Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[Tonyfinch]

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

Porkpa, there are many who would disagree. But you're right in that probably not very many of them are wine consumers only.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Let's see. Graham Tigg is correct, although I can't see giving credit to the messenger for the boom in wine. As James Carville said, it's the economy stupid. All of those baby-boomers who became professionals and earned good wages needed something to do with their disposable income. Parker just organized one of the categories they could easily spend money in, in a way that made it easy for them to spend it. So he deserves credit for that. But it would have happened anyway without him, albeit maybe differently. But then Porkpa raises the issue of "blindly" and the reason for that is there is really no significant competition.

I think Tony's explanation of tables and statistics and how consumers like it made easy for them is correct but misses what really makes Parker popular. He asserts a loud and clear opinion. Whether it is through the numerical scores or the text, there is no doubt about where he stands regarding a wine. If you read other critics like Clive Coates, they are sort of wishy washy about many wines. That is my point here. His competition has not put forward a compelling argument that their opinion is sufficiently different then his, nor are they able to articlulate their differences in a clear way.

It makes no sense to me. I know so many knowledgable people in the wine industry who have a clearly stated opinion that is diametrically opposed to Parkers. Yet they are unable to, or are apprehensive about, taking the guy on head to head. It's such an easy thing to do as well. Yet it happens in private but never in public. Anybody who is going to take him on, has to start with a list of wines or regions he is wrong or is off about. God knows its quite a long list.

[Tonyfinch]

Well he's a pretty intimidating figure, isn't he? I mean he doesn't exactly invite debate. He doesn't say "well in my opinion that's a pretty good wine-92 out of a hundred I reckon, what do you think?"

His whole pitch is the anithesis of that. When he delivers that number it is a judgment from on high not to be questioned or discussed, at least with him. It's "Parker 92" and that's IT. In the world of wine he's a dictator not a debator.

This makes him pretty formidable for anyone to go up against. You'd have to be really really determined to take him on in order to assail the lofty fortress he's built for himself. And obviously he is tremendously knowledgeable so it would be a tall order. But yeah it would be fun if someone did it.

[Steve Plotnicki]

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

[porkpa]

Steve,

For the sake of my limited knowledge of wine, I would be curious to know which types and regions of wines and if possible which specific wines you believe that Parker is wrong about. Is it a question of some people liking vanilla vs others liking chocolate, or do you believe that he and/or his palate just leading people down the wrong path?

Porkpa

[Tonyfinch]

But it's really just part of his business plan. They are all assumed behaviors because they help to protect his position in the marketplace.

I understand that.But its a very successful business plan and a very strong position in the marketplace. You'd have to be equally, if not more, strong and confident to offer alternative advice and be able to back it up with the gravitas that Parker deploys. I'm not saying it can't be done, but it's a bit like a coup to overthrow a dictator. People mumble and moan and whisper in corridors and talk out of the side of their mouths but has anyone got the bottle to actually take him on?

[Steve Plotnicki]

He's completely out of whack in Burgundy. worse in red then white though. The wines he is good at are the big wines made by producers like Leroy and DRC. They are gigantic, massive, alcoholic wines that are meant to age for 25+ years. He completely misses the boat, and underscores, wines that are a more classic example of typical Burgundy and that have a drinking window of 15-25 years. Burgundy is a different style wine then other regions. Based on the Burgundy codification system, the key to Burgundys are the subtle nuances between vineyard sites. Mainstream Burgundy drinkers drink the wines to experience those nuances. They can tell a Gevry from a Nuit. And when the wines are big and massive, it muffles the terroir from coming through. This is why you hear people accuse Parker of liking and promoting an international style that is devoid of terroir. The best examples of that are his high scores for Ca. wines. They are void of terroir, loaded with overripe fruit and high in alcohol. In almost every region in the world, RP like wines made in this modern/international style and the traditionalists disagree with him. Another area of wine where is considered extremely weak are regions and varietals that offer lots of minerality to the wines and are not as focused on opulent fruit. So places like the Loire, Alsace, Germany his opinion isn't revered by those who drink wines from those regions.

Parker is a great resource for the new collector who has moved past the level of expertise they offer at the Wine Spectator. But anyone who spends time collecting, and who moves past drinking Claret/California Cabernet Sauvignon and Super Tuscans into drinking more nuanced varuetals and regions (and I don't mean that as a slight to those regions) finds out that Parker isn't necessarily the best resource. Not that he isn't a resource, but that there are better opinions out there. But it doesn't really matter to his readership because when they hear him say that the 2001 German wines are great, they will buy a case or two. Their relationship with those regions are superficial. But there are people who drink German wines as their primary region and they might buy 30 cases from the 2001 vintage. They need a greater level of detail and expertise then Parker offers. In fact, you will find that many of them know much more about the wines in the region then RP does.

[Craig Camp]

Steve - excellent comments on Parker and Burgundy. For those looking for a more ....uhhh enlightened look at Burgundy and other wines, may I suggest:

The Fine Wine Reveiw by Claude Kolm (finewinereview@attglobal.net )

The Vine by Clive Coates (www.clivecoates.com)

[marcus]

When Parker grades a wine, he doesn't just pull a number out of the air, he evaluates a number of defined attributes such as color, aroma, etc on a defined scale. There are also a number of points given for overall impression as well. I believe that this is all explained in his books. Although there is a significant level of subjectivity, there is also a good level of repeatablility and transparency. In addition, there is more to Parker than just his score, there are substantial tasting notes that he publishes, that describe his impressions. These notes are at least as important as the actual score for someone who wants to use Parker to help choose wines to purchase. Although Parker has a clear liking for wines that are highly extracted and "jammy", he appreciates other styles of wine as well and can score them highly. Chateau Palmer is one example, note his high marks for the 66 which is quite nuanced and austere and the 70, which though less austere is a beautiful wine, but not a fruit bomb by any means.

Noting Craig Camp's post which slipped in ahead of me here. I find Clive Coates completely impenetrable. His ratings, on the 20 point French school system scale, bear no relationship one way or another to my own palate. I shake my head in wonder.

Edited January 29, 2003 by marcus (log)

[Steve Plotnicki]

Craig - Actually Claude is a friend of mine and we are having lunch together next month. But the most in-depth information on Burgundy is to be found at Burhound, Allen Meadows quarterly publication which focuses on Burgundy exclusively.

Marcus - Those points are all true but I would submit to you that the only reason Parker rates the '66 Palmer highly is because it is a Bordeaux and it fits in a certain place in his organizational chart. For similary nuanced wines in other regions, even more obvious ones, he typically underscores them by 2-4 points. For example, I recently had the 1996 Meo-Camuzet Vosne-Romanee Brullees and the wine was shockingly good. The WA rates the wine at 91-93. And I believe if it was a Bordeaux it would ring in at around 95 points and possiby higher.

[Craig Camp]

I find Clive Coates completely impenetrable. His ratings, on the 20 point French school system scale, bear no relationship one way or another to my own palate. I shake my head in wonder.

I guess I am showing my age and never thought about problems with the 20 point scale. I spent years using this scale before Parker came the scene and changed everyone to the 50 point scale. I admit I still use the 20 point scale at massive tastings like Vinitaly as I find it very efficient.

I also find myself often in agreement with Coates scores. My training in Burgundy came from Becky Wasserman and I made many tasting trips with her there in the 80's. I still think her palate is as good as the come for choosing 'terroir' Burgundies. I think Coates has a similar palate and I find I relate to it well.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Coates, aside from his style which is too abstract for both my taste and then wine market in general, but not bad for graduates of Oxford and Cambridge, rates the negociants too highly and gives them too much lineage in his publications. I'm not sure why he focuses on them to the extent he does? But to read him, you would think that Jadot and Faiveley make the most important wines in the region. He also doesn't seem to spend enough times on smallerwineries that are popular with drinkers like Dujac or Mugnier etc.. So he is focused on the wrong market if you ask me. But speaking of Becky Wasserman, I recently recieved an email from her telling me she loves me (although we never met.) It was because of an online discussion with Rovani where I was hammering him for the poor job the WA does reveiwing Burgs. It was a classic, even if I have to say so myself. And one of her sons (I forget which one) is the roomate of a friend of mine.

[marcus]

I guess I am showing my age and never thought about problems with the 20 point scale. I spent years using this scale before Parker came the scene and changed everyone to the 50 point scale. I admit I still use the 20 point scale at massive tastings like Vinitaly as I find it very efficient.

The 20 point scale is really a 40 point scale because it uses half points.

My primary exposure to Coates is his Bordeaux book which I find useless.

Edited January 29, 2003 by marcus (log)

[Craig Camp]

But speaking of Becky Wasserman, I recently recieved an email from her telling me she loves me (although we never met.) It was because of an online discussion with Rovani where I was hammering him for the poor job the WA does reveiwing Burgs. It was a classic, even if I have to say so myself. And one of her sons (I forget which one) is the roomate of a friend of mine.

Peter Wasserman is in the wine trade with Vineyard Expressions in NYC. He has a great palate and knows Burgundy top to bottom (as you would expect!)

When and where was the thread you are refering to - on the Squires board? Can I still track it down there?

[Craig Camp]

I guess I am showing my age and never thought about problems with the 20 point scale. I spent years using this scale before Parker came the scene and changed everyone to the 50 point scale. I admit I still use the 20 point scale at massive tastings like Vinitaly as I find it very efficient.

The 20 point scale is really a 40 point scale because it uses half points.

My primary exposure to Coates is his Bordeaux book which I find useless.

Point well taken - for some reason (maybe just habit) I find it quicker and useful in jogging my memory to what I thought. I agree concerning Coates and Bordeaux - let's face it Parker is the leader on Bordeaux.

As far as Steve's point I agree he pays a lot of attentions to the shippers, but that is very important in the UK market. Gotta sell books you know.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Yes. It was a post of Rovani's about how nobody knows more about Burgundy then Parker. It was posted somewhere between Thanksgiving and the first 10 days of December. It was a major slugfest as you can imagine and the people who came to the WA's defense made their typically rude comments including numerous personal attacks. But I really nailed Pierre and he got stuck and couldn't get out of it. It was so bad that RP started a new thread trying to deflect the heat that was Rovani was getting because after we pointed out that they misscore Burgundy, people started to pile on. As an email I got from someone in the trade says;

Parker has established a set of rules that have served him well. One is to

set up the straw man: people who disagree with me are corrupt (or don't know anything), therefore anyone who disagrees with me is corrupt. Rovani knows how to use this and applied it in this instance......... Rovani didn't follow the rule and set up the initial ambiguity to give himself a way out, and you did an excellent job of cornering him.

I have to say, it was one of my finest moments on an Internet chat room. So much so that Becky sent me that email. But eventually Squires found a way to lock the thread under the guise of the repetitive nature of the posts. But I wouldn't be surprised if behind the scenes they were looking for a way to shut it down because it was damaging to them. In fact, Rovani exited the thread on a ploy saying something I said was insulting to him. But you will see it for what it is when you read it.

[Craig Camp]

Steve - do you remember the date of that thread?

[Craig Camp]

Steve - never mind I saw it in your other post.

[Tonyfinch]

Parker has established a set of rules that have served him well.  One is to

set up the straw man: people who disagree with me are corrupt (or don't know anything), therefore anyone who disagrees with me is corrupt.

Doesn't that "rule" strike people as breathtakingly outrageous? Anybody who disagrees with me is not just WRONG but CORRUPT. Can you think of one other critic in the field of food and wine that even begins to conceive of their subject in this way? Can you think of one other who is driven to stifle and kill debate and discussion, rather than welcome and encourage it?

I don't know about Parker the person. It might all be part of the game of running a business to him. But I've read enough about him to think that he really believes in his own infallibility and clearly he has developed a monstrous ego which is now out of control. I hope for his sake that he's heard of the word hubris because the only way for him to go from here is down.

[vmilor]

There is tremendous improvement in this discussion. Wavelenghts are approaching one another.

Do we all agree that taking him on will be a team effort? There are people who have gray hairs because of studying Germans, Loire, etc., so one needs a team to launch a new publication with individual decisionmaking (scores) in each region.

The beginning needs to be sensational. Legitimate questions raised by porkpa have to be addressed. Team members can study WA and pile up a list of where WA went wrong, positive or negative.

50 pointer is the standard, like it or not. There is no need to squabble over it.

Besides admonishing WA for judgmental errors the new publication needs a battle cry which rings true. How about proclaiming that Parker is promoting an international style and we need the best expression of terroir to maximize satisfaction?

Wine merchants should be natural allies. As things stand, they either play the game and become conveyor belts. Alternatively, they (most of them I know are passionate) speak out but this raises a trust issue on the part of their clientele. They may champion an alternative publication and recommend it.

[Craig Camp]

One for all - all for one. Count me in!

[Tonyfinch]

Hey-great idea. You two and Plotnicki can taste and score all the wines and I'll hoover up what you've left just to make sure that you've made no mistakes.

[Craig Camp]

Hey-great idea. You two and Plotnicki can taste and score all the wines and I'll hoover up what you've left just to make sure that you've made no mistakes.

Alright! it's a team already.

[vmilor]

Hey-great idea. You two and Plotnicki can taste and score all the wines and I'll hoover up what you've left just to make sure that you've made no mistakes.

What does" hoover up" mean Tony?

As to your proposal, it certainly is inappropriate. I pride myself for good judgment and you like it or not, my opinion is that, when it comes to judging wine you certainly have more knowledge and experience than I do. This is also a tragedy because those like you take refuge in a sort of romantic positon instead of confronting the guru. I see here some metaphor re. old Europe versus the new tyrant, but superior wisdom should not justify staying on the sidelines. The second best position of playing the game( even if you do not like the rules), i.e. establishing a hierarchy (but subject to caveats that one can state upfront)is preferable to adapting an elitist position.

[helenas]

From the depth of internet: a December, 2000, four-part Atlantic Monthly online feature, titled "The Million Dollar Nose"