Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[JohnL]

One thing I always think about when reading Parker's mag is "how good are the American wines"?

American wine is not vastly widespread in this country (UK) because they tend to be more expensive than other wine producing countries (and nothing to do with their taste), so your thoughts would be appreciated.

Reading the WA there are hundreds of US wines that score 90+ and plenty score 95+. It always seems to me that American wines get higher scores than other wines of the world. Is this because they are "better" or is their a certain patriotism or marketig purpose (on the WA's behalf) for this? Or is it my imagination?

←

Hi--

First--a question for you. Are American wines more expensive in the UK due to taxes or tarrifs added or is it just the additional cost of shipping etc?

Second--I do not want to be seen as an apologist for Parker though I have subscribed to his newsletter (Wine Advocate) for over twenty years. (I also am a long time subscriber to Coates, Tanzer and others). I just find the reactions to Parker interesting and often misguided.

I do not believe that American wines score higher then any other wines per se. If there is any "patriotism" it is subconscious and there is certainly no marketing purpose behind what parker does. It may be difficult for Europeans to understand but there is a strong consumerist element to Parker. He has gone to great lenghths to establish and maintain his integrity. (I do not know if there is an equivalent to our "Consumer Reports" in the UK (I would guess publications like "What Hi Fi etc come closest.) Parker's approach is that he tastes a wine and scores it and describes it as he honestly tastes. One can certainly disagree with the ratings or the notes from a personal standpoint--I do often enough--but Parker is offering his impressions of the wine nothing more or less.

In fact I am looking at the June issue of the Wine Advocate and it is loaded with 90 point and higher rated wines from Spain.

Recently he has rated many Australian wines very highly.

I have noticed over the years that a preponderance of well scored wines does shift among various countries wines. This can have a lot to do with the quality shifting--vintages, wine making techniques and/or Parker's palate changing (mine has certainly evolved over time).

Parker has been highly critical of US wines in the past just as he has been critical at one time or another of many region's wines.

He has also "championed" wines from around the world when he sees a high level of quality.

He would probably say he doesn't care where a wine he is tasting comes from he is simply telling you what he thinks.

I do think that one should read and understand what Parker includes on the cover of every issue of his newsletter under: "Tasting Notes and Ratings"--wherein he explains his "raison d etre" if you will and how his rating system works.

There is plenty of room to be critical of Mr Parker --sometimes it seems there are as many differing opinions of wine etc as there are wines in the world!

Finally, I believe that often the strong reactions to Parker many have are often more telling about their biases and than Parker's (somewhat ironic I suppose).

What I would like to see are more thoughtful well reasoned and knowledgeable responses to Parker. There are conventional wisdom's that have developed that folks often toss about re: Parker. Very rarely does one find specific examples provided in support. For eg-"Parker does not like wines with finesse." I feel that people tend to "hide" behind these.

Again, I do not believe Parker is some infallible god--I went to Coates because I did not feel Parker was providing insights into Burgundy that were in synch with my palate--on the other hand--I find Coates to be a relatively poor "gauge" of New World Wines. I also see a lot of points in the arguments of views of Jancis Robinson.

With Parker, with anyone, with wine--it just ain't that simple!

[ctgm]

JohnL,

Thanks for the reply.

Thinking about it I suppose US wines tend to be more expensive here due to the fact that they are shipped in smaller quantities. Sure you get "well" priced Mondavi, Fetzer, Gallo etc etc that are shipped in large quantities but the niche wines are expensive. For example Ridge zinfandels, my favourite US wine, retail for about GB£20. That includes 17.5% sales tax and GB£1.48 duty (including sales tax). The last time I bought from the UK agent was the 1999 Geyserville back in 2001 and it cost me (trade price) GB£145 excluding all taxes per case 12/75.

Anyway back to the big man. I too have noticed recently that Spain is featuring heavily, and because I stock some relatively unknown ones, his scores can be helpful with my customers. I offer a returns policy on any wine that people do not like as a reassurance to the advice that i give. However I think that if RP notes accompany the wine (yes, as a merchant I do use his notes as a selling aid) then my customers are happier!

As to favouring US wines. I was thinking that RP writes as he tastes. He is American and I presume that a lot of his formative drinking wines were American and therefore he likes then a lot and therefore scores them well (no bias involved).

[JohnL]

Hi--

Actually Parker started out with a love for French wines. His "formative" drinking wines were French--and his reputation was made largely on his reviews of Bordeaux.

I recommend the recently released biography of Parker: The Emporer of Wine , The Rise of Robert parker and the Reign of American taste" by Elin McCoy.

(there's a thread about it here at eGullet).

The book may not be available in the UK --I would think that it would be soon enough though.

Parker seems to write about any area of the world that he finds a lot of (in his opinion) good wines being produced at that point in time. Areas that are "up and coming" etc. For years he was very hard on American wines now he believes California is producing a lot of exciting wines as well as Australia--he has been a big believer in the wines of the Rhone for quite a while and he always seems to be fond of Bordeaux.

I find the whole Parker story is more revealing of the wine industry than about him as a person/wine critic/taster etc.

My first exposure to wine critics/writers was Hugh Johnson and one of his "Pocket Guides." Back around eighty two there were few places a consumer could go to learn a bit about wine and fewer still where one could get some guidance on what to buy.

Unfortunately, many wine shops here did (and still do) a poor job of helping customers. Also we Americans seem to have an inherrent distrust of anyone trying to sell us something. Thus we have become big on third party endorsements.

I would think that the way the wine world seems to be going, we consumers, enthusiasts etc will have more choices in the marketplace.

I did note that your taxes are quite a bit higher than ours as they are applied to the cost of wine.

also--what, if any is the role of the intertent in wine buying in the UK. Here most major (and many smaller) wine shops have web sites where wine can be purchased.

We are in the process of revising our somewhat arcane laws about buying and shipping wine from state to state so the internet is emerging as a factor in where and how we can buy wine here.

[Gifted Gourmet]

article in Slate

the debate over his influence has become especially vituperative in recent months, and McCoy's biography, though evenhanded, has only ratcheted up the acrimony. But this new wave of disdain for Parker is oddly timed, because in many respects his influence has already peaked. He's still the world's most powerful wine critic, but his palate doesn't quite command the authority it once did.... But two decades on, many people who once drank only wines that bore Parker's stamp of approval have grown more confident in their own judgments. In addition, there are now many more sources of informed wine criticism (thanks in no small part to the Internet).

What do you think about Parker's influence? Is he indeed on the decline as the book and article imply?

Have you read The Emperor of Wine : The Rise of Robert M. Parker, Jr. and the Reign of American Taste by Elin McCoy?

[Florida Jim]

I have not read the book.

With the hiring of Pierre Rovani, Daniel Thomases, and now, David Schildknecht, to cover specific areas, it appears that Parker believes his recent prediction for Food and Wine, that is, that his influence will fade over the next ten years. I believe he based that prediction on the growth of internet wine sites which have a more comprehensive readership, and hence base of knowledge, and further, upon the fact that response time is nearly immediate from such sites.

As has been suggested elsewhere, Parker appears to be moving from is guru mode into a mode where he is the protector and promoter of his brand. Assembling well-credentialed people upon whom the consumer can rely as having specialized knowledge and experience in the areas they cover, seems the best way to carry his brand into a time when his personal influence is waning.

Best, Jim

[BrentKulman]

Being interested in both wine and beer, I have noted the differences in how quality is measured in the two communities.

In the wine world, the experts are given much greater latitude and wine drinkers look to them for direction. Walk around any wine shop and you will see how the expert opinions (ranging from Parker to "staff choices") are all delivered by third parties who are deemed to have superior palates.

In the beer world, the impact of the two primary beer rating sites, beeradvocate.com and ratebeer.com make for a much more democratic sense of quality. At these sites, anyone can argue the merits of a particular beer and the composite ratings reflect the collective judgments and biases of a range of reviewers from novice to experienced.

I haven't found any wine sites that track the beer model but I think it would be a healthy thing for the industry to move away from the expert model to the democratic model so that winemakers don't feel so compelled to create wines to the style of Parker's palate.

[Daniel Rogov]

A long thread and I will comment on only several aspects.

1. First, as to scores, as all of us know a score is nothing more than two digits (rarely three) at the end of a wine review. People who read only the scores and buy on the basis of them are, for lack of a polite term, fools.

2. Scores are simply one person's means of "summing up" the overall qualities of a wine. The score itself says nothing about the nature of a wine and whether the reader will enjoy or not enjoy it. It speaks only to its quality.

3. As there are no infallible wine critics, neither are their infallible methods of scoring. The French like 20 point scales because that is what their school grades are based on and it is something they have been used to since childhood. In the same way, Americans like the 100 point scale. Truth is it makes no difference whether a given critic uses this, that or another system....the only thing that is important is whether you can calibrate your own tastes to those of one or more critics. When you find those critics, those are the ones to follow.

4. Following does not mean idolizing or buying blindly. It means that these are people, like trusted friends who give you good hints about what you may or may not enjoy

5. Robert Parker did not invent scores. That happened during the days of the ancient Egyptians and later the Romans when amphorae were marked with anywhere from 1 - 10 strokes to symbolize the quality of the wine therein.

It is true that Parker popularized scores. And that is not something for which to blame him. The populization came about when readers began to demand scores and editors of various newspapers and magazines went along with that demand.

6. As to whether people make wines to suit Parker or not. Well, call me a dirty name if you like, but that's something akin to saying that General Motors produces cars to please the taste of Donald Trump. Or, if you prefer Woody Allen. In a word - nonsense! Yes, some wineries will produce wines with the hope of gaining high scores because high scores sell wines. They don't do it for Parker. As popular as Parker is, he is far from the only critic around and far from the one with the largest single audience.

7. Concerning the issue of whether Parker's influence is waning: The mere fact that that movies are being made that use him as a central focus, that books are being written about him from both the positive and negative point of view, and that he is the most often discussed of all wine critics amply demonstrates that Parker has never been more in the public eye. And that (as the 1920's editor might have said) dear reader, is the goal of any critic. Whenever you meet or hear of a critic about whom only good things are said you know you are involved with a critic of no worth and equally no interest.

8. As to non-critics, that is to say, the wine-drinking public commenting on wine, well.....just take a look at this forum, my own forum, Parker's forum and fifty other popular forums. An increasing number of people have an increasing amount of what to say about the wines they taste and/or consume. No intelligent critic tries or wants to impose his/her will on the public. That is entirely up to readers. Them that wants McDonalds will eat at McDonalds; them that wants a fine burger at a restaurant will go to Smith and Wollensky or Peter Luger; and them that wants will make their burgers at home.

And that, at 1:58 in the morning Tel Aviv time is about that.

Edited September 1, 2005 by Daniel Rogov (log)

[Sparkitus]

As to whether people make wines to suit Parker or not.  Well, call me a dirty name if you like, but that's something akin to saying that General Motors produces cars to please the taste of Donald Trump.  Or, if you prefer Woody Allen.  In a word - nonsense!  Yes, some wineries will produce wines with the hope of gaining high scores because high scores sell wines.  They don't do it for Parker.

I would never call you a dirty name, but hell yes they do it for Parker (and the rest of them, too)! Did anyone see the NY Times Magazine articles three weeks back about an outfit called Enologix? This is a consulting company (with a rather surprising client base) that has come up with a matrix for winemaking that will result in 90+ scores for wines and they guarantee it. I'm not sure if they have any European clients but the Americans are lining up to get in on this. They recommend practices that are used quite commonly, but with the goal of producing "award-winning" wines. The controversy is over whether or not their advice is really making better wines, or just better-scoring wines.

True, it's not based just on Parker; they actually have a computer model that incorporates many different critical scores (including Parker) and then "dials" up a profile for a wine based on its type and region. If you're a winemaker and you want to score well (90+ guaranteed, remember), you will pay these people to tell you to lower acidity or micro-oxygenate or slather on the wood according to their own chemical analyses of your wines compared with their matrix. And then you send your samples off to Robert Parker.

Lord, I need a glass of falanghina!

Edited September 9, 2005 by Sparkitus (log)

[Rebel Rose]

If you're a winemaker and you want to score well (90+ guaranteed, remember), you will pay these people to tell you to lower acidity or micro-oxygenate or slather on the wood . . .

Lowered acidity is my personal bugaboo. Related discussion:

Phat Wines - Enuph is Enuph

[battleofthebulge]

hell yes they do it for Parker (and the rest of them, too)!

←

Was at a tasting last night for an excellent independent outfit called Bat and Bottle - www.batwine.co.uk. Run by a young couple who trawl Italy for individual, interesting, value-for-money wines and then bring them back to sell to us lucky Brits. He claims that a lot of the Tuscan makers use a specific enzyme to make the wine 'winier' and more likely to please Parker. For him, it makes the wines bland and 'milky'.

Check out this press release for a company called 'Novozymes' - apparently it makes red wine redder, and their tag line is 'how to make a red wine consumers prefer'.. hmmmm

http://www.novozymes.com/cgi-bin/bvisapi.d...d=33169〈=en

There's also a New Zealand company with something similar?

http://www.scios.co.nz/enzymes.htm - check the text under 'trenolin rouge'.

Just not cricket, old chap.

Sarah

[Brad Ballinger]

Thanks for the links, Sarah.

I've created a separate thread where we can discuss this whole enzyme phenomenon. I think the topic merits disucssion, and its own thread. We'll keep this one focused on Parker.

[battleofthebulge]

Thanks for the links, Sarah.

I've created a separate thread where we can discuss this whole enzyme phenomenon.  I think the topic merits disucssion, and its own thread.  We'll keep this one focused on Parker.

←

Quite agree Brad - thanks! I posted specifically because Ben (of Bat and Bottle) said that the enzyme was used to 'Parkerize' the wines, but having done some very brief research I think this is a wider topic. Will be interesting to see if other people have come across this issue.

Best

Sarah

[MaxH]

I've known of US winery owners who remarked privately their goal, tending sometimes to obsession, of producing wine for point scores (not just Parker's, of course). In one case where a talented winemaker parted ways with the owner, I believe it was over that issue.

[JohnL]

Let's put 'scores" into perspective.

A score is a summary of one's tasting notes.

A good taster can apply a score to a wine that reflects his or her evaluation of the wine in question.

Scores should be based on a system that has objective and subjective elements.

Scores also allow a taster to convey information and nuances that notes alone can not. For eg it is hard, if not impossible to taste two similar wines with similar flavor profiles both well made and convey via language that the taster preferred one slightly more vs the other--yes he or she can come right out and say just that but the notes may or may not appear side by side etc.

For eg two very similar wines--a taster may prefer wine A slightly more than wine B and express that by giving wine A -say--eighty eight points and wine B ninety points.

The point is, a reader interested in the taster's opinion can simply take the notes the score etc and have two pieces of information.

Scores also can help provide some perspective--for eg two Bordeaux wines--each receiving a high score yet one is half the price of the other--this would indicate that one wine may be a bargain or a good value.

One can certainly disagree with the whole process of scoring wines--as I see it scores are just another piece of information to be used by the consumer along with tasting notes and the price in making a purchase decision.

A few observations:

Even tasters who do not score wines-that is asssign a number or a star(s) etc are, in fact scoring wines. A score is implied by their words and descriptions.

As for pleasing Parker:

A lot of people profess to know what Parker likes therefore it would seem to be relatively easy to make a wine that Parker would like. This really isn't happening.

One--Parker over the years has "liked" a wide range of types and styles of wine.

Anyone who actually reads what Parker writes would see this.

For eg--let's take Barolo. Parker states clearly that both the old style/old guard methods of making barolo and the "new" style methods can produce equally stunning wines. the two styles produce radically different wines. His scores reflect this so Scavino and Giacomo Conterno are both "liked" by Parker.

what's a winemaker in Barolo to do?????

Could it be that the conventional wisdom that Parker only likes new "international" style wines is wrong or at least not completely understood?

Could it be that the emergence of these fruitier easier to drink styles (especially young) is due not to Parker but rather because they are more consumer friendly to a rapidly growing wine drinking public that doesn't want to lay down wines for twenty years?

I believe that Parker just happened to be in the right place at the right time. He came along at a pivotal moment in the world of wine. he took a consumerist approach to wine just as there was an explosion of wine consumers. He communicated in a manner that they understood and responded to.

The universe of growers, wine makers, retailers, importers, wine writers, critics etc was caught a bit off guard to what was happening from the consumer standpoint--they are still struggling to deal with and adapt to the changes.

Mondovino, "the Emperor of Wine", The Accidental Conoisseur, all the debate is really more telling of their struggles than it is about Parker (or any one person).

[MaxH]

My previous remark about wine producers, which was serious and well supported though I don't know if publicly, genuinely wasn't specifically about Parker. (You make some good general points John, but it was a more general issue, also i am not one of those people who claims to know Parker's "style.")

Here's my contribution to the issue, as crisply as I can: Since I know of producers who say privately that they pursue styles to win critics' point scores; and these producers have serious money on the line; then they must have target styles in mind. I don't know what those styles are, because I haven't asked, nor have I an expert picture of the critics' preferences if any. But like most people posting comments online, I don't have big money on it either. If I see someone who does, and bets on point-correlated styles, that seems to me to demonstrate that some people believe in it to an extent beyond just talk. (I'd be interested to know how well these approaches have paid off, surely a key question, and a confidential one.)

-- Max

Edited September 15, 2005 by MaxH (log)

[JohnL]

My previous remark about wine producers, which was serious and well supported though I don't know if publicly, genuinely wasn't specifically about Parker.  (You make some good general points John, but it was a more general issue, also i am not one of those people who claims to know Parker's "style.")

Here's my contribution to the issue, as crisply as I can: Since I know of producers who say privately that they pursue styles to win critics' point scores; and these producers have serious money on the line; then they must have target styles in mind.  I don't know what those styles are, because I haven't asked, nor have I an expert picture of the critics' preferences if any.  But like most people posting comments online, I don't have big money on it either.  If I see someone who does, and bets on point-correlated styles, that seems to me to demonstrate that some people believe in it to an extent beyond just talk.  (I'd be interested to know how well these approaches have paid off, surely a key question, and a confidential one.)

-- Max

←

Max,

I recommend you look at the thread in wine forum started by RR: "Burgundian Police Teargas Winemakers"

There are linkd to two artivles posted. One posted by Busboy is a NY Times piece and the other posted by yours truely, is a piece by an Australian who looks (with a slightly jaundiced eye) at the current situation in the wine world.

Both these are eye opening -to say the least, even startling.

I believe they provide a lot of perspective into what is happening with wine and the direction in which things are going.

Things are a bit unsettling to say the least.

Wine is a big business; much as we prefer to view wine with a romanticist perspective. Most of us here would consider ourselves "connoisseurs"--we are in love with the notion of terroir and small growers/farmers/wine makers who make wine out of love and passion with a sense of history.

However noble, that point of view does not reflect absolute reality--those passionate farmers are engaged in a business and they are--in the end--selling a product.

Even though ewe may prefer to see them in a much more romantic light--they --I would argue --prefer we see them in that light as they sell us their wine.

the problem (for them and us) is that the world is changing rapidly. The global nature of economies (EU, GATT etc etc etc) has opened up a world market. Where once France (to a lesser degree Italy, Spain and Germany) ruled the world--there is now very stiff competition from the US, Australia, South America, New Zealand, South Africa and other countries.

The Europeans and their view of wine as a product of place--terroir --are "trapped" from a marketing standopoint.

The US wine industry took the "varietal" approach. Thus it is easier for the average consumer (anywhere in the world now) looking for a nice bottle to drink the coming weekend to buy a "Cabernet" or a "Merlot" etc. and have a good sense of what's in the bottle-- the grower, the vinyard, the producer all secondary--simple.

The Australians have gone even further--clever easy to remember names:"stump jump", "dead arm" etc.--a "brand" that a consumer remembers--these strategies are capturing world market share. Now look at French (and European) wine: it has taken me years (twenty plus) to have even a sense of what Burgundy or Bordeaux or the Loire is all about and yet there is so much more I do not know. A consumer looking for a nice Burgundy is almost helpless--odds are against their finding anything ready to drink on their own--it is so much easier to pick up/try a California "Pinot Noir" --most consumers don't even know that Burgundy is made from pinot noir.

Let's not even look at Germany--we all bemoan the fac thtat good rieslings "have never caught on" --well try explaining the german wine label to someone (better yet--try explaining it yourself). No wonder it is easier to just pick up a Sauvignon Blac from New Zealand as opposed to a Sancerre. (what the hell is a Sancerre anyway?).

Many of these wines are easy to drink--one doesn't have to cellar them (how many people have wine cellars anyway?)--this is why the international style has emerged.

All of this has happened regardless of Robert parker (or anybody else) Parker and Rolland et al are just scapegoats for what is driven by geopolitics, globalization and just plain business and economics.

Having said all this, I believe that there will always be a market (connoisseurs) for small production Burgundies and Italian Barolos in the "old style. and other unique wines from around the world.

But even here--there will be competition anew for consumer dollars--do I spend my $100 on a Bordeaux that will require ten years at least-in the cellar--at my age I hope to have my sense of taste intact in ten years--and even then what if the wine is corked or the wine is bad? Or do I spend it on a California Cab at peak drinking now or in a few years?

I know these are two different drinking experiences but I have to make a decision! One or the other.

All this is what a winemaker,grape grower, importer, retailer is faced with today. When a winemaker is saying he/she is making a "90 point wine" or a "Parker" wine what they are really saying is "I am trying to make a wine that will have a good chance of selling."

Parker couldn't possibly be the force behind the global changes taking place--he reaches less than one tenth of one percent of the world's wine drinking population with his newsletter--assuming all the people who subscribe are blind robots who follow Parker exclusively.

It doesn't compute.

His approach is that the wine's label --it's origin-its producer is less important than the wine in the bottle. This is in agreement with what most of the world's consumers believe not the other way around.

That is Parker's (and others) success--the right place at a significant moment of change in the wine world!

[Rebel Rose]

Parker couldn't possibly be the force behind the global changes taking place--he reaches less than one tenth of one percent of the world's wine drinking population with his newsletter--assuming all the people who subscribe are blind robots who follow Parker exclusively.

Except that every distributor in the U.S. reads his newsletter, as do nearly every wine shop, broker, and sommelier. And yes, they are heavily influenced by scores. Still, I agree with you that he is not the only excellent and influential wine writer out there. Why is Parker singled out for all this vitriol?

[JohnL]

I don't disagree.

It's a horse and a cart thing--(maybe a chicken and egg thing).

What I am saying is Parker isn't driving consumer palates, he is reflecting them.

If someone bought a wine Parker reviewed favorably and felt cheated they would not follow Parker's advice again. Parker only reaches a miniscule number of consumers anyway. Most consumers don't know who he is.

Consumer palates are what winemakers are trying to please though--naturally if they like the wines they will buy and drink em.

So, if you want to say Parker has become sort of a de facto "consultant" to the wine business--I could agree with that.

Thus, if a winemaker "followed" Parker and his/her wine did not sell--they's shift gears pretty quickly. (or find another "consultant").

Most people misunderstand Parker anyway--

"When I taste young Bordeaux from cask, I prefer to judge the wine after the final blend or assemblage has been completed. at this stage, the new wine has had only negligible aging in oak casks. For me, it is essential to look at a wine in this infant stage..because then most wines can be judged with only minimal influence of oak, which can mask fruit and impart additional tannin and aromas to the wine. what one sees at this stage is a naked wine that can be evaluated on the basis of its richness and ripeness of fruit, depth, concentration, body, acidity and natural tannin content, unobscured by evidence of oak aging."

Parker's own words.

Parker came along in the early eighties. I can tell you that at that time, let's look at California, the wines of the sixties and seventies were a mixed bag. The overall quality was questionable. Many Cal cabs were huge tannic monsters. They were hard to drink young, after ten to twenty years age many had lost their fruit and were dry astringent and out of balance. Yes there were some real classics--Mondavi and Heitz etc. Does anyone believe that wine in general-was better in those days?

Doesn't it make sense that wines with more integrated tannins and riper fruit (oak or no oak) are more attractive?

Are California winemakers still struggling to get the right grapes for the right climate and soil? Yes! The days of thin, weedy merlots are over (well almost) there were scads of these wines years ago.

Common sense says that, for the most part, more "modern" style wines are more appealing to more people. Parker reviews simply reflect this--the range of styles of those 90 point wines is pretty broad--more than many want to admit.

He loves the old style barolos as well as the new style. He is quick to praise the old Cal cabs when they merited it and loves the new style wines.

They all have one thing in common--they are well made, clean, distinctive, wines--some are big and rich some are more elegant, some are oaky (yes he likes oak and admits it) some are not.

Again--if consumers tastes did not coincide with Parker's then the wines just wouldn't sell and wine makers would stop following him.

[viejomajadero]

Great writing everyone. Very interesting and timely.

Unless one is a very small volume producer there is little room for artistry.

Wine is a very big and expensive business. Land, land maintenance, bugs, plants, plant maintenance, shop equipment, storage, glass, inventory and a host of other cost factors go into making wine.

Sure there are some (very few) "starving artist" types out there in small boutique/garage operations. For the most part this is a rich mans game, big corporation game. At stake is lot of money. The product must be sold.

They need to sell to the public. The public needs a way to get through store shock. Some buy on price, but I suspect most buy on shelf tags that show scores. Parker scores, Tanzer scores, Spectator scores, Enthusiast score, etc. Alot of shops near me do their own scores for unscored wine. JohnL is correct most consumers know very little about Parker if they know him at all. They surely don't have this love/hate relationship the industry has.

As a consumer myself, one who is knowledgeable about wine, I find it overwhelming to buy wine today. Sometimes I am lucky enough to go to professional wine tastings and taste wines currently arriving in the market but that still does not give me access to the broad spectrum of wine in the market. You know, early on in my life I could name most of the producers in Napa. So what is the consumer do? They rely on others to synthesize the market. Forget about Parker for the moment. Lets talk Tanzer. If I were to buy wines with Tanzer high scores and enjoyed them tremendously I would continue to follow that pattern. If wine makers saw that Tanzer high scored wines sell better than others and want to style wines toward that taste -- then that is good business and not automatically bad wine.

That said, I really don't think wine making is that much of a perfect science. Yeah, one could manipulate the chemistry toward a style but there are lost of other factors.

Now, lets talk about sophisticated wine consumers like ourselves. Can we live without all these scores? Do we buy futures and pray? Do we buy blindly from the rich mans Boutique of the month? Or, do we for the most part have a narrow range of wines we rely on that meet our requirements -- taste and style?

I love La Mission Haut Brion. I know generally, in bad years it is good and in good years it is great. I know that all the reviewers above will have the same general opinion for a vintage. I get my Parker subscription and I know La Mission is going in my cellar. I also know it is finite. X cases available --period-- vintage after vintage for the wine world to share. But, I read about an everyday level wine from Bordeaux 2000. Parker likes it at 89 and it costs on future $20 - $25 . I buy it on the strength of his review. For the most part, I love it, and so do my knowledgeable friends.

Hope I did not ramble too much.

Viejo

[MaxH]

Now, lets talk about sophisticated wine consumers like ourselves.  Can we live without all these scores? 

←

Many people do. Everyone did in fact, in the US anyway, before the current score fashion established itself over the 1980s. (To anyone who was not buying wines before those scores -- I'm obliged to mention this, because I've seen people form astounding notions about history they didn't experience -- the number of wines to choose from appeared just as overwhelming as today.)

Consumers reading the group of US wine newsletters popular in the pre-score days (I was one of them, and I still have the newsletters) saw word commentaries and broad rankings like "recommended" and "highly recommended." Robert Parker, ever since he joined that newsletter community and introduced the 100-point score, has been among the most emphatic in urging consumers to rely on commentary and their own palates, more than scores. Consumers, also, seem consistently to turn less to scores and to critics in general, as their experience grows (here I mean past maybe a decade or more of serious interest, not a year or two). It helps if they have wine-experienced friends, tasting groups, or trusted merchants, all of which can be golden information sources. Many US wine consumers, including the majority I know personally, don't read numerical criticism, except to note its secondary effects: buzz (suddenly the population who'd heard of "Pavie" jumped 10-fold when it got 100 points) and prices (ditto, similar ratio). This all answers the question above: Yes, people can certainly live without those scores! They always have. Quod erat faciendum.

Hope I did not ramble too much. 

Viejo

I've seen worse!

[viejomajadero]

Thanks Max

But my questions were rhetorical. Most wine consumers are not sophisiticated at all. They need to latch onto something to go beyond blind buying. Scores advertising, whatever.

Thanks

Viejo

88 Haut Brion is my dinner choice tonight -- celebrating my 59th. Hope it's a wow.

[Rebel Rose]

Decanting Robert Parker

Eric Asimov's interview with Mr. Parker this week in the NY Times is probably the best I have ever read.

On the subject of diversity:

"I think the diversity of wines today is greater than it's ever been," [Parker] said, "and I think that we see evidence in southern Italy with the reclamation and resurrection of all these indigenous varietals that had long been sold off to co-ops."

"The premise of Nossiter in 'Mondovino' would have been a lot more accurate when I started writing about wine in 1978 than when the movie was made in 2003," he added. "When I started, I was enormously critical of California wines, and I thought the entire wine industry was on a real slippery slope."

Back then, he said, California was in the grip of enologists who made every wine according to formula. Bordeaux was in distress after a series of bad vintages, and Americans knew next to nothing about the wines of Italy, Spain and Australia.

What really raised my eyebrows is that in response primarily to this comment by Mr. Parker:

In Mr. Parker's view, the attacks have gone beyond the bounds of civility. "Hugh Johnson compared me to George Bush," he said, almost in wonder. "I'm a great admirer of Hugh, but he really lowered himself significantly to write that. I'm not a dictator of taste, and I'm not an emperor of wine, either.

Decanter responded with an article titled Parker: I'm targeted and misunderstood

Robert Parker has launched a savage counterattack on Hugh Johnson and British wine writers.

The article goes on to slap Parker in every paragraph, often taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them. This has gone beyond professional competition; I think it's very, very poor journalism.

[MaxH]

I don't know Oliver Styles's work and maybe I'm a little slow here, but on reading the short Decanter article linked above, I had the impression I'd seen most of those lines before. Note necessarily in that magazine, or here, but "around." Certainly, elements of it have been online in the last year or two. The whole subject has a rhetorical flavor. Many readers will roll their eyes ("What? Again?"). A few zealous fans will make wry comments and nod to each other about the "democratic point of view" part (because no matter how little they know of the US wine-criticism scene before RP's arrival, they "know" all about it). Maybe some people will even ask about a quotation where RP, who introduced a scoring system and became an influential writer, complains about these things. Who knows? It looks, especially with the final question, what here on the Internet has long been called a trolling piece, to hook some traffic. Not that the same thing would ever happen on a modern, genteel forum like eG. Or that any of us would ever bite! No.

Cheers -- Max

--

Below, end of a thread we had about absinthe on the Internet's public drinks forum in 1988. (It mostly dealt with wine.) After discussion of the liquor's impressively dangerous reputation, I commiserated with someone frustrated in getting the Real Stuff, then added:

"However, Ouzo, Pernod, etc. are plenty toxic in their own right; don't overlook this. Just pretend they are illegal and stylish, and there you are."

[JohnL]

Decanting Robert Parker

Eric Asimov's interview with Mr. Parker this week in the NY Times is probably the best I have ever read.

On the subject of diversity:

"I think the diversity of wines today is greater than it's ever been," [Parker] said, "and I think that we see evidence in southern Italy with the reclamation and resurrection of all these indigenous varietals that had long been sold off to co-ops."

"The premise of Nossiter in 'Mondovino' would have been a lot more accurate when I started writing about wine in 1978 than when the movie was made in 2003," he added. "When I started, I was enormously critical of California wines, and I thought the entire wine industry was on a real slippery slope."

Back then, he said, California was in the grip of enologists who made every wine according to formula. Bordeaux was in distress after a series of bad vintages, and Americans knew next to nothing about the wines of Italy, Spain and Australia.

What really raised my eyebrows is that in response primarily to this comment by Mr. Parker:

In Mr. Parker's view, the attacks have gone beyond the bounds of civility. "Hugh Johnson compared me to George Bush," he said, almost in wonder. "I'm a great admirer of Hugh, but he really lowered himself significantly to write that. I'm not a dictator of taste, and I'm not an emperor of wine, either.

Decanter responded with an article titled Parker: I'm targeted and misunderstood

Robert Parker has launched a savage counterattack on Hugh Johnson and British wine writers.

The article goes on to slap Parker in every paragraph, often taking his comments out of context and misrepresenting them. This has gone beyond professional competition; I think it's very, very poor journalism.

←

I have been watching the wine journalism scene for quite a while now.

I must say that I have rarely seen one person become so controversial in so relatively short a period of time. The really fascinating thing is how this controversy is largely manufactured.

I recall a poster (Fat Guy?) who noted that all Mr Parker does is taste a wine and offer his impressions. So what really is the "big deal?"

Why the absolutely violent reaction to him?

How is it that only Parker seems to elicit these reactions--how is it that some people feel the need to respond to anything and everything Parker says or writes?

Even more troubling is how most of these folks often take Parker out of context, misrepresent him or respond out of complete ignorance?

I believe that a large body of conventional wisdom has formed among these critics and their audiences simply parrot what they are told about Parker.

Thus: "Parker doesn't like...." or Parker only likes....." is used to explain away a perceived disagreement.

If one truly disagrees with Parker over anything then fine--have a reasoned and educated debate or just move on.

The Decanter piece is typical. It blows up Parker's comments --wildly out of proportion and misrepresents what he says because there is a small group of mostly British wine writers who deeply resent Parker and can't seem to stand the fact that Parker has any influence at all. Decanter is merely trying to incite things.

Easy enough when normally very fine writers like High Johnson go off the deep end when they hear Parker's name. for the most extreme example I have encountered--read Tony Hendra's review of the Elin McCoy biography of Parker--Hendra literally descends into pure madness.

IMOP--here's an example of the silliness. Johnson's biggest bone of contention seems to be Parker's 100 point scale. So what? Johnson himself has been rating wine over a long career so they use different means or "scales."???

Is Parker really any different in his mission than Johnson? Thus, why does Johnson (again, a distinguished writer) feel compelled to respond so bitterly to anything Parker says or does?

I believe that much of this reaction is rooted in condition of the wine world--from the trade to the press--when Parker first emerged. Parker himself notes this in the interview in the Times.

The influence in the press was shifting. Parker essentially challenged the status quo--naturally, the influencers at the time resented this new kid on the block. I suggest that some of them have never gotten over it (or Parker).

The success of Parker and some others (Wine Spectator) is due to their simply being in the right place at the right time with the right message.

It should be fun and informative to debate the issues of the wine world (we are talking about wine after all) without the bitter sniping and pettiness.