The Emperor of Wine, by Elin McCoy

[Rebel Rose]

The Emperor of Wine : The Rise of Robert M. Parker, Jr. and the Reign of American Taste

by Elin McCoy, June 2005

Is this a well-written, balanced biography? Or yet another pretty coffee table enshrinement of an American idol? Is Parker still a humble farm boy whose success overran the world like hippie love and alfalfa sprouts? Or has his success created a cult wine empire and a marketing hierarchy?

Please post reviews of the book here.

Please post comments on the Parker Phenomenon in

Robert Parker and the Wine Advocate: Is he the Prince of Points?

[jbonne]

my review and interview with McCoy, published last week.

McCoy not only defines Parker’s big-man role, she demonstrates how the wine world continues to bristle about it. She lists entire categories of wine that Parker has little interest in: New Zealand sauvignon blancs, fresh Loire reds. Wine luminaries such as importer Joe Dressner step forward — a bit hesitantly — to poke back at Parker: “It’s as if a theater critic only liked Shakespeare. He shouldn’t mistake his predilections for objectivity.” 

Parker’s biggest shortfall, in her view (and, again, mine) is that his tastes gravitate toward wines most of us can’t afford (and certainly not once he awards them 90 points or more). His consumer-advocate soul now plays in a rich man’s realm; McCoy estimates his annual income well over $1 million.

saw Elin at IPNC this weekend, where she sat on a panel with Pierre Rovani. it was civilized on balance, though after he audaciously described an Au Bon Climat wine as "not a Rovani wine," she retorted, "the one thing we can certainly say is that it may not be a Rovani wine, but it is a Clendenen wine." (Jim Clendenen was in the audience at the time.)

Parker fans have not been very happy of the book, and RP himself has ranged from dismissive to silent, mostly the latter.

i think Elin did a great research job, and the book tells a solid, interesting narrative -- and puts Parker's work in a historical context. in typical Rorschach fashion, i've heard various people say that she either trashes or lionizes RP. in truth, it's a remarkably clear-eyed assessment.

[JohnL]

I enjoyed the review.

I also enjoyed the McCoy book. I do not think it was biased for or against parker which is a good thing for a bio.

I do find it amusing when people constantly harp on Parker's preferences (big wines etc).

Rarely do any of Parker's critics offer any specifics.

For eg--Parker has recommended hundreds (if not thousands) of wines that are decidedly not "big huge fruit bombs".

His "lack of interest" in some areas like New Zealand and Loire Reds etc is probably due to the fact that he is getting older and wants to focus on wines he has a personal taste for. The fact is Parker reviewed many Loire Reds and New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs and turned a lot of people on to those wines. It is also a fact that these wines are not among the most "interesting" wines out there today. (that does not mean they are not good enjoyable etc--it simply means Parker does not have to review them any longer. Far different than the implication that Parker 'does not like them" or views them as inferior.

[jbonne]

It is also a fact that these wines are not among the most "interesting" wines out there today. (that does not mean they are not good enjoyable etc--it simply means Parker does not have to review them any longer. Far different than the implication that Parker 'does not like them" or views them as inferior.

←

i would love to hear more justification for "not among the most 'interesting' wines out there today." give me a mid-grade Sancerre any day over most RP-style wines.

[JohnL]

Well first tell me what exactly is a Robert Parker styled wine.

also--I happen to enjoy Red Sancerre but Red Sancerre's are decidedly not the most interesting reds around today. They are very nice enjoyable wines. always have been.

My point was simply that Parker--wherever he is at these days --no longer feels he needs to review the entire world of wine and wants to write about what he wants to write about.

Also--what exactly was Ms McCoy's point in noting the wines Parker "has little interest in"?

[Rebel Rose]

John, for those of us who have not read the book yet, can you quote a brief passage from the part that refers to wines Parker has no interest in, or that he finds are not generally interesting to the public. That way we can discuss the author's comments, as opposed to getting confused over our members' assessments of these wines.

[JohnL]

Good point--I was replying to a quote from jbonne's review-he includes it in his post above.

"She (McCoy) lists entire categories of wine that Parker has little interest in: New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs, fresh Loire Reds..."

My point (I think) --I do not know what this means. My take on it is Parker is no longer reviewing the huge number of wines he once did and is focusing on areas of his interest at this point in time. Nothing more nothing less.

[Phil Ward]

Having almost completed the book and having been working in ther wine business since 1985, I find this book to be a very well written history of RP and also the trajectory of American/CA/OR/WA wines on the international stage. Certainly RP/ Pope Parker has had a huge affect on the wine world. Elin does a fine job of being factual and I think pretty honest in this book.

Phil

[Brad Ballinger]

It is also a fact that these wines are not among the most "interesting" wines out there today. (that does not mean they are not good enjoyable etc--it simply means Parker does not have to review them any longer. Far different than the implication that Parker 'does not like them" or views them as inferior.

←

i would love to hear more justification for "not among the most 'interesting' wines out there today." give me a mid-grade Sancerre any day over most RP-style wines.

←

Well first tell me what exactly is a Robert Parker styled wine.

also--I happen to enjoy Red Sancerre but Red Sancerre's are decidedly not the most interesting reds around today. They are very nice enjoyable wines. always have been.

My point was simply that Parker--wherever he is at these days --no longer feels he needs to review the entire world of wine and wants to write about what he wants to write about.

Also--what exactly was Ms McCoy's point in noting the wines Parker "has little interest in"?

←

A couple of responses here.

1) It's merely opinion that the wines on Parker's B-list are "not interesting." My opinion, FWIW, is that many Loire reds are wonderfully interesting -- and not just Sancerre Rouge. Chinon and Bourgueil wines are wonderfully fragrant, lively in acidity, and terrific with a wide variey of food (similar to well-made Beaujolais). What I find personally not interesting whatsoever are many Parkerized wines. But that's just my opinion.

2) McCoy is fully within her right and her responsbility to the reader to point out the types of wine Arpy is both interested in and not interested in. If I'm going to read a critic's review/notes of a wine, I certainly want to know his or her biases.

[JohnL]

The confusion here is a mix or what is in McCoy's book and jbonne's piece.

In McCoy's book the passage:

"Once he (Joe Dressner) he'd regularly shown his wines to the critic, but one of his specialities had become wines from the Loire valley, especially the kind of savory reds with acidity that Parker didn't like."

Joe Dressner is an importer of Loire valley wines. (he is also a very funny and astute fellow). In the passage it is not clear if the opinion that Parker doesn't like these reds is from Dressner or McCoy or both.

I have never seen anything in Parker's reviews or writings that indicates he does not like these reds. In fact, he has rated soem highly. The Loire section in Parker's last buying guide offers IMOP a very accurate assessment of the Loire and its wines.

He has eight pages of discussion dedicated to the Loire--

From Parker's Wine Buyer's Guide (sixth edition):

"The wines of the Loire Valley....have the combination of quality and value that merits considerable attention from consumers."

"...the Loire's reds can be found in a wide variety of styles, from carbonic maceration (Beaujolais like) wines meant for immediate consumption to ageworthy, austere, yet serious cabernets."

So how is it that anyone can state that parker does not appreciate these wines?

The problem lies in the fact that Parker does not review Loire wines in depth that often. There are not a lot of "scores" or reviews. There are reasons for this we could speculate about (and debate).

Mr Dressner has a vested interest in having Parker taste and score his wines. In McCoy's book he states that "I couldn't grow big time without Parker's benediction."

I submit that the fact that Parker does not review a lot of Loire Reds is a prime source of Mr Dressner's opinion that "Parker doesn't like these wines."

It also points up my belief that a lot of people take unsupported conventional wisdom and judge Parker--He doesn't like this or that.

--Parker is trying to cover an expanding wine world and he can no longer physically devote tasting time and travel to every important wine region. He has taken on help--Mr Rovani etc who provides notes and scores for the Wine Advocate. Ms McCoy makes this clear in her book. The assumption that because Parker no longer reviews in depth certain areas of the world thus he is not "interested" in or does not find the wines "interesting" is a leap I do not find logical.

It is true-as Ms McCoy notes--that Parker has a particularly strong interest in the Rhone and california (at the moment) and Bordeaux and Australia etc --this is par for the course. I recall when Parker championed Alsace for eg.

Finally, the comments by jbonne that Ms McCoy bleives that Parkers "biggest shortfall" is that his (Parker's) tastes have gravitated toward wines most of us can't afford. and "his (Parker's) consumer advocate soul plays in a rich man's realm coupled with Ms McCoy's statement that Parker makes over a million dollars a year are indicative of the petty vindictiveness a lot of Parker's detractors have.

I can not believe that McCoy feels this way--there is nothing in her book to support this belief.

And--there is nothing in any of Parker's reviews to support it either. Aside from the fact that high scoring wines may include a lot of expensive wines--First growth Bordeaux, Garnbd Cru Burgundy, Cal boutique wines etc are expensive!

I offer from the June issue of The Wine Advocate the following:

Recommended New Releases fropm Spain

(including nearly 300 sensational bargains for $20 or less)

Again--lots of criticism feeding the conventional wisdom--little (or no) factual support.

[Rebel Rose]

Finally, the comments by jbonne that Ms McCoy bleives that Parkers "biggest shortfall" is that his (Parker's) tastes have gravitated toward wines most of us can't afford. and "his (Parker's) consumer advocate soul plays in a rich man's realm coupled with Ms McCoy's statement that Parker makes over a million dollars a year are indicative of the petty vindictiveness a lot of Parker's detractors have.

I can not believe that McCoy feels this way--there is nothing in her book to support this belief.

So . . . what I infer from all this is that Jon Bonne and Elin McCoy are both addressing the phenomenon of public perception here--not Mr. Parker's personal tastes.

[jbonne]

(1) if Parker isn't reviewing and scoring Loire reds anymore, along with a host of other types of wine, then the Joe Dressners of the world, along with wine stores, will be faced trying to sell these wines, scoreless, to an unfortunately sizable number of score-whores who buy solely on the numbers and move a lot of wine. if RP wants to declare, "i don't care about X or Y category of wine much anymore, and the WA won't be conducting regular coverage," that would be one thing. but the WA still claims to be a comprehensive source. if RP no longer has the inclination or energy to consider an ever-wider world of wine, it's not unreasonable to ask that he disclaim such things. Rovani's addition to the roster doesn't quite cover the gap.

(2) Elin has always acknowledged that Parker devotes at least one issue a year to wine values. But that doesn't quite compensate for his typical focus on high-priced, collectible wines -- a reasonable focus, certainly, since the WA was borne out of the desire to weed out bad-value collectible Bordeaux in the totally screwed-up '70s market. but RP isn't making his money on value-wine ratings, he's making it on assessing big, expensive wines from from regions (including those you mention, like California, Australia and the Rhone) prone to overpricing. it's simply ridiculous to consider the pricing (on the American market) of the massive, alcoholic, overextracted Aussie shirazes that fall within RP's laudatory "vintage port"-like preference.

(3) as to your sniping assessment of my comment, JohnL, that RP is a rich man who can buy whatever wine he likes while still somehow viewing himself in the Nader vein, i think Elin was very balanced in her book about *not* making an editorial judgment of his wealth and his lifestyle. the comment was mine, though based on my conversation with Elin -- and rooted in my belief that, yes, a wealthy man who can buy whatever wine he likes is not going to have the same focus on value that he did when he was young and struggling. i'd also be happy to quote from my conversation with Elin on this topic, and the subject of RP's use-them/ignore-them duplicity about his scores: "It's absolutely the opposite of being a consumer advocate. You think of Consumer Reports or something giving a good score to a washing machine ... and the washing machine company does not go out and raise the price of the washing machines. Parker isn't like Consumer Reports because he can afford the price it's sold at."

(4) here's the thing, JohnL: you're clearly a Parker partisan, and i would never tell you not to be. (one thing Elin *did* discuss at length in her book is the passion of RP devotees and their desire to defend him.) if you find value in his assessments, and the WA, then you've found a system that works for you. my issue is simply that the wine world is moving forward, and the WA focuses on a limited slice of it. that's fine: i could fill my cellar based solely on buying great, interesting wines that the WA ignores.

but as Brad points out, it's simply conjecture that such wines, like red Sancerre, are "not the most interesting reds around today." i could say the same thing about most of the huge California fruit bombs or Aussie cult projects that have been lauded in the WA. who's right? maybe both of us, maybe neither. what i find unsettling is the presumptive objectivity that the WA invokes in such assessments.

[JohnL]

First--I don't consider myself a "Parker partisan" I have areas of disagreement with him. I subscribe to the Advocate but I also subscribe to a number of other newsletters and read other writers. i do not blindly follow anyone's advice.

That said--my contention is that Parker gets a badly misguided rap from detractors.

Much of the conventional wisdom re: Parker comes from industry sources many of whom have a "self interested bone to pick." This is not so much Parker's fault (in some cases these 'bones" are well founded mostly -I believe they are not).

I have had plenty of exposure to industry folks and I understand their problems with Parker. It should be noted that Parker has a lot of support among industry people as well.

Non industry people--we the wine drinking public--have a tendency to pick up on these sources and thus the conventional wisdom is created.

I thought McCoy's book was a very good and balanced biography and presents a good picture of not just Parker but the wine scene around him and how they relate or don't.

1--Joe dressner is an incredible salesman--there is no reason to belive he won't be able to sell his wine or that he really does need Parker's help. If that is truew then the industry better take a long look at itself. Everyone will survive with or without Parker. And I have never seen a valid quote from Parker to the effect: "I don't care about ..." (include any wine region etc.) He is "drawn" to areas he finds of interest--wouldn't anyone? And these areas of interest shift over time as I noted. In short he doesn't cover everything all the time. This is far different from "he doesn't like anything he doesn't happen to cover at the moment." in the end--I would recommend what Parker himself writes about the Loire--and stop obsessing over scores or lack thereof.

2--I was not quoting from a "special values issue" anyone who subscribes to Parker's newsletter would know that "inexpensive" wines are reviewed frequently and Parker makes a point of noting good values he finds. He is no different in this regard than he was fifteen years ago. By the way--he is often reviewing the same wines Tanzer and others cover--I see no criticism of them in this regard.

3--I wasn't "sniping." You made a comment that I feel is unsupported. Parker reviewed say Bordeaux in 1985 he reviewed Bordeaux in 2004--he hasn't changed--same wines but yes higher prices. Will he review two buck chuck or yellowtail probably not--most consumers/subscribers can lay out the money and try them without any financial risk.

The fact is wines of great interest tend to cost more than simple less interesting wines. Note I say-great interest--not necc interesting. Those "simple" Red Sancerre's brad mentioned--most are at least twenty bucks a bottle. I know cause I like and buy them. As for your comment about Parker being a consumer advocate--a consumer is a consumer rich poor or middle class. I still feel the "class" card is a cheap shot. Playing the wealth/class card if you will. For a "wealthy" man according to Ms McCoy --Parker lives pretty humbly.

4--Again, I am not a parker partisan--(no I am not protesting too much--:->).

I just see a lot of overheated rhetoric and knee jerk reaction that is largely unfounded in people's negative reactions to Parker. It should be noted that McCoy's book deals nicely with this. as I have said --a lot of this stuff says more about the detractors than it does about Parker. after all--all Parker did/does is taste wine and say what he thinks about it.--what the world does in response is their issue/problem.

In the end--I recommend the McCoy book --it is fun discussing and debating wine and the fact that an entire industry is inj a commotion over one man says more to me about the industry and less about the man.

[Brad Ballinger]

Well, one way to get the fur flying in any wine forum on any web site is to bring up Parker. There is almost always Parker bashing and Parker apologia. I think we're doing a good job of continuing to mention the book and the author in the posts in this thread, and that should continue.

If the conversation will be more about the subject of the book, we have many threads devoted to RP in this forum.

[JohnL]

Boy are you correct!

This is what amazes me (for one). Basically Parker is a wine critic. One can read his reviews and agree or disagree. So why are the reactions so strong? So visceral?

Again I believe these reactions are industry driven for the most part. Not consumer driven.

Anyone who can get past the numerical ratings and the reviews and read Parker's writing would have a hard time tossing out "he only likes big wines..." or "Parker doesn't like ..."

Ok--read the jbonne piece about Ms McCoy participation on a panel.

"she (Elin McCoy) sat on a panel with Pierre Rovani"

"...after he (Rovani) audaciously described an Au Bon Climat wine "as not a Rovani wine. She (Ms McCoy) retorted "the one thing we can certainly say is it may not be a Rovani wine but it is a Clendenen wine." (Jim Clendenen was in the audience at the time.)

To Ms McCoy's book:

"After praising Jim Clendenen's Au Bon Climat wines for years, Parker lowered their scores. Clendenen was devastated..."

OK how is it Clendenen "happens" to be in that audience? How is it Rovani is commenting on Clendenen's wines? This is too good-- too juicy a scene to have just "happened to be."

and-most important--what is the point of it all?

Here's something even more perplexing!

From the Wine Advocate (issue 154, closing date 8/31/04):

seven Au Bon Climat wines reviewed by Parker himself. results--one wine rated 88plus, one wine rated 88, one 89, two wines rated 90, one wine rated 91 and one wine rated 91 plus. also this from Mr P: "A strong lineup of chardonnays from globe trotting winemaker Jim Clendenen..."

AND THE INSANITY CONTINUES!!!!!! (seriously-- is anyone actually reading Parker ?)

In the end--one must question just how disfunctional was the wine industry that it could be impacted by to the extent it has been by someone like Parker?

Edited August 4, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Peter B Wolf]

A book review : " The Rise of Robert M. Parker, Jr. and the Reign of American Taste" by Elin McCoy, in 'The Economist', has stirred my interest although I do not drink. Many of you Connoisseurs may be looking at some good reading

http://www.economist.com/printedition/disp...tory_ID=4369684

[Gifted Gourmet]

Even though America is now the world's fourth-largest wine producer (after Italy, France and Spain), Americans tend to feel uncomfortable with wine. Puritan instincts live on: an 18-year-old can vote, marry or die in Iraq, but cannot legally drink a glass of wine.

Will America's attitude to wine change? Pessimists point to Prohibition as proof of an abiding fear of alcohol; optimists say its repeal, well described in Mr Pinney's elegant prose, is proof that fear has given way to realism.

source of the quote

Will America's attitude toward wine change is the question on the table ... your opinions??

[JohnL]

Even though America is now the world's fourth-largest wine producer (after Italy, France and Spain), Americans tend to feel uncomfortable with wine. Puritan instincts live on: an 18-year-old can vote, marry or die in Iraq, but cannot legally drink a glass of wine.

Will America's attitude to wine change? Pessimists point to Prohibition as proof of an abiding fear of alcohol; optimists say its repeal, well described in Mr Pinney's elegant prose, is proof that fear has given way to realism.

source of the quote

Will America's attitude toward wine change is the question on the table ... your opinions??

←

I must say that I enjoy the Economist, it is well written and thoughful.

I also must say that I often do not agree with its political slant.

The quote above re: our "Puritan instincts.." is indicative of how many Europeans do not understand that America is a Republic, hence drinking age is a local issue.

I might add that with the pressure from MADD and other groups over responsible drinking and driving the laws are now almost universally 21. (I believe they have a good well intentioned cause--I am not sure I agree with their solutions).

The drinking age has nothing to do with the age one can serve in the military. Nor vice versa. One can begin driving at sixteen in most places here.

It is interesting that Iraq is specifically mentioned--I doubt the writer had any problems with our military service age and drinking ages in WWII.

There are many good arguments for and against the current effort in the Middle East--this is not one of them.

So the politics aside (please) let's just deal with the question of our attitudes toward wine.

We are so over the prohibition thing--I see no "abiding fear" of alcohol among the general populace--(it is actually France where wine consumption is down--what are they afraid of?).

Yes we still have dry counties--but again, we are a Republic.

Actually, consumption of hard liquor is declining wine consumption is up in America. we have more choices in wine here than probably anywhere in the world at the moment.

There are burgeoning wine bars and wine lists offering many by the glass choices.

Our wine industry is healthy (the great collapse many have predicted has not taken place--yet anyway).

We also have lots of competition from other countries--Australia, Chile, Argentina etc which is great for the consumer!

Our somewhat arcane laws (leftovers from prohibition) re: shipping wine are being struck down.

I'd say we are doing just fine.

I would like to add that there are alcohol related problems (I mentioned the driving and drinking issue) that still persist (but they are existant to one degree or another everywhere) and need attention.

To bring this back to Parker and McCoy's book--Parker has had a positive influence in promoting wine and putting wine in its proper perspective. This reflects his Francophile leanings--we do have a lot to thank the French for! By helping to popularize wine in this country as a beverage to enjoy with food in moderation people like Parker are a plus.

also the influence of the Puritans has been diluted by the waves of immigrants from all over the world--it has been a long time since the seventeenth century!

[Rebel Rose]

Here's a well written review in Slate: The Wino in Winter.

But two decades on, many people who once drank only wines that bore Parker's stamp of approval have grown more confident in their own judgments. In addition, there are now many more sources of informed wine criticism (thanks in no small part to the Internet).

[carswell]

I have never seen anything in Parker's reviews or writings that indicates he does not like these reds. In fact, he has rated soem highly. <snip> So how is it that anyone can state that parker does not appreciate these wines?

←

All quotes taken from the 4th edition of Parker's Wine Buying Guide.

Anjou: "In particular, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon, while admired by some, are too vegetal for my taste."

Bourgeuil: "More popular in France than in America, Bourgueil makes a fruity, raspberry-scented and -flavored wine that should be drunk in the first 5–6 years of life. The problem is that unless the vintage is exceptionally ripe ... these wines are strikingly vegetal."

Cabernet d'Anjou: "The name suggests a red wine, but in essence this is a rosé that tends to be herbaceous and sweet. I am not an admirer of these wines."

Châteaumeillant: "The only wines I have ever tasted from this backwater were inexpensive, but pathetic, washed-out examples that reminded me of diluted Beuajolais."

Chinon: "Made from Cabernet Franc, in exceptionally ripe years such as 1990 it possesses abundant herb-tinged raspberry fruit. In other years, Chinon wines are intensely acidic and vegetal. I am not fond of the wines of Chinon, but that does not stop me from admiring some of the best producers."

Côtes d'Auvergne: "This is another red wine VDQS making strawberry- and cherry-flavored, light, insipid wines from Gamay."

Haut-Poitou: "The bad news is that the red wines ... are nasty, raw, lip-stinging wines with little flavor, but plenty of acidity and vegetal characteristics."

Sancerre: "A small amount of red wine, which I find disappointing, is made from Pinot Noir."

Saumur: "... Saumur-Champigny, which many feel produces good fresh red wines — although I do not agree ..."

1990 vintage: "The red wines are also surprisingly good (I have a strong bias against most of them because of their overt vegetal character), but because of the drought and superripeness they are less herbaceous than usual ..."

His 1995–1996 buying strategy mentions only whites. The vintage guide discusses reds only in passing and, for several vintages, not at all.

[russ parsons]

[All quotes taken from the 4th edition of Parker's Wine Buying Guide.

Anjou: "In particular, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon, while admired by some, are too vegetal for my taste."

Bourgeuil: "More popular in France than in America, Bourgueil makes a fruity, raspberry-scented and -flavored wine that should be drunk in the first 5–6 years of life. The problem is that unless the vintage is exceptionally ripe ... these wines are strikingly vegetal."

etc.

←

sounds to me like a pretty straightforward guide to what qualities he values in wine, something that is always good to know when you're reading a critic. And though I like Anjou, I have a hard time regarding it as the "Shakespeare" of wine (or even Loire wine)

I have always felt there was a great deal of hypocrisy about wine people's reactions to parker (whom i have met on occasion but would not pretend to know). the reason parker became important is that lazy wine shop owners relied on posting his scores as sales tools rather than hand-selling the wines themselves, thereby giving him an imprimatur he may or may not have deserved. In fact, as much as the wine industry howls about him today, more often than not you'll find the little "RP 92" signs liberally sprinkled through every store--and if a winery gets a good review, it certainly tends to show up in their press and point-of-sale materials (including, by the way, the ABC website).

most of the other criticism of him seems to be along the lines of "if i were king": if i were parker, i'd praise ....; parker "hates" the wines i love, how dare he! hmmm, funny how the people who make this complaint have no problem bragging about how they hate the wines parker loves. turnabout is not fair play?

parker is just one guy with a word processor. his taste is as valid as yours (if you have been tasting wine for the last 30 years, which i know a lot of you have). if his taste moves more merchandise than yours, it's just because more people seem to agree with him. or, in the case of wine store owners, because you've told people they should agree with him, when it suited your purpose.

[JohnL]

I have never seen anything in Parker's reviews or writings that indicates he does not like these reds. In fact, he has rated soem highly. <snip> So how is it that anyone can state that parker does not appreciate these wines?

←

All quotes taken from the 4th edition of Parker's Wine Buying Guide.

Anjou: "In particular, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon, while admired by some, are too vegetal for my taste."

Bourgeuil: "More popular in France than in America, Bourgueil makes a fruity, raspberry-scented and -flavored wine that should be drunk in the first 5–6 years of life. The problem is that unless the vintage is exceptionally ripe ... these wines are strikingly vegetal."

Cabernet d'Anjou: "The name suggests a red wine, but in essence this is a rosé that tends to be herbaceous and sweet. I am not an admirer of these wines."

Châteaumeillant: "The only wines I have ever tasted from this backwater were inexpensive, but pathetic, washed-out examples that reminded me of diluted Beuajolais."

Chinon: "Made from Cabernet Franc, in exceptionally ripe years such as 1990 it possesses abundant herb-tinged raspberry fruit. In other years, Chinon wines are intensely acidic and vegetal. I am not fond of the wines of Chinon, but that does not stop me from admiring some of the best producers."

Côtes d'Auvergne: "This is another red wine VDQS making strawberry- and cherry-flavored, light, insipid wines from Gamay."

Haut-Poitou: "The bad news is that the red wines ... are nasty, raw, lip-stinging wines with little flavor, but plenty of acidity and vegetal characteristics."

Sancerre: "A small amount of red wine, which I find disappointing, is made from Pinot Noir."

Saumur: "... Saumur-Champigny, which many feel produces good fresh red wines — although I do not agree ..."

1990 vintage: "The red wines are also surprisingly good (I have a strong bias against most of them because of their overt vegetal character), but because of the drought and superripeness they are less herbaceous than usual ..."

His 1995–1996 buying strategy mentions only whites. The vintage guide discusses reds only in passing and, for several vintages, not at all.

←

Let's look at some facts here.

The Loire is not known for its reds. It is known for its whites.

Why?

The climate and soils (the terroir-- if you will) is not conducive to grapes achieving ripeness more vintages than not.

This is not me or Parker but an accepted fact. Therefore, there is a reason that not many reds

in any but the best (weatherwise) vintages are worth looking at. The reds often have overt herbaceous notes due to the lack of ripeness. This is the single main reason that not many are imported here (or most other wine drinking nations).

The Reds from the Loire in the best vintages are pleasant wines with high acidity.

I would add that Red Sancerre is also pleasant--I especially like these--but they are nowhere near the level of Burgundy or the cote Challonnaise in complexity or depth of flavor.

So to Parker--he has clearly noted these facts and has many times recommended these wines.

I can play the quote game here--there are six buying guides!

I would challenge anyone to look at the quotes you have pulled out and say that Parker has no appreciation for what these wines are. He is clear when he states his preferences or lack of. He also points out those producers making good Loire reds.

"...the red wines are suprisingly good..." then a note about the vegetal character of the wines. Most tasters would agreee these wines are, in fact, vegetal. This is an accepted fact about Cab Franc from the Loire.

This is, IMOP, the mark of a a good critic.

In fact, I have rarely if ever, seen a wine critic provide this perspective--accurately assesssing a wine for its positive characteristics and then stating a preference or bias.

Again, Parker (and Rovanni) have noted many times where Red wines from the Loire are recommendable. (and not) I would argue they are on target more often than not.

To say that Parker "doesn't get Loire Reds" is simply not true.

By the way--the Slate review is one of the more reasoned and accurate review of McCoy's book.

[JohnL]

[All quotes taken from the 4th edition of Parker's Wine Buying Guide.

Anjou: "In particular, Cabernet Franc and Cabernet Sauvignon, while admired by some, are too vegetal for my taste."

Bourgeuil: "More popular in France than in America, Bourgueil makes a fruity, raspberry-scented and -flavored wine that should be drunk in the first 5–6 years of life. The problem is that unless the vintage is exceptionally ripe ... these wines are strikingly vegetal."

etc.

←

sounds to me like a pretty straightforward guide to what qualities he values in wine, something that is always good to know when you're reading a critic. And though I like Anjou, I have a hard time regarding it as the "Shakespeare" of wine (or even Loire wine)

I have always felt there was a great deal of hypocrisy about wine people's reactions to parker (whom i have met on occasion but would not pretend to know). the reason parker became important is that lazy wine shop owners relied on posting his scores as sales tools rather than hand-selling the wines themselves, thereby giving him an imprimatur he may or may not have deserved. In fact, as much as the wine industry howls about him today, more often than not you'll find the little "RP 92" signs liberally sprinkled through every store--and if a winery gets a good review, it certainly tends to show up in their press and point-of-sale materials (including, by the way, the ABC website).

most of the other criticism of him seems to be along the lines of "if i were king": if i were parker, i'd praise ....; parker "hates" the wines i love, how dare he! hmmm, funny how the people who make this complaint have no problem bragging about how they hate the wines parker loves. turnabout is not fair play?

parker is just one guy with a word processor. his taste is as valid as yours (if you have been tasting wine for the last 30 years, which i know a lot of you have). if his taste moves more merchandise than yours, it's just because more people seem to agree with him. or, in the case of wine store owners, because you've told people they should agree with him, when it suited your purpose.

←

Russ, I really agreee.

Parker became "important" in part because of the industry situation.

It helped that he:

has a remarkable palate, a strong passion for wine, a good critical sensability, honesty, and writes in a clear concise and direct style. (Alan Richman notes this in the current GQ).

When he "emerged" the state of wine criticism was a mess.

It is the industry that is mostly attacking him.

I also believe he was in the right place at the right time.

I do disagree with the statement that "his taste is as valid as yours." --to a degree.

Few people have his palate and few have tasted the enormous number and variety of wines--therefore few have the context he has when evaluating a wine. Having said this--in the end-- one's own palate determines what they like and one can certainly disagree with a Parker assessment.

I do find that Parker is one of the few critics that can recommend a wine, tell you why and then state he doesn't personally care for that wine's style and why in the next sentence.

[carswell]

John, upthread you wrote "I have never seen anything in Parker's reviews or writings that indicates he does not like these reds." I've just cited chapter and verse where he indicates exactly that. What is it about "too vegetal for my taste," "I am not an admirer of these wines," "I am not fond of the wines of Chinon [arguably the region's top appellation for red wine]," etc. that you don't understand? Whether or not one agrees with him (I don't; you appear to) is immaterial to my point: Parker has clearly stated, and on more than one occasion, that he doesn't care for Loire reds except in atypical years like 1990 and 2003.

Let's look at some facts here. The Loire is not known for its reds.

Says who? Loire reds are extremely popular in France, good sellers here in Quebec and parts of Europe and much coveted by a certain set of discerning US wine geeks (for confirmation, see any board not dominated by Parkerovani or New World fanatics).

The climate and soils (the terroir-- if you will) is not conducive to grapes achieving ripeness more vintages than not. This is not me or Parker but an accepted fact.

Accepted by whom? The Loire's ripeness track record is at least as good as that of many other cool climate regions, including ones like Burgundy that make highly regarded reds. And it's not radically different from Bordeaux's (not talking degree days here but years in which acceptable ripeness levels are reached).

Therefore, there is a reason that not many reds in any but the best (weatherwise) vintages are worth looking at.

Not accepting your premise, I reject this conclusion. And, by the way, these days my Chinons from "weak" 1991 and 1993 are delivering much pleasure, something I wouldn't say about my Médocs from the same vintages.

The reds often have overt herbaceous notes due to the lack of ripeness.

In most vintages I don't find the wines herbaceous or vegetal. I suspect these are code words for people with Parkerish palates. Decoded: not overripe, not highly extracted, not jammy or gobby, not oaked.

It's revealing that Parker's descriptions of Loire reds in the 4th edition guide never mention their desirable characteristics like minerals, forest floor, fine structure, fluid savour, food-friendliness, eh?

The Reds from the Loire in the best vintages are pleasant wines with high acidity. I would add that Red Sancerre is also pleasant--I especially like these--but they are nowhere near the level of Burgundy or the cote Challonnaise in complexity or depth of flavor.

I enjoy a good red Sancerre as much as anyone, but I wouldn't offer them up as model Loire reds. And that's setting aside that fact that comparisons (with other pinots) are intrinsically odious.

So to Parker--he has clearly noted these facts and has many times recommended these wines.

Really? I haven't paid close attention to Parker for years but I can't recall any enthusiastic recommendations. He always seems to be holding his nose, qualifying his recco ("I am not fond of the wines of Chinon, but that does not stop me from admiring some of the best producers").

I would challenge anyone to look at the quotes you have pulled out and say that Parker has no appreciation for what these wines are. He is clear when he states his preferences or lack of. He also points out those producers making good Loire reds.

OK, I'll say it. Parker doesn't appreciate these wines for what they are. He is not a reliable guide to Loire reds. You will not read his tasting notes and come away understanding why so many people treasure them. If you went only by Parker, you'd be shocked at the number of times top French chefs and their sommeliers recommend Loire reds as the perfect match for their dishes.

"...the red wines are suprisingly good..." then a note about the vegetal character of the wines. Most tasters would agreee these wines are, in fact, vegetal. This is an accepted fact about Cab Franc from the Loire.

You're quoting out of context: those "surprisingly good" reds came from "one of the all-time greatest vintages," and even then he qualifies the statement with a "surprisingly." So, atypical wines are — surprise! — pretty good. The corollary: typical wines are — no surprise! — not so good.

Also, please post the stats showing that most tasters (especially ones who haven't been led by RP/WS-school wine critics or nationalism to appreciate only highly extracted wines from warm-climate regions) think Loire reds are vegetal.

This is, IMOP, the mark of a a good critic.

Even when he misrepresents the wines? Even though he's holdiing them up to a single paradigm, the Parker 100-pointer?

I would argue they are on target more often than not.

As a longtime Loire lover, I wouldn't. But, hey, there's no disputing taste.

To say that Parker "doesn't get Loire Reds" is simply not true.

Well, by his own words, he doesn't care for them. And after examining the language he uses to describe them I think one can legitimately conclude he doesn't "get" them, can't bring himself to approach them on their own terms, can't stop himself from comparing them with Cheval Blanc or New World cab francs. Put Parker's notes alongside those of, say, Jacqueline Friedrich in A Wine and Food Guide to the Loire or Bettane & Desseauve's, and I think you'll see what I mean. Even setting aside his plodding phraseology, it is impossible to imagine Parker writing the following:

It is marvellous with what felicity, what gastronomic savoir-vivre, the rivers Rhône and Loire counter-balance one another on their passage through France. For 100 miles or so they even run parallel, flowing in opposite directions 30 miles apart.

They decline the notion of rivalry: in every way they are complementary. The Rhône gives France its soothing, warming, satisfying, winter-weight wines. The Loire provides the summer drinking.

That's the beginning of the Loire chapter in Hugh Johnson's Modern Encyclopedia of Wine, and it's interesting to note that the words vegetal and herbaceous appear nowhere in the lengthy text that follows.

(A final comment. In years of taking part in online wine discussions, this is the only time I've allowed myself to get involved in a discussion of Parker. Personally, I long ago gave up on him, finding his taste in wine not in synch with my own, a state of affairs that renders his comments useless to me. This does not make me a Parker hater. The only resentment I bear toward him is due to the fact that his advocacy is one of the reasons favourite wines like Pichon-Lalande, Chave Hermitage and even Domaine de Trévallon have been priced out of my reach. I also worry about his impact on wine styles — the sweetening of Alsatian whites, the gobbifying of certain Bordeaux, the increasing number of Italian wines that don't taste like Italian wines. On the other hand, his dismissal of Loire reds and regions like the Jura and the Savoie have helped keep their wines affordable. I first posted in this thread because you made a claim that, in my view, was unsupportable. I provided quotes that, I feel, proved my point and I didn't add any comments of my own. Your defensiveness has led me, with this post, to break my No Parker rule. I don't intend to do so again. All of which is to say, I probably won't be continuing this discussion. No offence intended.)

Edited October 1, 2005 by carswell (log)

[JohnL]

John, upthread you wrote "I have never seen anything in Parker's reviews or writings that indicates he does not like these reds." I've just cited chapter and verse where he indicates exactly that. What is it about "too vegetal for my taste," "I am not an admirer of these wines," "I am not fond of the wines of Chinon [arguably the region's top appellation for red wine]," etc. that you don't understand? Whether or not one agrees with him (I don't; you appear to) is immaterial to my point: Parker has clearly stated, and on more than one occasion, that he doesn't care for Loire reds except in atypical years like 1990 and 2003.

Let's look at some facts here. The Loire is not known for its reds.

Says who? Loire reds are extremely popular in France, good sellers here in Quebec and parts of Europe and much coveted by a certain set of discerning US wine geeks (for confirmation, see any board not dominated by Parkerovani or New World fanatics).

The climate and soils (the terroir-- if you will) is not conducive to grapes achieving ripeness more vintages than not. This is not me or Parker but an accepted fact.

Accepted by whom? The Loire's ripeness track record is at least as good as that of many other cool climate regions, including ones like Burgundy that make highly regarded reds. And it's not radically different from Bordeaux's (not talking degree days here but years in which acceptable ripeness levels are reached).

Therefore, there is a reason that not many reds in any but the best (weatherwise) vintages are worth looking at.

Not accepting your premise, I reject this conclusion. And, by the way, these days my Chinons from "weak" 1991 and 1993 are delivering much pleasure, something I wouldn't say about my Médocs from the same vintages.

The reds often have overt herbaceous notes due to the lack of ripeness.

In most vintages I don't find the wines herbaceous or vegetal. I suspect these are code words for people with Parkerish palates. Decoded: not overripe, not highly extracted, not jammy or gobby, not oaked.

It's revealing that Parker's descriptions of Loire reds in the 4th edition guide never mention their desirable characteristics like minerals, forest floor, fine structure, fluid savour, food-friendliness, eh?

The Reds from the Loire in the best vintages are pleasant wines with high acidity. I would add that  Red Sancerre is also pleasant--I especially like these--but they are nowhere near the level of Burgundy or the cote Challonnaise in complexity or depth of flavor.

I enjoy a good red Sancerre as much as anyone, but I wouldn't offer them up as model Loire reds. And that's setting aside that fact that comparisons (with other pinots) are intrinsically odious.

So to Parker--he has clearly noted these facts and has many times recommended these wines.

Really? I haven't paid close attention to Parker for years but I can't recall any enthusiastic recommendations. He always seems to be holding his nose, qualifying his recco ("I am not fond of the wines of Chinon, but that does not stop me from admiring some of the best producers").

I would challenge anyone to look at the quotes you have pulled out and say that Parker has no appreciation for what these wines are. He is clear when he states his preferences or lack of. He also points out those producers making good Loire reds.

OK, I'll say it. Parker doesn't appreciate these wines for what they are. He is not a reliable guide to Loire reds. You will not read his tasting notes and come away understanding why so many people treasure them. If you went only by Parker, you'd be shocked at the number of times top French chefs and their sommeliers recommend Loire reds as the perfect match for their dishes.

"...the red wines are suprisingly good..." then a note about the vegetal character of the wines. Most tasters would agreee these wines are, in fact, vegetal. This is  an accepted fact about Cab Franc from the Loire.

You're quoting out of context: those "surprisingly good" reds came from "one of the all-time greatest vintages," and even then he qualifies the statement with a "surprisingly." So, atypical wines are — surprise! — pretty good. The corollary: typical wines are — no surprise! — not so good.

Also, please post the stats showing that most tasters (especially ones who haven't been led by RP/WS-school wine critics or nationalism to appreciate only highly extracted wines from warm-climate regions) think Loire reds are vegetal.

This is, IMOP, the mark of a a good critic.

Even when he misrepresents the wines? Even though he's holdiing them up to a single paradigm, the Parker 100-pointer?

I would argue they are on target more often than not.

As a longtime Loire lover, I wouldn't. But, hey, there's no disputing taste.

To say that Parker "doesn't get Loire Reds" is simply not true.

Well, by his own words, he doesn't care for them. And after examining the language he uses to describe them I think one can legitimately conclude he doesn't "get" them, can't bring himself to approach them on their own terms, can't stop himself from comparing them with Cheval Blanc or New World cab francs. Put Parker's notes alongside those of, say, Jacqueline Friedrich in A Wine and Food Guide to the Loire or Bettane & Desseauve's, and I think you'll see what I mean. Even setting aside his plodding phraseology, it is impossible to imagine Parker writing the following:

It is marvellous with what felicity, what gastronomic savoir-vivre, the rivers Rhône and Loire counter-balance one another on their passage through France. For 100 miles or so they even run parallel, flowing in opposite directions 30 miles apart.

They decline the notion of rivalry: in every way they are complementary. The Rhône gives France its soothing, warming, satisfying, winter-weight wines. The Loire provides the summer drinking.

That's the beginning of the Loire chapter in Hugh Johnson's Modern Encyclopedia of Wine, and it's interesting to note that the words vegetal and herbaceous appear nowhere in the lengthy text that follows.

(A final comment. In years of taking part in online wine discussions, this is the only time I've allowed myself to get involved in a discussion of Parker. Personally, I long ago gave up on him, finding his taste in wine not in synch with my own, a state of affairs that renders his comments useless to me. This does not make me a Parker hater. The only resentment I bear toward him is due to the fact that his advocacy is one of the reasons favourite wines like Pichon-Lalande, Chave Hermitage and even Domaine de Trévallon have been priced out of my reach. I also worry about his impact on wine styles — the sweetening of Alsatian whites, the gobbifying of certain Bordeaux, the increasing number of Italian wines that don't taste like Italian wines. On the other hand, his dismissal of Loire reds and regions like the Jura and the Savoie have helped keep their wines affordable. I first posted in this thread because you made a claim that, in my view, was unsupportable. I provided quotes that, I feel, proved my point and I didn't add any comments of my own. Your defensiveness has led me, with this post, to break my No Parker rule. I don't intend to do so again. All of which is to say, I probably won't be continuing this discussion. No offence intended.)

←

Well, I think we have really gotten into the crux of the matter.

Let's stipulate that the Loire does produce some very fine red wines. Parker and Rovanni say so.

I agree. I am sure you do as well.

As for the "herbaceous" notes: The oxford companion to Wine (edited by jancis Robinson hardly a Parkerite) notes the problem and any savvy taster will explain that Cabernet Franc often possess this quality.

Also of note via the Oxford Companion: "For years Loire Reds suffered from a lack of extraction."

and as to the climete issues: it is a fact that Chaptalization is the NORM for Loire wines-- red and white. That is they have problems achieving high enough sugar levels to yield high enough alcohol levels to meet french wine law minimums.

Even Kermit Lynch who importa any number of Loire Reds admits that for the most part these are often "light refreshing simple reds best served chilled."

Yes there are a handful of truely wonderful reds Parker notes eight of them for Chinon alone.

I suggest that you refer to Parker's SIXTH edition of the wine buyers guide where he and Rovanni are much more enthyusiastic about the reds. (could be that the winemaking is improving? that is clearly noted in numerous places in the literature.)

You note some books--Friedrich for example--a wonderful book--I have read it several times.

But Friedrich is not writing a critical tome--she is romantisizing the region and its wines. She is only offering the best light. Like Dressner and Kermit Lynch they are not turning over the stones and reporting what they find their mission is totally fdifferent (and they all do it well).

And most interestingly--Parker and friedrich seem to agree--note how their lists of admired/recommended producers match!

Could it be that Parker is simply being accurate and honest in discussing the problems with Loire Reds? You say there are some nice wines from the Loire and so does Parker. You seem to have a problem with his critical comments. So, one has to ask: is your disagreement based on your perception that ALL LOIRE REDS are serious wonderful wines? Really--who is more reasonable here? You who note no flaws or even potential flaws in some/many of the wines or Parker who says there are some fine wines here but....

Parker noted that of the myriad Loire Reds he has tasted at least 50% were not even up to a review. I suggest that he has tasted a far wider range of Loire Reds than you (or most people) and thus has a better perspective on the region. Is it possible that you (and I) are "seeing" only a tiny percentage of the Loire Reds produced on local wine shop shelves? Possibly the best examples? I suggest Parker is reviewing from a much larger universe--tasting wines we simply will not see.

"Damned if he does and....."

You seem to complain that because of Parker touts a wine (Pichon Lalande) the price goes up and you can't afford it. Thus you are glad that Parker "doesn't like" the Loire Reds. You criticize Parker for ignoring the Loire because he doesn't "get" the wines but are glad he doesn't so they stay cheap.

Which is it? This is the same critcism of Parker many make including Joe Dressner in McCoy's book. He says he needs Parker to review his Loire portfolio so he can sell the wines then says Parker doesn't understand the wines when Parker does review them.

What you really want (and for slightly different reasons Joe Dressner) is validation.

That is you like Loire Reds (Joe Dressner imports them as well) and you want Parker to like them as well. How often do we hear "how could Parker only give this (or that) wine an eighty seven--why I think it is a ninety two!" This missing the point that 87 means Parker likes the wine--he just doesn't like the wine as much as the complainant!--and I am sure parker would agree! (If he doesn't well--you know he just doesn't understand the wine).

It is the critical approach that Parker takes you have a problem with.

I note that you don't quibble with Parker's "getting" Bordeaux (the Pichon you both like).

This is seen in letters to the editors in any car magazine: "How dare you guys not love the Honda I just bought!."

or people who buy a Maytag washing machine then are devastated when they see a bad write up in Consumer Reports. The result is--"what do thiose guys know anyway!" Is a lot of the vitriol tossed at Parker well founded or just a case of SOUR GRAPES?

I would submit that the reactions to McCoy's book from the critics (the Slate review of the book notes this) as over wrought and pure venom are more revealing about them than they are about Parker. I would say that your post above is well thought out and I do not really think you are being overwrought at all. I do think that you are missing what Parker is really saying about the wines--he is calling it as he sees/tastes it. He has in no way "trashed" these wines but rather has identified some problems that consumers need to watch out for.

I would close by saying that one of the finest red wines I have ever tasted was a 2000 "Le Bourg" from Clos Rougeard I am sure Parker would like it as well. (if he doesn't --well you know--he just doesn't understand the wine the way I do)

Finally--I really enjoyed this exchange--made me think-a good thing for me at least.

cheers

Edited October 3, 2005 by JohnL (log)