Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate

[Brad Ballinger]

So my wife and I are having dinner hosted by friends. They have a pretty big cellar, and the two people most often consulted for what to stock it with are me and Robert Parker (not necessarily in that order). We frequently have dinner with this couple either in one of our homes or out at a restaurant. I always try to bring something different even though I know that "the oakier the better" typically applies to this couple. I'll get to the wines in a bit.

Usually, we all end up in the kitchen doing a group cooking thing. I spy the latest copy of Robert Parker's Wine Advocate on a table in the TV room next door and pick it up. It's the first time I've actually held the publication in my hand. My first reaction after a 5 second thumb through -- "How can he taste all this wine, keep it all straight, and write notes on all of them?" The man must have stamina that no one else can come close to touching. My second reaction -- "How can he or a reader really distinguish these notes from one another?" The point range in this issue was 85-96. I think he stopped publishing notes and ratings for wines that didn't reach the 85 point threshold, so really he just has a 15 point scale nowadays.

My third reaction (after looking through some notes and ratings in more detail) -- I'd be hard pressed to find a palate more different than mine. Now I should add a disclaimer here. This isn't meant to be a right v. wrong issue. It's just a "boy do we see things differently" issue.

Some examples. At least he acknowledges that Romana Clelia is making the best Fiano di Avellino today with her Colli di Lapio label. Then he gives it 87 points. So I have to figure the guy just doesn't like Fiano di Avellino, and he's perfectly entitled to his preferences. But when I see some other Campania whites that I like rated no higher than 87 and others I really don't like rated no lower than 91, I feel very glad I've never bought on his points. And I don't know if it is Parker rating Italy anymore or the newer guy (Tomasses?), but whatever, I'll just not look ever again.

We also don't see eye to eye on California. Perhaps another good thing. I stopped there. Again, this isn't a who has a better palate comparison. It is a "at least I know I can't calibrate to his -- unless it is in the opposite direction" comparison.

The wines (by the way, these are going to be more impressions than notes)...

2002 O. Leflaive St. Aubin, En Remilly Premier Cru. This was opened by our hosts. I couldn't beleive it. "Where's the Pride Viognier?" I asked. Turns out they likes a 95 O. Leflaive Meursault Premier Cru (I forget which one right now) that I had opened for them back in May, and they thought to try some other wines. This one was minerals, earth, and some great pear and apple notes. Clean finish. Moderate acidity. Had it with simply seared halibut cheeks.

2002 Inama Soave Classico. I brought this one. Kicks the acidity up a notch or two over the Leflaive. Shows more tropical flavors, and more steely minerality than earthy minerality. Sleeker, and a great salad wine.

1996 Peter Michael "Les Pavots," Napa Valley. After this was poured in the decanter all I could smell was vanilla and oak. After 1.5-2 hours in the decanter, when I poured it in my glass, what I could primarily smell was vanilla and oak. To be fair, some dark berry fruit was present. But overally, it was just too oaky for me. It didn't seem to come together as a total wine.

1998 M. Chapoutier "Les Becasses" Cote Rotie. When this one was poured into the decater at the same time as the Pavots, all I could smell was black olives and black pepper. 1.5-2 hours later when I poured it in my glass, what I could primarily smell was black olive and black pepper. To be fair, some peat, spice, and herbs were also present. Fairly tannic, but not in a way that shut out everything else. Spicy finish.

At the end of dinner, I had to ask about Wine Advocate. "So do you read the notes or look at the ratings?" I already knew the answer. For wines in the cellar that Parker has rated, he has all the points catalogued. Oh, well. We'll take it one dinner at a time.

[Echezeaux]

In visiting a California winery we were poured the first wine and it was accompanied by "Robert Parker rated this wine 90 points." I accepted the glass, swirled the wine and asked "Who the hell is Robert Parker?"

The ensemble laughed.

The next wine was poured and we were told "This wine got a 93 from Robert Parker."

I asked again "Who the hell is this Parker fellow and why should I care?"

The tasting room fellow explained that Parker is this wine guru and the most fussy palate in the world.

I explained that "Mr. Parker won't be dining at my house any time in the near future, so I don't really care what he thinks of the wines. I am here to taste your wines for myself and see if any of them appeals to me enough to actually want to pay you money for some bottles."

This totally shocked the fellow and the others in the tasting room.

Imagine! Someone having the idea that they can determine for themselves which wines are attractive enough without having to calculate a numerical score.

Of course, Mr. Parker has contributed some good things to the world of wine, but he has also contributed to winemakers around the globe attempting to create point-worthy wines. It's sad when you can't tell if a wine was grown in Tuscany, Napa, Bordeaux, Chile, South Africa, Argentina or Washington.

I've often felt the numerical score is more a personal reaction to a wine rather than a qualitative assessment.

There's also a big difference in wines for wine tastings and wines for drinking.

[docsconz]

Like his palate or hate it, one thing about Parker is that he is consistent. Brad, it sure sounds as if you could calibrate your palate against his. Don't ever buy his highly rated wines. I'm not sure that the converse is necessarily true, however. Nevertheless, his descriptions are generally accurate and they can be used to better effect to guide buying and drinking decisions than his numbers if your ultimate assessment disagrees with his.

I agree that Parker has been both a blessing and a curse to the wine world. He has probably ratcheted up interest in wine (at least in North America) probably more than any other single person. The downside, as has been pointed out, is that everyone, it seems is trying to craft wines specifically to please his palate, adversely effecting diversity.

[Mark Sommelier]

Brad,

Some points to make:

1)Mr. Parker claims to taste 100+ wines a day, 70 of them BEFORE LUNCH.

2)A score of 87 is not bad, it acutally means the wine is very good. It is true that he stopped publishing scores lower than 85 in the WA.

3)Even though scores in the 80's means that the wine is very good to great, every winemaker in the world who pays attention to him feels like a failure if the score is not above 90. Then you have the Parker groupies who only buy wines above 90 points.

I taste wine the same way Echezeaux described. If it appeals to me, I buy it. The salesmen give me re-prints from the WA and the WS which go directly into the garbage. Even my customers do not seem overly interested in what score the wine got.

Just curious. Does your friend also read Allan Meadows and Steve Tanzer?

[derricks]

When we were in the Loire on our honeymoon, we tasted at one winery where someone who was clearly a favored customer said (roughly), "This is their simple wine, this is their good wine, and this wine is for Robert Parker."

And when we were in the Piemonte (a little bit later on the same trip), we were at an enoteca in La Morra and the owner said (to us obviously American visitors) "Robert Parker likes this wine. He's a supertaster, a supertaster." We said we weren't sure we agreed with Robert Parker about Barolo, and to his credit he didn't miss a sales beat and said "Ah, you like classic Barolo." It's one of the smoothest and most deftly handled turnabouts I've seen.

But anyway, I love Echezeaux's approach. I constantly tell people that Robert Parker knows what he likes, and that's great, but if you're intent on following wine writers (and let's face it, most consumers don't get the chance to taste a lot of wines, so they have to look to someone), you should buy a few wines recommended from different wine writers, and find the one you most agree with. But then I tell them that no one can tell them what they like or don't like, and that's what they should base their decision on. I think I'll add the comment about Robert Parker not coming to dinner. A great line!

[Carolyn Tillie]

I've mentioned before (and I'm sure Dover Canyon will concur) that it is impossible to escape the impact that Parker scores have to the industry. We all wish his scores were not as important as they have become. However, there is one thing about Parker that gives hiim slightly more credence than Spectator, QRW, Decanter, Tanzer, and all the others: Parker does not accept any advertising whatsoever.

There is a constant inference that those wineries which receive high Spectator scores are also the ones that advertise consistently. You can't say that about Parker...

[Jaybert41]

Carolyn- That is the most significant point raised considering RP's scores versus anyone else's.

I work in the restaurant industry and I have seen firsthand some of the ploys that WS pulls with their Grand Awards; which leads me to only imagine what kind of preferences they can pay to certain wineries that in one way or another "pay" to them.

RP is indeed a blessing, and a curse. The wines that score highly often times become over priced and hard to find, but he also exposes new wines that gain a certain credibility from such an honest critic. Like it or not, I have not been tasting wine enough to compare my own to Parkers tastes but I do indeed buy wines on his word. Not his score alone mind you, but his impression and often times surprise like a "sleeper of the vintage" for instance is something that I would check out.

One main thing I like about his impact is that the reviews get right to the point (look at TWA for example and see just how plain it is), and he includes recommendations on optimal drinking windows. I can and ultimately will be able to figure those things out a little better for myself, but if I am going to drop $30+ on a bottle I have great interest in knowing that it may shut down at a certain point and show better at another.

I think that RP drinks from an enjoyment point of view and WS for example, drinks from a marketing and lifestyle point of view. Also the fact that TWA is sort of a grassroots type of newsletter shows that the intention is primarily about wine; advertising, status and salesmanship secondary.

[Florida Jim]

I explained that "Mr. Parker won't be dining at my house any time in the near future, so I don't really care what he thinks of the wines. I am here to taste your wines for myself and see if any of them appeals to me enough to actually want to pay you money for some bottles."

Although I started as a Parker-sheep, I have grown to this.

Ah, wasted youth . . .

Best, Jim

[ctgm]

Usually, we all end up in the kitchen doing a group cooking thing. I spy the latest copy of Robert Parker's Wine Advocate on a table in the TV room next door and pick it up. It's the first time I've actually held the publication in my hand. My first reaction after a 5 second thumb through -- "How can he taste all this wine, keep it all straight, and write notes on all of them?"

Well if you have access to his website, maybe you should look up something like Laurent Perrier NV. If you do not it gets 90 points and the tasting note is "This wine was recommended, but no tasting note was given." The taster is named as Robert Parker.

Not quite sure how to take this one and also the validity of the tasting notes attributed to RP in the WA

[SethG]

Isn't it possible for a person to take advantage of TWA as an overall listing of decent wines, since Parker doesn't list anything that he thinks is plonk? You don't have to get bogged down in whether a wine is worth 95 points instead of 87 points.

If you pore over his list for affordable wines, all of them probably rated in the high 80s, you'll find a bunch, right? This is a useful service, no?

He also provides a listing of his own ideas about "best buys" in TWA, right? Do these remain good buys after he identifies them as such?

[docsconz]

The biggest problem with TWA IMO is not the publication or Robert Parker himself. I believe he does a very good job at what he does whether or not one agrees with his specific palate. The biggest problem is the insistence of people to buy a 95 point wine over a 93 point wine just because.... Read the descriptions and then judge based upon your own preferences. Personally, I regret the homogenization of wine across different regions and varietals. I like a lot of the wines that parker likes, but not all the time and certainly not with all things. One of his strengths at least as comparing to my palate is with dessert wines. He is very good at identifying big, complex, well-balanced dessert wines.

[Rebel Rose]

I think it's refreshing that Parker likes big, robust wines. Few other wine writers appreciate the big styles. However, "le palate Parkair" does wield a lot of influence, as Carolyn pointed out, and those 93+ scores mean easy and instant sales of current and future vintages. However, it is also driving winemakers toward bigger, bigger, and funkier wines with questionable longevity.

More importantly to me, it's beginning to interfere with my love life. Saturday night I wore a new J. Marco blouse, made lime-Tequila shrimp, fired up the grill, and put candles on the table. I opened The Contrarian, and a bottle of our new Chequera Viognier. So what do we end up discussing? Whether or not to make a "Parker" wine.

The new WA arrived this week, and once again, our scores are mainly 87-88. We've always been 85 to 90 with Parker, and the writeups have always been great. We are always delighted by his reviews. However, this time we were envious. Our next door neighbor is getting scores in the 90's and rave reviews. (They also had Parker over for dinner . . . ) So, Dan points out, he can do this and this and this to the wine . . . In the end, we decided we are happy with our style. It's already big enough, Parker as well as other reviewers like our style, we have happy customers, and we would lose our focus on vineyard presence if we make what we feel would be overstyled wines.

But oh, the allure.

And the evening had a happy ending.

[Rieslingfan]

A couple of things:

1) Steve Tanzer does not accept advertising in the IWC. So on that score he is the same as Parker. For me, Tanzer is a more reliable indicator (if I can't taste the wine for myself). If I want to buy a wine for my dad I read Parker.

2) Points rule the wine world right now. When the 2001 Germans came out I had some notice of a WS 97 point rated wine. I spied the wine on the shelves of a local retailer (with no notice of the "great" score). I mentioned the score to the manager & he instantly took the bottles off the shelf. They re-appeared some time later with a new price! I have not shopped there since.

3) At a dinner this past spring I opened a bottle of 1998 Strub Niersteiner Paterberg Riesling Spatlese***. The guy next to me asked what score it had received from Parker. I responded that Parker did not review German wine in the '98 vintage. His response (verbatim): "Then why did you buy it?"

A good friend reminded me of a quote from a Monty Python movie that really rings true: "Yes! We must think for ourselves! Tell us more!"

[Carolyn Tillie]

Of note to all this... Parker's scores came out last week and for the first time, he gave points to our winemaker's private label of two vineyard-specific Syrahs (2002 Culler Syrah Napa Valley - 221 cases made and 2002 Culler Syrah Sonoma Coast, Griffin Vineyard - 173 cases made; 91 and 93 points respectively).

Now Karen Culler is a small winemaker. She makes a few hundred cases of her wine and she already has a decent mailing list and a following of devoted Syrah drinkers. I have a standing order with her that I will buy three bottles of anything she puts out but I still routinely sent in my faxed order on Monday as I had received her release letter and order form over the weekend. I wish I could afford more but I'm a small-time wine consumer, rarely buying more than 6 bottles of any wine due to expense.

Seems with the Parker points, Karen's fax machine actually broke over the weekend and her phone rang off the hook as she scrambled to fix her fax machine. When I spoke with her on Monday, she confirmed my order AND was curious at the sales that she missed because of the broken fax. If I found out how quickly she sells out, I'll let you know.

Parker has yet to rate our Ladera wine so if I hear anything on that account, I'll certainly report back! The WS points that came out last week have more than overwhelmed me here at work - I'd hate to think what Parker scores would do!

[Craig Camp]

In the end, we decided we are happy with our style. It's already big enough

That's the most beautful thing I have read in a long time.

[docsconz]

The worst thing is for a wine one already knows and loves to get a high score from Parker or the WS. I don't think the other raters have quite as much clout yet.

[Craig Camp]

If I want to buy a wine for my dad I read Parker.

This is the great thing about Parker - he is amazingly consistent. When he gives a wine 88 points or 93 points I know exactly what he means. In this sense he is very reliable and helpful. You can really learn what his reviews mean and then adjust your buying accordingly.

I tend to go for his 88's and 89's (the points not the vintages.)

[Rieslingfan]

My favorite wine in the whole wide world is Donnhoff Niederhauser Hermannshohle Riesling Spatlese. Ever since the 2001 rating from the Wine Advocate (98) the price has about doubled & availability has been cut by 90%. The stuff just flies out of the shops now.

I'm really happy for Helmut Donnhoff, as he is a great guy & a fantastic winemaker, but I miss my favorite wine.

[mtkr]

My problem with Parker is that he has propogated an increase in oaky white wines. I guess the winemakers feel that's what he likes, so that's how they'll get points. Its gotten so that I'm very reluctant to even try California whites anymore.

Mary

[KatieLoeb]

but he has also contributed to winemakers around the globe attempting to create point-worthy wines

I'd liken this to the world of pedigreed cat breeding. That which is rewarded is imitated until what is now called a Siamese cat looks anorectic and sickly and a purebred Persian cat looks so much like it's been whacked in the face with a garden shovel that it has congenitally blocked tear ducts and can't breathe. It is a grossly inbred and deformed creature. Yet this is what is winning the blue ribbons at shows.

Not so unlike wines with HUGE alcohol content and paint stripping tannins but absolutely no subtlety or balance being "rewarded" with high scores. As if you could quantify something as subjective as taste...

[Craig Camp]

Let's face some facts:

Most American consumers like the taste of oak in their wines. They like these heavy, sweet flavors more than tart wines with high acidity. They also like a bit of residual sugar.

Most American wine producers love the taste of oak in their wines. They also like the taste of a little residual sugar.

Most American wine retailers have abdicated from their position as a wine merchant and just regurgitate scores to sell wine instead of making their own selections. (importers and restaurants are guilty here too)

Because Robert Parker also scores wines highly that have plenty of oak and fruit does not mean the entire trend is his fault. Both producers and consumers, in general, like the same thing he does. It's not his fault that most consumers agree with him. It is not his fault that retailers don't have the guts to promote their own selections.

Robert Parker has never claimed to do anything else than write about his personal preferences and communicate those preferences to his subscribers. In this regard he does an extraordinary job. To blame him for the weaknesses of the rest of the market is not reasonable.

Robert Parker should be respected for his discipline and consistency. If there are problems there are others to blame: including ourselves.

[Brad Ballinger]

2)A score of 87 is not bad, it acutally means the wine is very good. It is true that he stopped publishing scores lower than 85 in the WA.

3)Even though scores in the 80's means that the wine is very good to great, every winemaker in the world who pays attention to him feels like a failure if the score is not above 90. Then you have the Parker groupies who only buy wines above 90 points.

Just curious. Does your friend also read Allan Meadows and Steve Tanzer?

It's been about 24 hours since I posted this. I've certainly found a way to get people gabbing -- mention Parker.

But to respond to Mark...

I know 87 "doesn't suck." But one could argue it's akin to a "3" since anything below 85 is a "0." Okay, I'm being a bit facetious. But most people would look at that 87 and then look at a 90 for Caggiano or Feudi and just follow the numbers. I suppose this is good because it means more Colli di Lapio for me, however.

My friend only reads Parker. But "reads" may be a stretch.

For a large number of the rest of the comments...

Yes, he is amazingly consistent, which is a good thing. One can consistently calibrate to his palate either in parallel or in converse.

One question (or rather an assumption) I'd like clarity around. I believe he buys the wines he tastes. Am I right? If so, I gotta go into that business. Imagine the tax write off.

[clifford]

1)Mr. Parker claims to taste 100+ wines a day, 70 of them BEFORE LUNCH.

Some years back, I used to know a waiter, Brian, that worked at a restaurant in Sparks, MD called the Milton Inn. Parker lives about two miles away, and frequently held massive tastings in the restaurant. I believe now he holds the tastings at the Oregon Grill, maybe even Charleston's in downtown Baltimore.

Brian was Parker's personal waiter, and served all of his tastings. Brian had hundreds of Parker's Reidel tasting glasses in his garage that he brought to the restaurant for each luncheon. Parker would joke that Brian was the only person in the world (save Florida Jim )that drank more wine than he did.

Now, all of the other waiters in the restaurant kind of kept their distance from Parker's room, as if it was the wine equivalent of the Manhattan project. But they were always excited on the weeks when Parker would come in because

1) they were going to learn something (through Brian) and

2) there was going to be shitloads of wine to drink when he left.

Brian used to be in awe of Parker's palate, as the process was pretty much the same every time.

Food was always present and very simple: cheese, bread, grilled meats, etc.

Two bottles of each wine were delivered, to insure against a corked bottle. This would often times amount to more than 14 cases of wine. The supplier would organize the wines in flights for Parker to taste, and Brian would set it up.

According to Brian, Parker would taste through all of the flights once, and then go back a second time. Occasionally he would taste a wine a third time, and that would be that.

Brian claimed that, if he handed a glass to Parker at the end of the event, he could identify it immediately, every time. And as he plowed through the dozens upon dozens of wine, there was no discussion and NO NOTES!

A month later, it would all appear in the Advocate

[Really Nice!]

...Then he gives it 87 points.  So I have to figure the guy just doesn't like Fiano di Avellino, and he's perfectly entitled to his preferences.  But when I see some other Campania whites that I like rated no higher than 87 and others I really don't like rated no lower than 91, I feel very glad I've never bought on his points...

The point system has always given me a good laugh. Europeans really wouldn't drink anything under 14 (using their 20-point system), and American reviewers wouldn't touch anything under 80. Can anyone really pinpoint the difference between a 15 or 15.5, or an 87 and an 88, respectively?

It's all subjective, so why not go with a subjective rating system? So, I've recently adapted the TIVO rating system for judging my wines.*

1 thumb up Okay, a good weekday wine.

2 thumbs up Good, something to share with a friend once or twice a month.

3 thumbs up Mine, mine, mine! Something to drink once every three or four months.

1 thumb down Not bad, but drink only if desparate, or it's on sale.

2 thumbs down Make a note not to buy again.

3 thumbs down Pretend to have a headache and can't drink.

* This is much like the one-two-three-glass Gambero Rosso rating system for Italian wines; probably the most common-sense review system implemented in the world.

[Carolyn Tillie]

Clifford, that was a great story. Thanks for sharing!