Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[Steve Plotnicki]

Hugh Johnson and Robert Parker do not appeal to the same marketplace in my opinion. Parker is really geared towards the long term collector investor who is drinking expensive wines. With an emphasis on the high end of the market. I don't think of Johnson as being that sepcific in terms of who he writes for.

[helenas]

Parker is really geared towards the long term collector investor who is drinking expensive wines.

I'm definitely not in this category, as i'm looking for Parker to help me with selection of weeknight wines in $10-20 price category. I subscribe to his site and find it of great help as the wines he recommends are readily available in local winestores and usually suite our taste.

[Steve Plotnicki]

In my opinion, Parker is not the best source in this category. Not that he is a bad source. But there are better ones. Problem is, no single place does a good job in this price range and to get the info you need to read a number of publications.

[MartyL]

I agree with Steve on the value-wine point. IMO, many of the best wines in that price bracket are from regions that Parker either covers not well or not at all (Loire valley and Germany in particular.) It is hard to find good information about those wines from publications, and mostly, I tend to find out about them through word of mouth from friends.

Some of my favorite wines in that category are:

Beaujolais from Tete and Brun

Chinon and Bourgeuil from Breton and Olga Raffault

Crozes Hermitage from Gilles Robin

"La Rosine" from Ogier

Bougogne from Marechale

Rieslings from Christoffel and Selbach-Oster (especially 2001)

Muscadet from Domaine de la Pepiere

In NYC, many of these wines are offered at Chambers St. Wines (www.chambersstwines.com) Garnet (www.garnetwine.com) and PJ Wines (www.pjwine.com).

[SFJoe]

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.

You dissing my friends?

They always speak highly of you, especially the importers and grey marketeers.

Off to Mark Ollivier's for oysters this Sunday. Am beside myself with anticipation, which will likely make it crowded on the plane.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Is it a charter flight to Ollivier's?

That sounds like fun. Are you tasting anywhere other then the Loire? I met Texier for the first time at the Marche last weekend and he invited me to come up to the Macon to taste. Are you going there? And next year you should organize doing this so you can come to the Marche au Vin. The dinner we have is classic. I haven't seen so many people in one place that were upset with Stuart Yaniger's wine selections since the days of the Wine Spectator forums. It was classic.

[SFJoe]

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."

Which hat band singer was it that Kinky Friedman used to refer to as the "Anti-Hank?" Was it Clint Black?

IMO, the reason for Parker's continued dominance is that he somehow tastes a zillion wines a year and miraculously retains the palate of a talented newbie. He likes the same wines that people new to serious wine like (or such is my impression, I haven't subscribed in years). This makes it very difficult to market against him with a different palate spectral preference--you don't pick up the newbies, you only get the persistent geeky subset years later. A smaller market, and there you run into Tanzer, Burghound, Wine therapy, egullet, chambersstwines.com, and many other sources of info. Distressingly, many of these are giving it away.

That's my guess on why we don't see the AntiParker out there.

[SFJoe]

Is it a charter flight to Ollivier's?

That sounds like fun. Are you tasting anywhere other then the Loire?

I'm travelling with Dressner on his buying trip for 10 of the days. Mostly Loire, but I catch a couple of days in Beaune, too. Should be a hoot, except that without Mike Wheeler this year for balance, I'm afraid that we'll be overly influenced by David Lillie's sense of extravagance in dining and lodging.

[SFJoe]

next year you should organize doing this so you can come to the Marche au Vin. The dinner we have is classic. I haven't seen so many people in one place that were upset with Stuart Yaniger's wine selections since the days of the Wine Spectator forums. It was classic.

The hipsters go for the Salon des Vins in Angers.

Texier is a great guy, but I'm getting off the bus before it gets that far south. The new gig demands a bit of attention.

The dinner does sound hilarious. The Hind Parts' palate doesn't agree with everyone, I'm afraid.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Well at least Joe Morehouse was there. Not only does he have a great palate (and is sensible about it) but he's an awfully nice guy. And your trip sounds great. But I don't think I can handle ten days of that sarcasm. Eat and drink well though.

[vmilor]

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.

This is a big chunk of the problem. Clearly there are barriers to entry in this imperfect market. My hunch is that, since Parker is now so well established, all wineries in all parts of the world (even those who hate his taste)are now vying with one another to get him to taste their wines. I doubt that new entrants will ever get such attention and convince established producers to spend time with them and to share their resources.

The second part of the problem is that the market is not only imperfect, but it is shallow. There isn't any institution of verification to check on Parker's previous scores and report on the ageability of the wines. Sporadically Parker and WS report on verticals, but overall colossal mistakes get unnoticed. Of course, it is easier to criticize than to remedy the situation. My only expectation is that three or four anti-Parker people with deep pockets and intimate connections to the wine industry (but without any financial interest in the industry)will come together and start another publication. I'm saying 3-4, because even Parker is not getting any younger, and he has an associate. Deep pockets are necessary to burn the initial funds, because wineries will be sceptical and not provide a free lunch, like they do to Parker. But of course, this is not an easy task and may not materialize in the forseeable future.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Actually the problem is compounded by the fact that Bob is a great self-promoter (and I do not say that with any negative inference) and his competition are a bunch of wine geeks. If someone wanted to really compete with him, the first thing they should do would be to make a list of all the things Parker is wrong or imperfect about and then run on that campaign. But nobody out there currently has the personality to take that approach. Too bad I'm not a wine critic .

You have to give Parker credit. He organized wine for consumers. He created hierarchys within regions as well as across regions. Whether you like his position on these things or not, you have to give the guy credit for making wine accessable to people who historically found it confusing. And for someone to actually compete with Parker, they have to stake out a different way of organizing the information.

[Tonyfinch]

And for someone to actually compete with Parker, they have to stake out a different way of organizing the information.

Why would they do that? What would be the point? To rank all the wines in a different order? To invent a different scoring system-150-200 points?. If someone came along and rank ordered all the wines differently all they'd be saying is "I don't agree with Parker's rank ordering". What would that achieve except confusion for wine consumers.

Parker HAS competition. It is all of those who don't conceive of rank ordering wines on a 50 point scale but who prefer a combination of rank indicators and prose. There might not be one single person who heads this particular field but that is because this approach does not lend itself to, or seek after, gurudom. The idea that there needs to be a "battle of the giants" in the field of wine criticism does not even occur to them. As I've already said it also does not resonate nearly as much in Europe, where Parker is just another critic among many. The veneration of Parker to guru status is a very American phenomenon and reflects certain values where I think, innately, we differ.

Edited January 28, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

No you are misunderstanding what I said. First of all, they would do it because it is a good business plan. It defines yourself differently from the competition and anyone who doesn't like those attributes about the competition will immediately be attracted to you. Secondly, you wouldn't do it by creating a different scoring system, what you would do is change the ranking of wines within the existing system. For example, I have a few friends who are quite expert in Bordeaux. Let's say that they are as expert as RP is, possibly more. They complain that since 1982, all the Claret has been made in a way that is mass-produced and that the wines will not have the ageability that pre 1982 wines have. Meanwhile RP has been touting post 1982 Bordeaux as being wines that can age as well and can be as profound as wines from say 1961. So if you come straight out and say that you think RP is wrong, offer proof or sound credible on the topic and then rearrange the wines based on which wines might actually be ageworthy, you will gain an audience. It's like a religion you know. Which prophet are we going to believe? Well we will believe the one who seems like he speaks the truth.

None of Parker's competition is wired this particular way. Nobody comes out and directly says that he is wrong. Some people politely disagree, and you hear a lot of mumbling behind the scenes. But there is no single reviewer who has aggregated all of his weaknesses and created a wine tip sheet based on offering an alternative view. What you have are people offering their point of view. And to be hinest, their point of view isn't sufficiently different to attract a large audience.

[Tonyfinch]

So your friends don't rate post 82 Clarets as age worthy. They must be a hell of knowledgeable bunch to know more than Parker and just about every other wine writer I've read, all of whom rate several post 82 vintages as marvellous and eminently age worthy.

As to competing with Parker, I think you are misunderstanding the nature of Gurudom (or a prophet, to use your word). You don't compete with a Guru. You supplant him. You overthrow him. Someone doing what you describe (using Parker's scoring system but re-rank ordering the wines) would not be engaged in friendly rivalry but in a (professional) life and death battle for supemacy. If the interloper won Parker's credibility would be shot for good. That's why he must be so keen to raise a successor.

This is because Parker and his acolytes do not perceive his judgments as opinions to be debated but as facts to be stated. Saying a wine is "86" or "92" doesn't leave much room for discussion does it? He's either right or he's wrong, and if he's shown to be wrong time and time again then he's banjaxed.

[Steve Plotnicki]

He's either right or he's wrong, and if he's shown to be wrong time and time again then he's banjaxed.

But that's what I've said. Someone needs to make a list of things he is wrong, or potentially wrong about and show how that is the case. And if you simultaneously state your own opinion on these subjects that make sense, and with great clarity, you should have an audience. This is the famous retailer across the street concept. You open a small retail shop across the street from the Virgin Megastore and you feature all the things they do a poor job merchandising. They drive the traffic to your street, and you pick up the crumbs. And if the crumbs are sufficient in size and number, you have a good business going. And you also have the basis for creating a retail philosophy of your own that competes with Virgin if you are capable of dreaming one up.

As for '82 Clarets, yes they taste lots of wines, some of them drink as much if not more old claret then Parker does. And what they say isn't that post '82 wines aren't ageable, just that they won't age as well or as long as pre 1982 wines. Their comment is that consumers have been led to believe something about the wines that isn't true.

[marcus]

I'm missing a point here. Who is saying that post 82 vintage wines are less ageable. 86, 89, 90 are excellent Bordeaux vintages that produced eminently ageable wines. 95 and 96 may be a different story.

[Steve Plotnicki]

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

[marcus]

I own a very large number of 82s and starting to drink is just about the right view. These are very great wines that are improving all of the time. This is really why we need Robert Parker, to provide a sensible and reasonably objective point of view, and to cut through the cacophony of idiosyncratic opinions.

[Steve Plotnicki]

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

Edited January 28, 2003 by Steve Plotnicki (log)

[grahamtigg]

It seems to me that if Mr. Parker has made scores of under performing estates sitting on prime vineyards pull their socks up, then that must be the greatest contribution by an individual to the world of wine since I don't know when. It's all very exciting having garagistes and young turks performing alchemy in some (historically) marginal vineyard, but the wine world surely wants presumably proven grand cru land to perform at maximum.

On the scoring system it's worth mentioning the he also rates estates/growers in each region with a star system. For areas such as the Languedoc this is more useful than notes on individual wines as new tasting notes from this region only seem to appear every few years. Class growers generally make good wine in naff years, or will de-classify it appropriately.

[Tonyfinch]

Whether that is true or not has nothing to do with the fact that the right wine critic should be able to rally those who are non-believers into a following of his own.

It would be a case of "The King is dead. Long live the The King!" It is utterly inevitable that someone who sets themselves up as a Wine Guru will eventually be found out. This because you can fool all of the people some of the time etc. etc.

I go back to my original point. Parker may well be extremely knowledgeable and may well have helped consumers a great deal. But he purports to be able to do more than that. He claims to have such a nuanced palate that he can assign every wine to a place on a 50 point scale. These points are not just indicators of or pointers towards quality. They confer a pseudo scientific exactitude upon his judgments which is bogus becuase such exactitude cannot be applied to matters of taste and wine is too complex a subject and has too many varying qualities to be reduced to a set of pseudo scores. People are bound, after a while, to start saying "hang on a minute he's wrong about this and he's wrong about that". It must happen. And it will happen to whoever else sets themselves up in the same way. They may get their time in the sun and make a lot of money in the meantime but in the end they will be called into question too as surely as night follows day.

Edited January 29, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[porkpa]

Tony,

I do not believe that he purports to have any such measured knowledge. I believe that he is giving his opinion on a personal measured scale. Whether you agree with him or not is entirely your decision. I know that he has a better palate than I could ever hope to have. Far more often than not, he has led me on paths that I most likely would not have otherwise taken to my greater enjoyment.

We are individuals and many of us have the capacity to decide ourselves whether we want to be influenced by Parker(or whomever) or not and if so to what degree.

[Tonyfinch]

I do not believe that he purports to have any such measured knowledge. I believe that he is giving his opinion on a personal measured scale.

Well I have already acknowledged that he has helped consumers. But so have plenty of other wine critics and wine writers. Whether he intends it or not, and I can't believe that he doesn't think it should happen, Parker's scores are not regarded by the wine world as "just his opinion". If they were his views would have no more power in the market place than any other critic's opinion. His rank ordering system and the assignation of a number to every wine is regarded by millions of Americans, and many others also, as a definitive guide to quality.

He has achieved this by realising that people like league tables and numbers because they are simpler than words and then postulating the notion that he has the palate that can tell an 86 wine from an 87 wine.

Of course one is free to ignore him, but his power in the industry is such that it would appear that those who don't conceptualise wine in this way and who feel that Parker's power is not a totally benign influence have a hell of a long way to go still to redress the balance.

Edited January 29, 2003 by Tonyfinch (log)

[porkpa]

Tony,

The problem, if there is a problem is not Parker's. It is those who may choose to follow his opinions "blindly". I'm afraid I am one of those sheep who not always, but more often than not gives great credence to what he says. That doesn't mean that I regard his opinions as all knowing. It means(to me at least) that those opinions have generally guided me well in pursuit of pleasure from the fruit of the vine.

The bottom line I believe, is that Parker has helped a great deal more than he has hurt.

Porkpa