The Emperor of Wine, by Elin McCoy

[LOS]

So, one has to ask: is your disagreement based on your perception that ALL LOIRE REDS are serious wonderful wines?

You should really stop putting words in carswell's mouth. It doesn't make him look unreasonable.

There's hundreds of bottlings of Chinon. Parker found 8 of them to damn with faint praise. Big deal. That doesn't exactly establish him as a fan of the wines.

The more you rant against the anti-Parker partisans, the more you establish that your own opinions are those of a fervently partisan Parkerphile.

[JohnL]

So, one has to ask: is your disagreement based on your perception that ALL LOIRE REDS are serious wonderful wines?

You should really stop putting words in carswell's mouth. It doesn't make him look unreasonable.

There's hundreds of bottlings of Chinon. Parker found 8 of them to damn with faint praise. Big deal. That doesn't exactly establish him as a fan of the wines.

The more you rant against the anti-Parker partisans, the more you establish that your own opinions are those of a fervently partisan Parkerphile.

←

LOS,

I am not "ranting" nor am I an apologist for Robert Parker (or anyone else).

I think we are getting 'lost in the Loire."

Parker is a wine critic--he tastes wine and provides his opinion.

The ranting, as Ms McCoy's book points out, has been coming mostly from people in the wine industry importers, winemakers, writers,critics retailers etc etc etc.

I would ask, what state was the wine business in that when someone like Parker comes along he becomes such a polarizing figure a veritable lightening rod?

And as importantly, how is it that Parker became as prominent as he is?

I believe, the fact that Parker approaches wine from a consumerist position rather than as an "insider" is part of the reason for both his appeal to consumers--bewildered by the overwhelming enormity of the world of wine and by the "insiders" who resent him for his honest and open opinions.

That is, he tastes a wine and tells you what he tastes but also provides a lot of context for those opinions. His writing style is direct and straightforward--basically pedestrian, if you will. He is an unabashed advocate for what he likes and believes. This is in stark contrast to a lot of critics and writers.

He was and is --in the right place at the right time--he came along in the early eighties as boomers were approaching critical mass with disposable income.

The wine world was already evolving: winemaking styles were changing the marketplace was rapidly expanding. McCoy's book does a decent job in detailing this.

Too many writers were vague and vacillating when it came to wines.

For eg pg 133 (McCoy)

Andrew Barr (a British wine writer--whose book "Wine Snobbery" I recommend)states that Parker's scores were a victory of American pragmatism over French mysticism."

Now for the Loire.

I think Parker is pretty honest and upfront in his assessments. The fact is, that winemaking in the Loire for many years, left much to be desired. Even Friedrich who is a veritable cheeleader for the region notes this. It is a fact that cabernet franc can taste lean, acidic and vegetal and herbaceous when it does not ripen enough. This is viticulture not Parker. It is also a fact that the Loire is precisely the kind of cool climate that presents a problem for the ripening of grapes in all but the best vintages.

It is also a fact that chaptalization (not necc a bad thing) is practised widely throughout the loire due to this problem.

As I see it, all Parker is doing is alerting the consumer to the fact that many reds are often problematic. He notes that "many people have no problem with these wines. Fair enough?

He also states that these wines can be very fine and provides some guidance to the producers who are making good examples. Friedrich does this also.

So what is the big deal. You certainly can disagree with Parker and if you like bell pepper notes and vegetal flavors then you will love all the red wines from the Loire. If not-you will probably like some of the wines--the ones that do not possess these notes/flavors.

I can't list the times parker and Rovanni state that Loire Reds can be very fine and present good value.

So where is it here that Parker doesn't "get" Loire wines. Does he have to love a wine to provide

valid notes and criticism?

Does a theatre critic have to love comedies and dramas equally? Does a food critic have to love all cuisines to write about them?

[LOS]

nor am I an apologist for Robert Parker

Yes you are.

Hint: When you are in such a hurry to defend Parker's point of view that you put words into other people's mouths in order to do it, you are an apologist.

The proper thing to do when you put words into other people's mouths is to apologize.