Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony - Gee now we're getting somewhere. I can see the argument that '86 Cos should be 91 and not 95. I already told you I thought Parker overrates second tier claret. And how would it be proven. Easy. Enough

experienced tasters taste the wine and hash through the issue. I mean I think that '86 Mouton is more than 4 points better than '86 Cos. Why? It has better depth, better complexity, tremendous waves of fruit. And will probably age for 50 years. Will '86 Cos get past 25 or 30?

As for the points you raised against Parker, I do indeed believe they are valid points. But if you examine each one, you will find that you are complaining about the people who rely on Parker and not Parker himself. Let's go through them.

His power in the industry

Now why is that his fault? All he does is write his newsletter and advertise subscribers. Is he to be criticized only because people percieve he does a good job?

As for his 50-100 point system

You can question it's validity, but not in a vacuum. Either it's accurate or it isn't. And if it isn't, it needs to be sufficientlly inaccurate to criticize him. Please show me where he is not accurate to the extent where he should be criticized. Also, your argument that wine should not be expressed numerically, or in the exact terms as he tries to express it is only your subjective point of view. Most people like the numerical scores. In fact, I would prefer hardly any text at all.

Questions about ranking

You know most people have a much more casual connection with wine then we do. They don't have the time to know what's what. They go into a shop, and they want to know how to find a wine that fits their needs. And to make their life more complicated, they ask those questions of shop staff that is in my experience inept, and put up by their shopkeepers and importers and distributers to push plonk on the unsuspecting. To Parker's credit, he fixed alot of that and the way he fixed it was to have a concise and clear scoring system that people could easily recognize. And where he has had the most impact is on the large commercial wineries, who happened to be the biggest plonk pushers going before Parker became prominent. I mean wineries like Bouchard Pere et Fils were selling plonk for years. But now their top wines are great. Same with other commercial wineries like Drouhin and Delas Freres. Even better wineries like Latour and Comte de Vogue were in serious decline and thoughout the 80's were pushing junk on people while hiding behind their fanous labels. Now do you think that Latour would have turned around as quickly if '86 Mouton didn't get a 100 pointsd, let alone '86 Cos getting 96, if their '86 didn't get 89 points? I mean they should have had 100 point wine that year. So how come you can't give him credit for the good stuff he did?

You then asked why it isn't legitmate to ask if we should be looking at matters of taste in terms of hierarchys.

To me this is the nub of your argument. An age old argument on the Internet that never seems to be settled, no matter how hard I try. Here is how the argument goes. One side says that all taste is subjective, and that if someone happens to like well, Syrian food better than French food, than it is indeed better. The other side of the argument says that no, taste might be subjective but quality is not, it is objective. And levels of technique aren't subjective either. Better quality, and greater expenditure of technique make a "better" product.  And indeed, Sisteron and Alpilles lamb, Bazas, Charolais and Angus beef, Bresse and Landes chicken, cream from Devon and cheese made in Normandy are indeed of better quality than other items and as a result, the amount of technique that goes into raising or manufacturing those items is more intensive than lesser quality products. So when we speak of the order that things should be placed in, that is what we are, and Parker is talking about. It's not a list of personal preferrences.

And the ordering of things does not mean that you can't like Syrian food better than French food, or St. Veran better than Montrachet. But in reality, the quality of ingredients that go into French food, and the level of technique applied to its preparation produce an end result that is well beyond the level of any Syrian food I've ever seen or heard of. And the same for Montrachet. The quality of the grapes that come from that patch of land, and ultimately the care given to making wine from those special grapes make a much better, and more refined bottle of wine than anything they could muster out of the patch of land they call St. Veran. So when you say that nobody can measure "taste" the way Parker claims to be able to measure it. You have misrepresented what he is measuring. He is measuring quality, not taste. Remember, he writes a consumer guide. And I will bet you that if we tasted '86 Cos and '86 Latour side by side, we would conclude that the Cos is the better wine, but we would also admit that the Latour has the unqiue characteristics that are exhibited *only* by the First Growths and is indeed of better quality, though ultimately not as enjoyable. Will 100% of the people agree as to what is better quality. Of course not. But I am certain that if there were a group of people who proclaimed that supermarket chickens were better than Bresse, or that St. Veran is a better wine than Montrachet, we would find their experience and expertise when it came to chickens and wine wanting.

So there you are. I have discussed all those matters. But as you see, those matters really have very little to do with what Parker, and they mostly have to do with how people use Parker. And if anyone is deserving of criticism, it is the people who created the environment in the wine industry that allowed Parker to have the impact he has had. When your industry doesn't self police itself to maintain high standards, a consumer advocate is bound to come along and organize things so consumers can figure out what is what. But when you try to criticize him for how he approached the task, it seems unfair considering that all he did was offer people a drink of water in what was an informational desert.

[Tonyfinch]

be 91 and not 95. I already told you I thought Parker overrates second tier claret. And how would it be proven. Easy. Enough

experienced tasters taste the wine and hash through the issue. I mean I think that '86 Mouton is more thanTo 4 points better than '86 Cos. Why? It has better depth, better complexity, tremendous waves of fruit. And will probably age for 50 years. Will '86 Cos get past 25 or 30?

As for the points you raised against Parker, I do indeed believe they are valid points. But if you examine each one, you will find that you are complaining about the people who rely on Parker and not Parker himself. Let's go through them.

His power in the industry

Now why is that his fault? All he does is write his newsletter and advertise subscribers. Is he to be criticized only because people percieve he does a good job?

As for his 50-100 point system

You can question it's validity, but not in a vacuum. Either it's accurate or it isn't. And if it isn't, it needs to be sufficientlly inaccurate to criticize him. Please show me where he is not accurate to the extent where he should be criticized. Also, your argument that wine should not be expressed numerically, or in the exact terms as he tries to express it is only your subjective point of view. Most people like the numerical scores. In fact, I would prefer hardly any text at all.

Questions about ranking

You know most people have a much more casual connection with wine then we do. They don't have the time to know what's what. They go into a shop, and they want to know how to find a wine that fits their needs. And to make their life more complicated, they ask those questions of shop staff that is in my experience inept, and put up by their shopkeepers and importers and distributers to push plonk on the unsuspecting. To Parker's credit, he fixed alot of that and the way he fixed it was to have a concise and clear scoring system that people could easily recognize. And where he has had the most impact is on the large commercial wineries, who happened to be the biggest plonk pushers going before Parker became prominent. I mean wineries like Bouchard Pere et Fils were selling plonk for years. But now their top wines are great. Same with other commercial wineries like Drouhin and Delas Freres. Even better wineries like Latour and Comte de Vogue were in serious decline and thoughout the 80's were pushing junk on people while hiding behind their fanous labels. Now do you think that Latour would have turned around as quickly if '86 Mouton didn't get a 100 pointsd, let alone '86 Cos getting 96, if their '86 didn't get 89 points? I mean they should have had 100 point wine that year. So how come you can't give him credit for the good stuff he did?

You then asked why it isn't legitmate to ask if we should be looking at matters of taste in terms of hierarchys.

To me this is the nub of your argument. An age old argument on the Internet that never seems to be settled, no matter how hard I try. Here is how the argument goes. One side says that all taste is subjective, and that if someone happens to like well, Syrian food better than French food, than it is indeed better. The other side of the argument says that no, taste might be subjective but matters of quality and of technique are objective and there is indeed a standard to uphold. And indeed, Sisteron and Alpilles lamb, Bazas, Charolais and Angus beef, Bresse and Landes chicken, cream from Devon and cheese made in Normandy are indeed of better quality than other items and as a result, the amount of technique that goes into raising or manufacturing those items is more intensive than lesser quality products. So are those items "better"? Sure they are, if you accept the qualities that are commonly held to be better. And in my experience even in poorly made products from those regions, the unique qualities are still present. And I will bet you that if we tasted '86 Cos and '86 Latour side by side, we would conclude that the Cos is the better wine, but we would also admit that the Latour has the unqiue characteristics that are exhibited *only* by the First Growths. So that is what hiearchys represent. They order things in a way that people who are like minded would agree on. And in almost all of these instances, like minded describes and overwhelming majority of the prople. Probably well in excess of 95%.

So there you are. I have discussed all those matters. But as you see, those matters really have very little to do with what Parker, and they mostly have to do with how people use Parker. And if anyone is deserving of criticism, it is the people who created the environment in wine that allowed Parker to have the impact he had on the industry. When your industry doesn't self police itself to maintain high standards, a consumer advocate is bound to come along and organize things so consumers can figure out what is what. But when you try to criticize him for how he approached the task, it seems unfair considering that all he did was offer people a drink of water in what was an informational desert.

"Most people like the numerical scores.In fact I would prefer hardly any text at all"

To me THAT'S the nub of the problem.Parker was not the first to try to give the consumer a way of understanding the world wine.Wine writing and wine criticism has a long and (generally) honourable history.He wasn't even the first to use a rating system.

His "genius" is not that his palate is so more attuned than any other wine expert(it may or may not be-I'm still not sure what evidence you could produce to "prove" it),but that he realized that by giving every wine a number he could maybe,one day,dispense altogether with those  inconvenient and confusing things called "words" and "opinions" and that every wine will simply be known as a "91" or a "78".

I know he himself does not do that yet but some wine shops do (Parker-90) is a common shelf tag in several wine shops I've been into.

If I was a wine I'd want to shout "I am not a number.I am a FREE WINE" At the end of the day I just think the world is better understood through words and not numbers.

[Tonyfinch]

Sorry,didn't mean to re post that whole quote.I don't know how that happened.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-And you know you are right. The world would be a better place if everyone was well read on every topic or had the opportunity to taste wines for themselves. But I'm afraid that isn't the case. People just either don't have the time or don't care about it enough.

I'm sorry you only see the negative side of a shelf talker that says "Robert Parker 90 points," and fail to see how it has benefited consumers. You have conveniently skipped over the fact that until Parker came along and figured out a concise way to convey the quality a consumer would likely find in a bottle, the sales staff in many shops would foist pure garbage on people and tell them it was good. In fact it still happens even with the shelf talkers. The way the wine business works and how wineries, importers and distributors tie the purchase of good wines with the purchase of plonk. The shops have no choice but to foist the plonk on the people who don't know any better. I mean I don't know about the U.K. but, if you're a shop in NYC and you want to buy Cristal, you have to buy something like 10 cases of the basic Roederer Champagne to get 1 case of Cristal. So shops traditionally pushed Roderer on the unsuspecting when there were better quality champagnes to be had in the same price range. That's really what Parker fixed about the industry, and the fact that his numerical system was clear and concise *helped consumers.* And when a shop had a shelf talker above the Veuve-Cliquot that said 90 points, the bogus salesperson had a more difficult time selling you a crappy champagne. I would say that is quite an accomplishment. Wouldn't you?

You see I can twist the entire argument around and tell you that your position is elitest because it doesn't take the common consumer into account. And it appears you would counter by saying that isn't true, in fact you want them to have even more knowledge than they can get from Parker. And although that is noble on your part. It's just not what they want. They want to deal with wine on their terms not yours. And you see, that isn't Parker's fault. He isn't popular because his system is easy, he is popular  because people always wanted an easy system to begin with, and the wine business failed dreadfully at providing them with one.

[Tonyfinch]

I'm not sure I agree with your caricature of the wine trade before Parker as being primarily concerned with palming off the consumer with crap.

Sure it must happen but some of the more 'enlightened' chains and merchants in the UK,at least, were always  quality driven.

Let's assume we're in one of the latter.To the ordinary consumer who's not up on wine do you really think the words "Parker-85" imparts more information than,say,"rasberry fruit,medium dry with soft brown sugar finish.Not for keeping."?

For the former to be more useful than the latter you'd have to

a) know who the hell Parker was in the first place

b) know what "85" in this context might mean-including knowing that the scale began at 50 and went to 100.

c)accept Parker's judgement as definitive,although you yourself have no way of knowing whether he's right or wrong .

I strongly contend that the words are much more helpful and make it much easier for the punter to decide whether that wine meets the needs he requires at the time.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-Well you have sort of switched gears here. The issue isn't whether words or numbers are more useful. I personally think the words are a load of bunk. But I don't see what your gripe is with Parker because he uses numbers AND words. Here is what he said about 1986 Cos d'Estournal;

"1986 Cos d'Estournel St Estephe (95) - $45

Tasted 7 Times Since Bottling With Consistent Notes

The 1986 is a highly extracted wine, with a black/ruby color and plenty of toasty, smoky notes in its bouquet that suggest ripe plums and licorice.  Evolving at a glacial pace, it exhibits massive, huge, ripe, extremely concentrated flavors with impressive depth and richness.  It possesses more power, weight, and tannin than the more opulent and currently more charming 1985.  Anticipated maturity: 1996-2010."

Now what is wrong with that review? The numerical score is just a small portion of the review and it has every component that you have asked a review to have. Is it Parker's fault that many readers (like me) don't care about the text and only care about the numbers and as such, the shops just post the scores?

You see the reason people accept Parker's judgement as definitive is because his opinion is correct with sufficient frequency that people are happy relying on him. That's why I keep saying that the way to criticize him is to point out where he is wrong about wines. And although I have pointed out a few areas of disagreement I have with him, you keep talking about his system, but I have yet to hear you state criticism of his palate to the extent that it warrants the type of criticism you have lodged.

[tommy]

you boys are very thoughtful.  what do you think about Chris Cornell from Soundgarden joining Rage Against the Machine?  pretty bizarre match if you ask me.

oh yeah, and bob parker is a poopy-head.

[Steve Plotnicki]

[oh yeah, and bob parker is a poopy-head.]

Tommy - Yeah but does he like poopy in the nose of his wine? And does Chris Cornell like wine?

[TCD]

Parker's rating system, just like any other "rating system" not created by oneself (whether it be Zagat's or a five-star movie sytem) is simply a tool for the user.  If people decide to use it to supplant the development of their own opinion of a particular subject then that is their poor decision in my opinion.  I doubt that people who find the Zagat's books to be unreliable will continue to use them.  If people find their palate is not in allignment with Parker, WS, Wine Enthusuast, Tanzer, Coates, Meadows, etc., I assume they will no longer rely on those sources and look elsewhere for guidance.  If they do not do so, then they are beyond our help or our concern.

With respect to the specificity of Parker's and similar rating system's I do believe that they believe they can distinguish the quality at that level.  However, I am confident that they all would admit that there is a small margin of error in such scores.  And if that is not the case, most knowledgable users probably do so.  I think most wine drinkers beyond the novice level understand that there is not a world of difference between an 88 and a 90 rated wine.  A difference for certain but not enough to write off the grader as tastes cannot be in complete alignment in any case.  If Parker and others utilized a letter grade with plus/minus such a system would be more realistic but the precision of the numbers does not offend me.

[Tonyfinch]

Steve ,you keep asking "is it Parker's fault if........"   I am not "blaming" Parker personally for anything.He has seen a niche in the wine world and taken brilliant advantage by virtue of a simple idea. My beef is with "Parkerism",the growing cult of Parker and what the numerical quantifying and rank ordering of wine says about the way we view the subject and,ultimately,all fields of human taste.

And I've said all I'm gonna say on that.

You keep saying Parker's opinions on wines are almost always "correct" and that THAT's why he's popular.But it follows that in order for punters to know whether Parker is or is not correct,they would have to

a) taste as much and as widely as Parker does

b) have as refined a palate,or whatever it is he's supposed to have

c)be able to arrive at quantified judgements in degrees of one fiftieth like him.

Actually most punters have no idea whatsoever whether he is actually correct or not and never will have.What they are doing is PUTTING THEIR FAITH in him.They are FOLLOWING him-not because they know he's  "right" but because they want the wine world simplified for them.

You might say-"so what? nothing wrong with that" but when someone purport to have "the answers" and others begin to agree because its easy to do so, I worry.....

[macrosan]

I'm going to quote our resident board philosopher here, Fatus Guyus Shawus and say, yes...

Steve, I think you must mean Flatulus Gaius Shavius (Gaius to his friends), who is first referenced in Caesar's Gallic Wars in the immortal words "Gaius in tres partes divisa est...". Historians believe the three parts referred to were "Above the waist", "Below the waist", and "The waist itself" which apparently was of legendary dimension

This thread is indeed metamorphosing into the "Michelin Stars" thread of old. I have to say that I find it strange how the contribuotrs to these threads seem to become more and more entrenched in their thinking as the threads progress, when I would expect reasonable people to go thru the reverse process.

I am not a wine expert, I just like to drink the stuff. I had never heard of Robert Parker before this thread. If you gave me a glass of wine to taste, I could probably identify it's color accurately. And I don't understand what the fuss is about.

It is clear to me that the Parkerphobes are ascribing aspirations to Parker that he does not hold. I do not believe he says that an 86pt wine is point something of a percent better than an 85pt wine. I guess he's saying that they're pretty similar in quality and both significantly lower than a 95 pointer.

Similarly, the Parkerphiles are ascribing aspirations to Parker that he does not hold. Because in exactly the same way he is not suggesting that there is a natural order in wine, but simply broad ranges and scales of measurable quality.

This process is no different from the Standard & Poors ranking of the financial status of companies, or whatsanames ranking of cars. These owe as much to art as science. They are broad brush measurements, not susceptible to mathematical certainty.

The notion that the users of these rankings do not understand both the limitation and value of the systems is frankly arrogant and patronising.  :

[TCD]

If "most punters have no idea whatsoever whether he is actually correct or not and never will have" then why do you care if they are "PUTTING THEIR FAITH in him [Parker]".  If "punters" have no idea about wine but want some guidance in making their selection they are going to rely on someone that has more expertise/experience than themselves.  Why not Parker, as opposed to the guy or gal down the hall who "knows something" about wine or the wine merchant.  Are these more reliable options?  Or are the punters simply weak or wrong for wanting some asssitance?

"They are FOLLOWING him-not because they know he's  "right" but because they want the wine world simplified for them."

No one is right or wrong about wine; it's all a matter of taste.  And I don't think any reviewer would declare that their ratings are the ultimate correct answer.  Most inexperienced people want a little direction and assistance (and justification) in their wine purchasing as to quality.  I don't think anyone buys a wine, hates it and says "well, Parker gave it a 90 so I'm going to buy another case anyway as well as another case of other stuff that Parker rated highly."  And if they do, why do you care about these fools?

Wine is not an issue of life or death, if people want some asssitance in making wine selections and use Parker or the numerious other raters of wine as a guide for quality because it's "easy", I doubt civilization will be endangered.  What do you propose for them to do?

[Tonyfinch]

Macrosan,if you think the main purpose of these ...er let's say "debates" is to get those who disagree with each other to alter their positions then you have a very,let's say optimistic view of the purpose of debating.

But you're right it is becoming like the other thread and I've got nothing more to say on the subject so I'm butting out.

TCD,I think Steve P. might give you a debate on your assertion "No-one is right or wrong about wine,its all a matter of taste" Enjoy,hic,cheers.

[Bux]

If you can distinguish between any two wines--this wine is better (worse) than the one I had last night--than it's possible you can distinguish between any two wines.  Presumably somewhere along the way, you're going to want to lump some wines together for one reason or another. If you drink, or taste, hundreds of wines, 50 categories may not be enough or four or five may be enough, but it's a personal decision.

Michelin lumps restaurants into five categories.

No mention

Mention

One star

Two stars

Three stars.

While I have a hard time actually believing one can honestly distinguish between an 88 wine and 89 wine, I know damn well that there are greater differences between various 2 star restaurants than there is between the best 2 star the least of the 3 stars. Rating systems suck, people love and crave them.

Understand that life is unfair before we continue. Parker happened. Parker made the world of wine a little safer for some people and a little boring for others. He's standardized wine appreciation a bit. People are buying his numbers. Consumers are drinking his taste and learning to adapt to it. Producers are learning to produce wines for that market. Why? A and insecure buyer wants to serve wine that will please his guests so his buys into the popular taste. It's called playing the odds. The rest is like a snowball on an incline. What's weird is listening to someone argue about the ethics of the snowball. Weirder yet may be the defense of the laws of nature as moral.

Of course the losers are they guys who don't like to play it safe. Those of us who enjoy travel for the rewards of local and strange wines. They may disappear and they may no longer appeal to those whose tastebuds are no longer recpeptive to variety. My guess (hope?) is that the pendulum will swing. Life is unfair, but change is the only constant.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Macrosan- Hey good try. If you knew a little bit more about wine and how it is currently codified, you would understand what the Parkerphiles are talking about. Let me try and explain it. The French, depending on what region we are discussing codified their various wine regions over the last century and a half. Their system, which they identify as  the "terroir" of the land, created a hierarchy amongst the various parcels of land in each important wine region. What they were really trying to label was quality. For example, if a wine came from  grapes that were grown in Musigny, a prized vineyard site, no matter how good or bad a bottle of wine was, if it was made from those grapes, they were allowed to put the name Musigny on the label. Prior to the enactment of these laws, people were able to take wine from Yugoslavia and call it Musigny. So it is like a trademark. But it isn't unique to a brand name, it is unique to a special parcel of land where the Burgundians had identified unique qualities that couldn't be found elsewhere.

But as you could imagine, many people bought vineyard sites within the Musigny vineyard and once they were able to put the name Musigny on their label, they had no incentive to make good wine. And it isn't that nobody made good wine. But for example, in Musigny, a large percentage of the vineyard is owned by the Comte de Vogue, something like 60% or more. But between 1973 and 1990 they made pure junk and put it in a bottle. But since it was Musigny,  the Come de Vogue sold through their annual production at quite high prices.

So along comes Parker and he starts reviewing Vogue Musigny and he implements a numerical scoring system and he gives them low scores. At the same time, he gives wine from lesser vineyard sites, where the producers are overachieving because they are working hard, higher scores than the vaulted wines from Vogue and Musigny. So what happens? Since 1990 Vogue has been producing at a higher level.

If you take my single example, and multiply it by every winemaker in every important wine growing region of the world, Parker's numerical system combined with the text he wrote gave people a chance to compare wines not only within regions, but across regions. And across countries too. It might not sound like a big accomplishment but, nobody ever did it in such a comprehensive and concise way before. The upshot is it revolutionized the way wine was sold. Before Parker the industry policed itself. And while there were wine reviewers well before Parker, he was the first consumer advocate in the field of wine.

You are indeed correct and this is like a Standard & Poor Ranking. But there is one huge difference. Companies are a compendium of various assets and liabilities that are in constant flux. This is much simpler. Owning a 1/3 acre of the Montrachet vineyard is like owning a few lots of real eatate on Central Park South. And although one could find real estate that is as valuable as a lot on CPS, you could never recreate the unique qualities that come from being on Central Park. And there is a second component which makes it even more special. Things grown on that lot of land have a unique taaste, texture and quality to them that can not be produced anywhere else. For some reason that nobody can explain, sheep that graze in that lot are more tender and have more flavor.

So it is more complicated than does somebody like a bottle of wine or not. Like anything else, there are valid opinions and ones that aren't valid. Whether one likes the view of an apartment that is overlooking Central Park is not at the heart of this debate. It is whether one recognizes the special qualities of that view and holds it to an objective standard. Because ultimately, not liking that view isn't really a valid opinion as a matter of valid criticism, while it's a perfectly fine personal point of view. And that is because there is such a thing as good taste and bad taste.

[helenas]

Mais non, Monsieur Parker!

[SFJoe]

Ohmygod. Did someone make me slog through a Steve P. on Robert Parker thread again looking for the gold?

Anyhow, the problem with RP and his ilk is that wine isn't a scalar, it's a vector. It doesn't just do one thing in one way. Mark Ollivier's Clos des Briords 2000 is a brilliant, stony, cristalline Muscadet. Most people don't give Muscadet much respect, which is generally appropriate since most of it is industrial swill. But a magnificent wine like Ollivier's is on another plane. So what do you do with something like that? By itself maybe you slap an 89 label on it (it's only Muscadet, after all). Tasted with a steak, it's a 76. Tasted with Kumamoto oysters, a 93. Tasted with Belon oysters, a 97. Tasted with Belon oysters on John Gilman's birthday in great company, a 101. Does any of that particular amazing utility of the wine come through with a single number from RP or anyone else? Of course not. The real world is too complicated for those who are busy putting all the bottles in the world in a line from superior to inferior. In reality they are scattered about in space. The great Muscadets from granite terroir are out in the max end of the shellfish axis, perhaps with a few Chavignol rose's. They are in the dirt when plotted on the sweetbread axis, or the braised beef cheek axis, however. They also score poorly on the "wines to have with my aunt from Sioux City" axis--way too lean and rocky.

Anyhow, all of these arguments about who assigns the best "points" strike me as simply silly.

But that's me, you figure it out for yourself.

[Craig Camp]

Ohmygod.  Did someone make me slog through a Steve P. on Robert Parker thread again looking for the gold?

Anyhow, the problem with RP and his ilk is that wine isn't a scalar, it's a vector.  It doesn't just do one thing in one way.  Mark Ollivier's Clos des Briords 2000 is a brilliant, stony, cristalline Muscadet.  Most people don't give Muscadet much respect, which is generally appropriate since most of it is industrial swill.  But a magnificent wine like Ollivier's is on another plane.  So what do you do with something like that?  By itself maybe you slap an 89 label on it (it's only Muscadet, after all).  Tasted with a steak, it's a 76.  Tasted with Kumamoto oysters, a 93.  Tasted with Belon oysters, a 97.  Tasted with Belon oysters on John Gilman's birthday in great company, a 101.  Does any of that particular amazing utility of the wine come through with a single number from RP or anyone else?  Of course not.  The real world is too complicated for those who are busy putting all the bottles in the world in a line from superior to inferior.  In reality they are scattered about in space.  The great Muscadets from granite terroir are out in the max end of the shellfish axis, perhaps with a few Chavignol rose's.  They are in the dirt when plotted on the sweetbread axis, or the braised beef cheek axis, however.  They also score poorly on the "wines to have with my aunt from Sioux City" axis--way too lean and rocky.

Anyhow, all of these arguments about who assigns the best "points" strike me as simply silly.

But that's me, you figure it out for yourself.

Beautiful! Great comment SFJ.

[StephenT]

Anyhow, the problem with RP and his ilk is that wine isn't a scalar, it's a vector.

Good point. With this in mind, I suggest the following system. RP and his ilk rate wines on a number of different criteria (there are possibly many, many of these) to produce a "rating vector" which lives in "objective wine space". Now, if you wanted to eat it with a steak, you'd transform that vector into "steak space" by applying the "steak matrix" and you'd get a better indication of how the wine would drink with steak. "Steak space" would preferably have many fewer axes/dimensions than "objective space" so as to make this more apparent to the untrained eye.

Now, add to that peoples' individual tastes. Everyone should know their preferences and determine their own personal "preference matrix" with which to weight different wines according to their own preferences. When you discover that your aunt from Sioux City is coming to visit, you'd simply ask her for her "preference matrix" to assist you in your choice of wine. Should you not be entirely happy with her preferences, you could always take the average of her preference matrix with yours to get something in the middle.

So, assuming that your aunt from Sioux city is coming to visit and eat steak on a Saturday evening in June, your calculation to determine how well a particular bottle of wine would match this occasion would go something like this:

First calculate the "occasion matrix": (occasion matrix) = (personal preference matrix) X (Saturday evening in June matrix) X (steak matrix)

Then transform the wine's "objective weighting" with this matrix: (wine's "objective space" vector) X (occasion matrix) = (wine-steak vector)

Don't forget to normalise the personal preference matrix should it be composed of a number different peoples' preferences or it'll lead to incorrect results.

If you have an ideal wine-steak vector in mind (as everyone should), you can invert the "occasion matrix", apply it to this ideal vector and you'll be able to determine an "objective space" vector of the ideal wine to drink. Enter this vector into your cellar management system and it'll inform you of the closest match that you have in your cellar.

Simple really. I don't know why more people don't use this system.

Edit: couldn't spell "occasion"

Edited January 17, 2003 by StephenT (log)

[marcus]

The questions regarding wine and food are addressed by Robert Parker in his Bordeaux book. His view is that the greatest wines, which are highly complex, and the greatest foods, which are also highly complex, do not go well together. He points out that there are chefs that keep these wines off their lists because they feel that they fight with their food and prefer fine, but simpler wines, such as Sociando Mallet. On the other hand, great Bordeaux will certainly go very well with a simply prepared steak.

I agree. My own view is that great wine is best by itself without food, or with just an unsalted cracker. This allows for the fullest appreciation of the wine. I generally avoid wine pairing offerings, as they tend to treat the wine as the junior partner. I do order wine in restaurants, but choose the wines primarily based on their own merits, with minimal regard to the food selected. I won't go as far as order a Hermitage to drink with raw oysters, but most anything in between is just fine.

[Steve Plotnicki]

SFJoe - Well those are all easy points to make when one spends a good deal of their time tasting wine, and then more time hanging around with other people who almost only taste wine and do nothing else, and then also spend time with people who are in the wine industry including importers. In fact they are all great points for people who do not need to read Parker in order to know what to buy. But for people who do not know what to buy, wine is very linear so Parker is a good tool. But otherwise I agree with you . As for food and wine, I don't find Parker's argument compelling. I just think it is difficult to pair food and wine properly. And it isn't ricket scientry to realize that the more complexity in a dish or a wine, the more difficult it is to make a proper pairing.

[sam_harmon]

But what is sorely lacking in every quote, and in the rest of the posts as well, is direct criticism of Parker's ability to judge wines properly.

OK, here it goes.

I believe that it was during the 60 minutes interview where he proudly stated that he can fully evaluate a wine within 5 seconds of it entering his palate. If this is not egotistical nonsense, I don't know what is. I, however, feel that he sincerely believes this, and this is why his tasting is fundamentally flawed.

Such an approach, particularly in the context of his marathon 100+ wine tasting sessions, does not allow for any reflection on a wine's subtleties or even the opportunity for a more elegant, acid-structured wine to show those subtleties. What it not only allows for, but makes an inevitability, is that the samples that make an impression are--low and behold--the so called hedonistic, sledgehammar-on-the-palate examples. Wines possessing too much ripeness, oak and alcohol. Wines showing everything they're capable of showing in their first 5 seconds--even if they subsequently have nothing more to offer in the glass that afternoon or in the bottle over the next 5-10 years.

Edited January 23, 2003 by sam_harmon (log)

[vmilor]

Very good points. If, thanks to coming late to the debate, we draw up a balance sheet I think even the critics will agree with the following 3 positive impacts of the 50 pointer.

1. It helped to expand the overall market for wine by enabling the average consumer to rely on a yardstick (maybe the market would have expanded anyway without him but more slowly). This is a good thing for "sophisticated consumers" too because in a deeper market there will be more select wines.

2. It leveled the playing field by making it possible for the underappreciated regions (such as Piedmont, Southern Rhone, Priorat..) to develop their full potential and compete with the market leaders. We have many "jeune turcs" now who owe something to Mr. Parker.

3. It made sure that the underachievers who unjustifiably cashed on their name and manufactured plonk would be kept on their toes and either had to improve or they had to bear the consequences!

But I am wondering (and would like to hear opinions) whether a dialectic process is unfolding in that positives are turning into negatives. Precisely:

1. Yes, Mr. Parker has never been for sale. But did not he develop strong preferences for not only certain styles (on which people here agree), but also for some individual winemakers. I have not personally met any of you but even in a short process I am developing preferences for reading more carefully certain messages. How can he be immune to this "human" frailty after 20 years in business, wining/dining and sharing intimate moments with these individuals? Would not certain distortions arise as a result, including but not limited to the grade inflation which is apparent.

2. Yes, he is a market phenomenon and there is a strong push to conform to his style and make wines which will score high when young. As a consequence are we not risking to trade off early appeal for ultimate long-term complexity? I can give examples of wines which he scored very high and were really(from a certain vantage point) tasty when they came to the market but they have dropped their fruit long before tannins resolved. These wines did not age nearly as long as Parker had guessed. In return there are other wines such as some 93 Red Burgundies that Parker deemed they should be drunk in 6 to 8 years and scored in the mid-80's, but these wines keep improving. Should not we be concerned that, given Parker's systematic overvaluation of overextracted wines and his stature in the market, the ageability of wines will be negatively affected?

[Steve Plotnicki]

The problem with Parker is that he doesn't have any competition. A clear voice with a different point of view has not figured out how to reach the marketplace. For example, Parker has a preferrence (bias?) for wines made in the New World style. And while there are critics of that style as well as people being critical about Parker liking that style, there isn't anyone who has been able to build a business on promoting themselves as the "anti-Parker." And lord knows how many things were

[Tonyfinch]

The problem with Parker is that he doesn't have any competition. A clear voice with a different point of view has not figured out how to reach the marketplace.

You mean the American marketplace. Parker is not nearly as influential in Europe (which is not to say he has NO influence). Generally speaking Europeans are not as impressed and as influenced by numbers as Americans.

Hugh Johnson's books sell in their millions in the UK and far more people know him than Parker. He doesn't compete directly because he's not trying to do the same thing (ie rank order all wines). He does use a four star system but in general he relies on words. His Pocket Guide to Wine is a huge seller and has introduced more people to good wine than probably just about any other single book.