Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-Gee you're a bitter man. There is no reason to characterize Parker as pulling the wool over anyone's eyes. I don't see where you have any evidence that that is what he is trying to do? All he does is strongly voice his opinion. You can either agree with him, or disagree. Why you need to bring in all of these side issues and makes baseless accusations that he costs people their livelihoods, it doesn't make much sense to me. In fact, it never did.

You have trotted out some of the typical straw man arguments about Parker. "I don't like him because of the effect he has had on others or wine in general." It reminds me of someone on a wine board who once said that he "hated" Parker because of what Parker "did to Chateau Ausone." That really confused us because we didn't know Parker worked there.

I'm going to quote our resident board philosopher here, Fatus Guyus Shawus and say, yes, there is a physical order to the world and one of the things that is ordered are wines. And I have to tell you that all Parker did was point out what he thought the order was. And if he is wrong, and the punters don't know it, and he is fooling everyone, don't blame him or the punters. Blame the people who think he is wrong for not doing anything about it and pointing out the proper order. You see the fault lies with you, not in the, oops that's Shakespere not Plotnicki, not with Parker or anybody else.

[Tony Finch]

I'm certainly not going to get into another debate about whether there's a "natural order" when it comes to food,wine etc.We had all that over on the other thread.What it boiled down to as I recall was you and others saying that some cuisines etc. were better than others "because they were".

But I do agree with you about one thing.I don't blame Parker himself for the overwhelming popularity of his scoring "system".And I don't doubt for a minute that Parker himself believes in it. I do blame the gullibility of a public who wantto believe that one man can reduce wine down to a set of scores and rank order them in fiftieths.Its that  so manypeople believe that a).its possible and b) desireable to conceptualise wine in this way or even the world in this way that I find depressing.  

But hey what do I care. a friend's coming to dinner and I've just opened a bottle of Cos d'Estournel '86 (Parker  95 pts) so I'm OK.(smells great by the way).

[Ron Johnson]

Tony, it sounds to me like your gripe is with John Q. Public, not Robert parker, Jr.

Secondly, I have yet to have any single person prove to me that Parker is incapable of reducing wine to a set of scores and ranking them.  Why can't he?  On the otherhand,  I have repeatedly proven to myself that I often do not agree with his ranking, but we have discussed that already.

[Tony Finch]

Ron,since yours and Steve's arguments force me to examine why I feel so strongly about it I'll say this.Once you start believing you can validly rank order all wines then why NOT all music and literature and art and drama and so on. Ultimately why NOT people.?Why not races and religions ? I know that's spinning off from Parker but its that way of conceptualising the world that I object to.

There's only one syllable's difference between Wine Spectator and Wine Dictator.

[Steve Klc]

Tony--do you think it is possible to rank all performances of a specific opera available on CD?

[tommy]

Quote: from Tony Finch on 2:20 pm on Feb. 8, 2002

There's only one syllable's difference between Wine Spectator and Wine Dictator.

hmmm.  i'll have to give that one some thought! ;)

i rather like the points system.  makes me feel like one of the crowd.  kinda like a warm and comfortable flock of sheep.

[Ron Johnson]

Tony: why not rank automobiles, skis, vaccum cleaners, running shoes.  Whoops, they already do that.

Its also done with movies (thumbs up/down) and food (3 out of four stars).  My public radio station also ranked the best songs of the 20th century.

Why is it more offensive when Parker does it, than say Consumer Reports?  Is it because its wine?  I don't buy it.  Just because you don't agree with the manner in which someone ranks wine, you shouldn't begrude him his right to rank it in the first place.  It just so happens that Parker is the first to be so consistent and accurate in his attempt so he has gained the largest following.  I like the fact Parker does what he does.  When I see a Parker shelf talker taped to the wine bin and I see the score of 93 and the accompanying blurb of descriptors I can generally rest assured that it is not a wine for me.  However, it may prove quite helpful for another shopper.

[tommy]

Quote: from ron johnson on 2:44 pm on Feb. 8, 2002

When I see a Parker shelf talker taped to the wine bin and I see the score of 93 and the accompanying blurb of descriptors I can generally rest assured that it is not a wine for me.  However, it may prove quite helpful for another shopper.

in essence, it proves quite helpful to you as well.  interesting how that works!

[Ron Johnson]

yeah, what Tommy said.  Thats what I meant.  He's like smart and stuff like that.

[Steve Klc]

Hey Ron--Consumer Reports just did their own evaluation and ranking of wine--perhaps we should compare and contrast with Parker?

[Ron Johnson]

LOL, you are kidding me?  Can you post a link to that?  I would LOVE to see how Consumer Reports ranked their wine.  I wonder if one of the criteria was how badly it would stain your carpeting if spilled?

[tommy]

Quote: from ron johnson on 3:07 pm on Feb. 8, 2002

I would LOVE to see how Consumer Reports ranked their wine.  

they clobbered most for poor warranties.  and apparently customer support for the 1982 Château Lafite-Rothschild is just completely useless.  you'd better hope that one don't break down, because the availability of replacement parts is next to nil!

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-I took the liberty to copy almost all of the accusations you have lodged against Parker and I am going to paste them here. Reading them together is quite telling.

“Parker's 50 point system attempts to foist on us a degree of scientific exactitude in wine scoring  which is as false as it is futile.”

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

“but once pseudo scientific  scores as bestowed by one man become THE overriding indicator of quality we are all lost.”

“I'm sorry but Parker IS wrong.Wrong in his concept that every single wine must and can be judged as better,worse or the same as every other wine”

“His scoring system posits a level of exactitude in judgment that deliberately blurs the distinction between opinion and fact.”

“I would contend that anyone who has had conferred upon them the power to be "devastating" to anyone who makes good wine(although not in his lordship's "style") cannot help BUT be an egomaniac”

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

“His system is bogus and his power is dangerous. He is pulling the wool over too many people's eyes and more people need to stand up and say so”

It seems to me that your complaints are all about, either his system of scoring, what he proclaims that he is able to do, or his power in the industry. 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. I mean if he does judge them properly, and I'm not saying he does or doesn't, his system wouldn't be bogus. And he would be able to do whatever it is he might be proclaiming, and he wouldn't have too much power either. So I fail to see how your arguments stand when you haven't offered any evidence that Parker's palate isn't qualified to do any and all of those things?

To me, the substance of the argument is everything. A number of years ago, Parker scored 1995 Rostaing Cote Blonde a 95 and it turns out the wine is looking like a stinker. Now that's a reason to be unhappy with him. But when you need to reach into his marketplace effect in order to find a way to criticize him, you just look like one more guy who has an ax to grind because somebody is super-successful at their vocation.

[Tony Finch]

No-one person in the world of skiis and vacuum cleaners wields anything like as as much influence as Parker does in the world of wine. These products don't have gurus in this way.

[tommy]

Quote: from Tony Finch on 3:51 pm on Feb. 8, 2002

These products don't have gurus in this way.

a-HA!!  i've found my niche.  vacuum cleaners.  soon, i will control all aspects of floor cleaning.  my influence will reach far and wide.  [insert evil laugh]

[Ron Johnson]

Plotnicki: you would have been one helluva of a litigator.

Tony:  I really don't want to argue about how much influence Consumer Reports has in the world of home appliances, especially now that Tommy is apparently getting into the business.

[Steve Plotnicki]

Ron-Thanks. As I'm sure is the same for you, between Robin's, Mark's and Brad's board, I've seen every single one of these arguments before. I should write a book called "Poor Internet Arguments." But then who would we all have to gang up on? :~). At least Tony's drinking an '86 Cos tonight, even if it is at least 10 years before its time.

[robert brown]

What about Ron Popeil in the world of rotisseries?

[Guest Tony Finch]

The difference between vaccuum cleaners etc. and wine is that,unless you have some bizarre reason for wishing otherwise,we all want vacuum cleaners to do exactly the same thing.We just want to know which one does it best.

Unless your sole reason for drinking wine is to get drunk( in which case any one will do) we drink wine for a variety of purposes on a variety of occasions and to serve a variety of needs.That is why it is much more akin to,say music.

Steve K's questionabout rank ordering all the versions of ,say , an opera is a valid one. It's a fun game to play if your into it but I doubt whether you would couch your rankings on a scale from 0 to 50,or 50 to a 100. This is because one couldn't overlook the reality that in any one opera CD good and bad can co-exist. The leading soprano may be worth 90 points but the tenor only 78. The strings may get 93,but that brass! Only 67. The task would become so convoluted as to render any overall final score meaningless ..Ultimately all you could meaningfully say is "I like this version better than that version because of x,y and z"

Numbers don't leave any room for opinion.Numbers denote facts.When Parker tells you that a wine "is" 89 points (note that "is") he is NOT proffering an opinion.He is TELLING you what number that wine "is".

Obviously no-one HAS to listen to him.But millions do and admittedly its not hard to see why.People want to be TOLD. I for one protest,but since I would appear to be in a minority of one on this thread I'm beginning to feel like King Canut,with the tide washing in all around me.I'd better retreat to dry land before I drown.

[robert brown]

Tony, It (the use of points) is also an example of "trying to say everything and ending up saying nothing."

[Steve Klc]

Tony--thanks for picking up on my "opera-on-cd-ranking" analogy. I do see that exercise not only as possible, but valid and helpful.  There are lots of buyers guides to cd's, right?  I wonder if exploring it a bit might help ferret out--in a dispassionate way--what the real issues for you are here regarding Parker.  You have an expert who listens to all currently available recorded versions of an opera--live and studio.

Why he does it is not an issue, is it?

Our critic fleshes that assessment out by comparing how the recorded version captured the experience live, reflects on historical precedent, trends, talent, technical qualities, reverance, whatever.  He'd have to weigh and balance all those factors you mentioned--not the least of which would be the vocal strength and lyrical ability of the soloists, the style of direction, etc.  How the cd sounds--because all the talent in the world lined up behind a microphone is wasted if the transfer is not at a high level.

Good and bad most certainly co-exists on individual cd's--and is weighted accordingly.  Those with less good are assigned a lower ranking or score in some way to quantify the relative success, the total experience of each performance

Our critic, after a while, establishes a criteria--his criteria--for making these assessments--to which one is free to accept, reject, debate or disagree with--but a criteria to which that critic nonetheless adheres to in assigning a ranking--and regardless of the numerical ranking system employed--you still end up with an assessment, a personal ranking based on a score--of the merits of all of the performances, relative to that critic and that criteria, right?

Lots of other critics do the same thing--in their own way--and buyers in stores sometimes turn to the critics for purchasing advice.  (I know I have--I have about 300 opera cd's including at least 10 different versions of my favorite Mozart operas.  But that's beside the point.)

I'm not going to go on anymore--but how is this effort any different than what Parker does with wine?

All the other concerns about his power, compensation, influence, criteria, relevance, usefulness, bias et al are just that, concerns, aren't they?  Issues to be debated and dissected and disagreed with--sometimes vehemently.  But the exercise itself that Parker has undertaken is valid, don't you think?

If so, then it's the external reaction to the man, to the exercise, that is the problem.

[Steve Plotnicki]

"Numbers don't leave any room for opinion. numbers denote facts.When Parker tells you that a wine "is" 89 points (note that "is") he is NOT proffering an opinion.He is TELLING you what number that wine "is"."

Tony- That's a load of bull. You made that up so you would have a basis to criticize him. Where does it say that numbers denote facts? It's just a straw man argument you have created so you can knock it down. All a numerical scoring system does is offer a simple and clear way of communicating information to people. And you know what, most people agree with him and like the system. But even if it is a poor way to communicate, you still haven't shown a connection between using a system that is flawed, and being wrong about how you judge wines? Tell me where the connection is?. And before you say the system couldn't possibly work, that isn't enough evidence for me. Show me HOW the system doesn't work.

You know the proof is on his side. On one hand I see forty thousand people who subscribe to his newsletter and buy into the system. On the other hand there is you (and some others like you), who haven't offered a single example of where he has gone wrong. Just complaints of his power and affect.

If you were looking to criticize Parker, there is plenty of stuff to criticize him about on the merits. I personally think he overrates second and third tier clarets because he like wines from Bordeaux more than other regions. But if you are going to insist on making straw man arguments, making assertions about what he does, or what he means to the public, or what effects he has, just so you can knock them down, that isn't fair criticism. It's just convenient for you to do it that way because you obviously WANT TO criticize him.

[Tonyfinch]

Steve K.,I think my objections to the system boil down to the deliberate blurring of the distinction between opinion and fact.Most rating systems,be they about wine or opera or whatever don't have a pseudo-scientific basis which a 50 point scale confers.When a reviewer awards 3 stars out of 5 or whatever there is no real attempt to disguise the fact that this is anything other than an opinion,and a rough and ready guide to quality.I think Parker's scale is an attempt to create a factual hierarchy which relies for its credibility on the highly questionable fact that the expertise to do it is so refined and skillful that 99% of the public (Steve P. excepted of course) will never be in a position to readily disagree.

Steve P,my views have nothing to with bitterness and envy.I have no vested interest whatsoever in the food or wine world and I do not earn a living from it.I am a punter pure and simple and a piss artist who takes a bit of interest in what he drinks.But I have got a fine Jewish nose for bullshit detection and Parker's scoring system reeks of it to me

And by the way Parker thinks the Cos is drinking now. And since he is "right" you must be "wrong".(Actually maybe you were both right and wrong,but I get the impression that's a road you don't feel very comfortable going down).

[Steve Plotnicki]

Tony-Jews shouldn't be named Finch, they should be named Plotnicki :). But I am giving up because you have failed to answer any of the questions I put forth. You just keep repeating how his scoring system is bull***t, but you offer no evidence that his palate isn't good enough to operate that system.

If I knew nothing of wine, and I read your arguments, I would think that Parker's opinion must be right as the rain that falls on an overcast day. Because clearly despite all of my requests that you offer some evidence that he doesn't do his job properly, or that his recommendations are off, you have failed to offer any.

[Tonyfinch]

How my family name came to be changed from Solomon to Finch is a long story-and probably more interesting than this discussion.

You keep insisting that the only thing that matters is "evidence" that Parker's palate "right" or "wrong" and that no other criticisms are legitimate.

It is an unanswerable question. What "evidence" COULD there be? If I said the '86 Cos is not a 95 point wine but a 91 point wine you could say "No it isn't!" What "evidence" could I produce to persuade/convince you otherwise?

Also you appear to think that you are some kind of arbiter on what does/doesn't constitute legitimate concerns .

Why is it not legitimate to question the desireability of Parker's power in the industry?

Why is it not legitimate to question the validity of his 50-100 point system?

Why is it not legitimate to desireability of quantifying all wine in numerical rank order?

Why is it not legitimate to ask whether we should be looking at matters of taste in terms of hierarchies.

I think these are all important matters that should be discussed.

I don't disrespect you for defending Parker but I do disrespect you for sneering at my  points("I should compile a book called Poor Internet  Arguments") and for persistently suggesting that they are motivated by bitterness,envy and that I am someone with "an axe to grind".

Having said that,I don't take any of this TOO seriously and I'm looking forward to raising a glass with you(although it probably won't be Parker rated) on Wednesday.