be afraid, very afraid.

[Steve Klc]

My biggest problem with Parker and pals is that I rarely get the sense that they value wine paired with food--and are much more comfortable talking about wine in isolation--or compared against itself or an historical model.  The big wines and big reviewers self-perpetuate a system NOT designed to really inform one about the proper role of wine--that I see anyway--as an adjunct to a chef and his cuisine or meals prepared at home.

It's easier that way--and the promotion and marketing of wine in this country, which is not Parker's fault, also leaves alot to be desired that the glossies and the winemakers (and their Boards of Directors) have to answer for.  I realize, though, that it is easy to take potshots at Parker.

I trust the opinions of the working sommeliers much more--the ones that have to compose lists and pair wines affordably with the evolving cuisines of today's chefs, rather than archetypal standards.  Especially those sommeliers who trust their own palates, that taste wines with their staff and the chef, and aren't afraid to put unknown, ecletic wines on their list. This is apart from being a good writer--and I value wine writing in and of itself--but ratings and blind tastings where the priority is not food-based, nor where the taster is not as knowledgeable of food and as knowing with his culinary pronouncements, is not for me.

Parker has been mentioned on other eGullet threads and that seminal Atlantic Monthly profile is must reading.  My sense is the real problem has nothing to do with Parker--nor his opinions or power--but the current milieu that allows him to fill up this vacuum.  Perhaps that should be another one of our collective agendas here at eGullet.

[Ron Johnson]

Steve:  You hit the nail on the head.  BTW, do you have a link to that Atlantic Monthyly profile?

Wine is at its best when paired with food.  Parker wines pair with steak au poivre and thats about it.  I mean I like steak au poivre, but I don't want it everytime I uncork a bottle.

Incidentally, a good tip is that I have found that I tend to like wines that Parker rates between 80-90 points.  Plus these wines are usually marked down because the average wine buying public won't buy anything that is rated below 90.

[Steve Klc]

Sure Ron, here it is:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/12/langewiesche.htm

It's quite long but worthwhile.  So, too, are a few of the links that accompany the article.  Credit to the Atlantic for doing a very good job providing value-added material and a well-designed, beautiful site.

[robert brown]

In Parker's defense, he needs to taste scores of wines every day at a time when one's palate is supposed to be at its best: the morning. I also think his now out-of-date book "Burgundy" is excellent. It taught me what I needed to know to be an alert consumer of these wines. Unfortunately he screwed himself up with the producers there and, to his discredit, he began to take collective, gratuitous shots at them. At least he eventually had the common sense to turn Burgundy wines over to his co-taster.

Of course I agree with Steve Klc: Wine is for the enhancement of food. In fact, other than a great red Burgundy, I am incapable of drinking more than a few sips of any wine by itself.

Given my "big picture" training and background as an ex-popular cultural student/researcher, to me the Parker phenomenon and that of Marvin Schenken (publisher of The Wine Speculator and Cigar Afficionado) ; i.e. the precise quantification of wine is about the most apparent manifestation of how Americans are spoon-fed and coddled in matters of gastronomy. In other words, it is not allowed to come naturally to us unlike, say, the French and Italians. In what is typically American, we have created an information industry around wine, the preparation of food, and dining out There is a certain notion in the American food media that without quantification we would otherwise be lost, if not traumatized, about where to go or what to eat and drink. I do have to give a guy like Schenken credit for being perceptive enough to cash in on the ability to provide an instant "conferring" of gossamer-thin connoisseurship, of which wine imbibing (and cigar smoking) is exhibit "A". Any comments in the hope that this will be the start of a lively discussion, destination unknown?

(Edited by robert brown at 6:54 pm on Feb. 1, 2002)

[Jinmyo]

About the Atlantic article: I had read it but skimmed it again from the link.

The effusive language about Parker as a "straight-talking" American with "no formal training in wine" (heh), married to his "highschool sweetheart" and yada yada I find repellant. Here's a brief quote: "In his baggy shirts and summer shorts, with his heavy arms hanging wide, he looks as if he could wrestle down a cow."

Uh...

But is this any indication of Parker;s appeal in America?

(Edited by Jinmyo at 8:26 pm on Feb. 1, 2002)

[Tony Finch]

Absolutely.The honest,All-American boy image is an essential element in maintaining Parker's credibility as an upright,fearless judge whose integrity is beyond reproach as he moves around in the murky jonny foriegner ridden world of wine.

[Bux]

Any comments in the hope that this will be the start of a lively discussion, destination unknown?

Yes of course, just as soon as I've referrenced my authoritative information sources on this subject. ;)

The problem with Parker seems to be obvious. It's not that he's wrong, it's that he's become too powerful an opinion in a field where subjectivity counts and where attention to a single taste is detrimental to those with other tastes if not to the field as a whole. Even his professional critics seem to think he has a keen sense of taste. To attack him on the basis of his personal life seems to admit frustration on the part of those who wish to tear him down. Parker's not the problem, it's his success that is.

I think part of what Robert is saying is that American's don't have a great gastronomic history, or at least not one passed from one generation of diner to another. Those guys drinking Petrus in the steakhouse last year, weren't drinking wine the year before. Now they've just cut the big deal and can afford the best without the need to understand it, but with the ability to use a search engine to find the best wine. Unfortunately, wine making is a business and winemakers will be driven by market demand. As one small winemaker in the Rhone said to me when his wine was well rated by Parker, "My bank is very happy."

[Tony Finch]

I'm sorry but Parker IS wrong.Wrong in his concept that every single wine must and can be judged as better,worse or the same as every other wine.You may enjoy some pieces of music more than others and be able to say why.But do you rate all pieces of music you listen to on a 50 point scale? Is there ANYTHING else that you enjoy that you rate in this way?

What has wine done to deserve this heinous treatment?Yes,it is can be a complicated subject but like music,poetry,literature its not hard to dip in and out at the level that suits you.Critical opinion is not hard to find,should you want it.

But Parker is doing more than offering "critical opinion".His scoring system posits a level of exactitude in judgment that deliberately blurs the distinction between opinion and fact.I don't care how many times you say "it is only a subjective opinion", the scores are rapidly becoming regarded as unquestionable fact and purchasing patterns are increasingly reflecting them.By convincing people that wine can and should be conceptualised this way Parker has become a blight on the wine world and it is a shame to see so many knowledgeable people in the media defending the indefensible.

[Fat Guy]

My palate seems to be very much in line with Parker's. That is to say, I like the wines he likes, and for the most part I don't like the wines he doesn't like. I owe the discovery of several of my all-time favorites -- the wines of Bodegas Weinert, Cosimo Taurino, and Dr. Parce, for example -- to Parker. So, while I agree that the emphasis on quantification is both intellectually indefensible and ultimately destructive to the pursuit of connoisseurship, I can't say I often disagree with Parker's rank-ordering of the world of wine.

I also believe he is not the least bit corrupt. The man has strong opinions, and for all I know he's an egomanaic (though I don't get that impression), but despite his power (and perhaps in part because of it), I believe he is beyond the influence of lobbyists, bribes, etc.

You have to distinguish between what Parker does, what Wine Spectator does, and what Zagat does. True, they share an obsession with quantification and they can all be attacked on that basis with a similar set of arguments. But Parker is an individual with opinions. Wine Spectator uses panels of experts. Zagat uses a great number of people of diverse backgrounds as survey respondents. Of those approaches, I find the Parker one the most legitimate, with the others falling off in the order I listed them. I care what Parker thinks about wine. I don't care what everybody, collectively, thinks about anything -- except insofar as I might be curious about popular beliefs.

[Ron Johnson]

Parker is the most legitimate, no doubt about it.  However, he is useless to the consumer unless you share the same preferences that he does.  These preferences have been detailed exhaustively above.  While Parker's preferences overlap mine in some limited instances, southern Rhone and Italian Barbera come to mind, they are miles apart when it comes to anything from California, Bordeaux, northern Rhone, and Tuscany.  I would also add Burgundy, but he has hired Rovani to review that region.  

That being said, I am not a Parker basher.  For too long wine has escaped the scrutiny that thwarts illegitimacy.  Parker drives the industry nuts by providing this scrutiny.  My only gripe with him is that he can be just as devastating to those who make a good wine but not in the style he likes, as he can be to those who make a bad wine.  A subtle, rose colored Bourgueil from the Loire Valley is never supposed to have the over the top punch found in an Aussie Cab/Shiraz blend, but that doesn't make it a defective wine.  Unfortunately, the public believes it to be so when they see that Parker gave the wine a score of 85.

If you are like the Fat Guy, and know that your palate is consistent with Parker, then his reviews are a gift for sure.  I think that the wine world is better for having Parker in it, although I hate when he gives a wine that I like a score over 90 because the price goes through the roof.

[Fat Guy]

"For too long wine has escaped the scrutiny that thwarts illegitimacy."

"My only gripe with him is that he can be just as devastating to those who make a good wine but not in the style he likes, as he can be to those who make a bad wine."

"I hate when he gives a wine that I like a score over 90 because the price goes through the roof."

True, true, true.

[Tony Finch]

I would contend that anyone who has had conferred upon them the power to be "devastating" to anyone who makes good wine(although not in his lordship's "style") cannot help BUT be an egomaniac.This is more than just a "gripe" It is an outrageous hijacking of a complex field of human endeavour and an attempt,concious or not,to mould it in one man's grotesqely overbloated image.

"Thwarts illegitamacy"?? What ARE you talking about? Is there illigitamate music? Illigitamate poetry? Illigitimate art? BAD music,BAD art yes,but that's not quite the same thing.Once man starts to rule on what is and what is not "legitimate" and people begin to nod in agreement  we're on a very slppery slope boys and don't you forget it.

[Tony Finch]

[.Once man starts to rule on what is and what is not "legitimate" and people begin to nod in agreement  we're on a very slppery slope boys and don't you forget it.

Sorry Typo. Should read Once ONE man starts to rule.....

[Ron Johnson]

Tony, I understand your music/wine analogy and agree with you wholeheartedly as far as personal preferences go.  However, my remark about illegitimacy had to do with the collusion and graft that goes on in the wine industry.  For example, the artificial manipulation of the free market supply and demand system by the negociants in Bordeaux in order to insure their own personal wealth.  ####, the whole 1-5 growth classification system was created to further this.  Equally as illegitimate is the horrible practice of the Burgundian wine producers to blend wine purchased from the Rhone in order to "beef-up" their wine in poor vintages.  Those bastards!  My point about thwarting illegitimacy was merely that Parker is an outsider and not willing to look the other the way at such indiscretions.  He simply calls it like he see it and for that I applaud him, but the Bordelais hate him.  

Now getting back to your analogy, I would agree that he champions a certain style as being superior when I would argue that it is merely different.  And, just as in music, degrees of difference do not equate to degrees of inferiority or superiority.  A person who loves jazz and a person who loves classical music will never agree on which is the better genre, but that doesn't make either of them right.  Parker loves the inky, black, tannic, highly-extracted, fruit-forward wines of the world.  While I like some of these, I prefer a different style.  So when Parker gives a wine that I like a low score because it doesn't fit his criteria, I think that he is wrong.  However, I relish the fact that the retailer had to slash the price 20% because no one will buy a wine he rated 83!

cheers.

[AdamLawrence]

The thing about the Parker debate is that - in some ways - both sides get upsides and downsides alike. Those - like Steven Shaw - who find their palate calibrates well with Parker's can take his recommendations and use them to buy wine blind with less risk. The price they pay is that - because of Parker's legion of followers - it'll cost them more, and they may not be able to get hold of the real plums (as they see them). Those who don't like the fruit-forward, oaky Parkermonsters are warned about wines they won't like and benefit because stuff they do like will be better value (example: German whites, which to the best of my knowledge Parker hardly ever review - Majestic Wine Warehouses in the UK has some wonderful older Germans from great vineyards for six quid a bottle).

The only gripe the Parkerphobes can legitimately offer is that, because his style is becoming so dominant, there will be fewer of the alternative style wines around. But is that really true? There are tens, hundreds of thousands of winemakers out there, not all of whom are embracing the Parkerstyle.

[Tony Finch]

Ron,I am not going to concede credit to Parker for exposing problems in the French wine industry.The problems of their classification systems and that of beefing up Burgundy with stronger reds from the South were well-known and discussed in the wine media well before Parker rose to such pre-eminence,as were a lot of other issues in France and elsewhere.

The truth is that Americans love Parker because he reduces wine down to a childlike level of simplicity-this is a 90 point wine,that is an 86 point wine-and so on.Why bother discussing its nuances,its subtleties,its qualities-that's all boring.Just tell me how many points it rates.

Well,taste is too varied,too complex,too wonderful to be reduced to a pseudo-scientific set of numbers and its a great shame that so many of those conferring such power in the industry on Parker are too gullible and too lazy to understand that

[Ron Johnson]

I wasn't aware that only Americans loved Parker.  I believe he sells more copies of his books in France than he does in the states.  I also understand that he is revered in Australia due largely to his unabashed love affair with their style of winemaking.

You say that you will not concede crediting Parker with exposing the problems of the French wine industry because they were well-known before.  Ok, you don't have to.  I never said that is why Parker is popular, just that it is one of the things that I respect about him.

As for the scoring system, its what we all were exposed to in school and with which we are most comortable.  It also allows for more degrees of gradation than a 4 or 5 star rating.  Ratings don't do much for me, but I know some people who find them very helpful when browsing the bins at the wine shop.

Tony, I feel that I have been very clear that I am not a Parker supporter.  I do not take his periodical, and do not buy wine based on his advice.  That being said, I also do not engage in character assasinations against the man just because I don't agree with him.  As long as he keeps touting the over-oaked, tannic, fruit-gob, new world cult style wines, I can afford all my favorite little gems from the Rhone, Loire, and Languedoc.

Cheers.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony et al. - I never understand the resentment people show against Parker. I mean all of the things Tony claims he says, or claims he does, I don't think he does any of them. As my very smart friend Robert Helms says, why Parker became successful is because he created a hierarchy of all the wines of the world. And before he was brave enough to score a Ca. cabernet higher than a French Claret, nobody would have considered them to be anything near equals. Now if you can put the fact that you might disagree with how he sorted things aside, from an organizational perspective he did a fantastic job.  And those who disagree with him the most, if they were to sit down and quantify what he is possibly wrong about, his hit/miss ratio is probably 85% or higher, depending on region and varietal. And in some onstances like Bordeaux, he is probably well over 95% accurate in his reviews, if not 100% accurate. Even Tony's gripes, while possibly legitimate, seem to be so trivial compared to what he does have to offer that I don't see it as the basis for total condemnation.

The other issue with Parker is his usefullness. He is far more usefull to people who do not understand wine very well than to people who do understand it well. But that's the same for every field of criticism. I mean there were Roper and Ebert telling me that Momento was the best movie of the year when I thought it was gimmicky. But that doesn't mean they don't do their job well. It just means that we view film differently.

I think many people have problems with Parker when their style of winedrinking doesn't reconcile with what Parker thinks are the "best" wines, and/or, their personal favorites are from regions he doesn't value very highly, like wine from the Loire Valley or mineral intensive wines from Germany. But as I've often said in this debate, so what?  What is the reason for getting hot under the collar. I mean if your palate is honed to the extent that you don't need his recommendations, it would seem to be easy enough to ignore him. But why people who do not need him, or who have different style palates than he does pay any attention to him, and take it further and become bothered or enraged by the guy doesn't make any sense. I always conclude it must be a function of envy or something similar because, who really cares what he thinks? If you don't like him or what he does, ignore him.

I have to add one thing though. I do not know him, although we have a number of mutual acquaintances in common. And I have to tell you that to a person they all say he's a lovely, warm and generous guy. All things I value more highly than if he and I are in disagreement about 1998 Beaucastel and he says it should have gotten a score of 95 and I say it shopuld have gotten 96.

[robert brown]

The most vital function a good wine judge serves is to tell you when you can best drink the wine in the bottle. A "96" becomes a "69" if you open it too soon or let it sit around too long.

[Tony Finch]

Ron,I don't accept that my criticisms of Parker amount to "character assassination".It has nothing to do with his character.He is probably the single most powerful figure in the world of wine as far as the market is concerned and I would therefore contend that the French may be motivated to take a close interest in him for reasons that may have little to do with love.I accept that it is not only Americans who follow,him though.

Steve,you surely do love your hierarchies don't you? No wonder you consider your friend who praised Parker for creating a hierarchy of all the world's wines to be "very smart". Maybe its not so much that he's smart but that he would appear to concur with your apparent view that in an ideal world everything (and,dare I ask,everyone?)will be allotted their correct place in the hierarchy,as determined by Steve Plotniki and his smart friends.After all,you've already stated that Parker could be 100% right about Bordeaux. How did one man get to be such a genius?And how did you reach an even more exalted level whereby you're able to determine how right he is?

It is not good enough to say if you don't like Parker you can ignore him.He's not just some crank who no-body much listens to.He is extremely influential and powerful.His "judgements" can have enormous impact on real people's lives and livelihoods.His system is bogus and his power is dangerous.He is pulling the wool over too many people's eyes and more people need to stand up and say so