Gloves off, Parker in the Bullpen

[Rebel Rose]

Gloves off as Halliday, Parker trade blows from Decanter.com:

He [Halliday] suggested Parker had not tasted enough wine to make a judgement. 'I'm sure you will all appreciate our provincial nature and convict ancestry,' said Halliday, 'but it would be nice if Mr Parker would refrain from judgements based on tasting of no more than 10% of the 120 Yarra Valley wineries.'

Halliday then turned to [Matt] Kramer, whom he called 'even more misguided than Robert Parker.'

And from Jancis Robinson, a comprehensive transcript:

Halliday sticks the boot in

[quoting Robert Parker] "The proprietor of Mount Mary has never wanted me to taste his wines, which are revered by some segments of the Australian press, but with some stealth work, I was able to secure a few vintages. In addition to the 2001 Quintet, I was able to taste the 1998, 1997, 1995 and 1994. For my taste, only the 2001 merited a score higher than 80 points. The attempt

appears to be to emulate our Bordeaux petits chateaux, but none were as fine, being lean, high in acid, austere and meagerly endowed. They will not improve with age. The 2001 has slightly more to it than the older vintages. It is difficult to understand what merit these wines possess.” 

[Halliday] It is quite apparent that the sustained auction demand for Mount Mary is some arcane conspiracy, because Dr John Middleton resolutely refuses to send samples of any of his wines to our provincial press. Either that, or the whole world is out of step with the Emperor of Wine. (As a postscript, Middleton does not acidify his wines, which are relatively low in acidity (under 6 grammes per litre). This is a perennial bugbear of Parker.) 

Thoughts?

[Vinfidel]

miss robinson very obviously edited the speech to only contain the points that are relevant to hers and hallidays arguments against parker and kramer... everyone know that jancis and halliday have bones to pick with parker and his huge successes

the full text is here: PDF FILE

more funny is how he puts his foot in mouth about kramer

everyone knows the aussie wine shows are old boys clubs, and are rigged. read even halliydays own comments about this how the chairman tells the judges how to judge. kramer is maybe wrong that the big wine company control the votes, instead it is the wineries themselves that do it, big or small!

le parkair is one man with one pallette, as is halliday

if they disagree, who cares i just wish people would stop attacking parker

[JohnL]

Here here! Vinfidel.

I too am sick of this silliness.

There are two elements at play here:

First--the wine press. (mostly a handful of British writers) who just can't seem to be able to deal with Parker. They can't ignore him they just have to snipe and nit pick--a result of petty professional jealousy.

Second the trade.

When Parker is critical of a wine or wines--seems that often the trade or the winemaker has to respond. Fair enough, Parker is a critic afterall--it is his job to evaluate wines and report on them. But the response usually consists of an attack on Parker via some ridiculous conventional wisdom like "Parker only likes big wines...."

or even more ridiculous: "Parker doesn't appreciate wines with finesse..."

Yadda Yadda Yadda.

It is a shame because Jancis Robinson is a fine, knowledgeable writer and advocate for wine. she needs to "get over" Parker.

as for Halliday. He is what he is. He is an advocate for the Australian wine industry. He should never be confused for a critic or consumer advocate. Having said this--I have enjoyed reading him--he knows Australian wine. I would love to see the tasting notes for all the wines in these massive industry tastings--I would be shocked if anything tasted was rated or assessed objectively and fairly.

Halliday goes beyond basic foot in mouth logic--his argument makes no sense whatsoever.

It is also amusing that he decides to go after Matt Kramer--if anyone is a counterpoint to Parker it would be Kramer--so both these writers are wrong about Australia?

Parker, in the October issue of his newsletter recommends 952 wines and writes glowingly of what Australia is achieving.

He literally raves about Australia and notes many diverse styles produced--including "streamlined, restrained wines from South Australia....."

He also lauds the "unoaked Chardonnays" and rieslings....

He is critical of the wines of Yarra, noting it is the "darling of the Australian wine press." He provides his reasoning and notes for Mount Mary (he tasted five vintages and rated only one higher than 80 points).

So there it is!

Halliday can't handle the opinion of a wine writer and critic over one wine.

The British wine press--Robinson, Decanter, are almost gleeful in reporting this "feud."--it is a tempest in a teapot.

Enough already.

[Vinfidel]

very sad to see a nice lady like janice turn into such an old gossip

in the end it come down to power and professional jealousy

i say be more like parker and live and let live

there are so many wines we can each have a favorite and never share the same favorite with each other but all share a glass and share the same sense of fun and camaraderie

let us also not forget that Le Parkair is a gentleman and RARELY reviews a bad wine (under 80 points). in fact i cant think i ever saw one. there are so many wines out there who has time for bad ones?! this is why i like the WINE ADVOCATE even though we cannot have mostof the wines here in quebec

[nimzo]

Perhaps what both Halliday and Robinson take issue with is the particular style of Parker wines which are often untypical of the region in question. We have seen this happen in Bordeaux, Spain, and California and now Parker is tending towards the fruit driven blockbusters in Australia. I love Parker, subscribe to the Advocate and enjoy him as a read but his reviews are always tempered by the fact that the high point scorers are usually the massive wines. There is room for some subtlety and lightness, particulalry in some of the cooler regions where Parker always scores lowly.

Are we also saying that the whole of New Zealand is devoid of quality wine and winemaking?.

[Vinfidel]

hello nimzo

maybe jancis does not like the same wines but parker and halliday have some faves in commons. this includes some monster wines from aussie such as torbreck and some others.

parker is not tending towards fruit driven wines in aussie - they have always made them there! in fact even with no help from the winemaker due to the hot climate the wines there will always be blockbusters. see grange from 50 years ago, same story

i also enjoy some wines from cooler regions but parker has no issue with these wines unless they are thin and watery. also in time we are seeeing parker delegate authrotiy for some regions to others (burgundy, germany, italy) who have more appreciation i think for those regions.

[JohnL]

Perhaps what both Halliday and Robinson take issue with is the particular style of Parker wines which are often untypical of the region in question. We have seen this happen in Bordeaux, Spain, and California and now Parker is tending towards the fruit driven blockbusters in Australia. I love Parker, subscribe to the Advocate and enjoy him as a read but his reviews are always tempered by the fact that the high point scorers are usually the massive wines. There is room for some subtlety and lightness, particulalry in some of the cooler regions where Parker always scores lowly.

Are we also saying that the whole of New Zealand is devoid of quality wine and winemaking?.

←

"The ability to offer intense aromas and flavors without heaviness.

.....wineries in the New World (especially in Australia and California) can easily produce wines that are oversize, bold, big, rich, but heavy. Europe's finest wineries, with many centuries more experience, have mastered the ability to obtain intense flavors without heaviness...."

That is Parker's opinion as to a factor in what makes a wine "great."

I would argue that the "high point scorers" are not fruit driven blockbusters, rather they are wines that meet Parker's criteria for what makes a wine great. The fruit driven blockbuster thing is a piece of conventional wisdom applied by his critics.

From Andrew Jefford's book "The New France."-----

Compare the following two tasting notes for white wines from the same producer:

"The first wine is a fragrant effort exhibiting scents of tropical fruits and orange rind, crisp acidity, and a lively medium bodies citrusy finish."

The second wine is a "restrained, well deliniated white..which represents the essence of granite liquour,There is no real fruit character, just glycerine alcohol and liquid stones."

The first wine costs $24 a bottle.

The second wine costs $440 a bottle.

We are comparing Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes Hermitage Blanc Les Meysonniers and the same producer's Hermitage Blanc L'Ermite.

The tasting notes are both by Robert parker (the fruity wine by the way scores 84, the unfruity one 93-95).

How is it that Parker has long championed Beaujolais? If he "only likes big wines." I doubt anyone would find many "blockbusters" here. How about Muscadet? these are not blockbuster wines yet Parker has written highly of them.

What about his big scores for mountain grown cabernets?--these are cool climate wines.

One could go on and on just quoting Parker's reviews and tasting notes.

I do believe that Parker does lapse into "wine porn" and over exhuberance in his prose.

Critics often latch on to "buzzwords."

The Australian wine Halliday and Parker have issues over is selling for about fifty bucks a bottle--Parker merely tasted it and is saying that in his opinion it is not worth it and why.

Halliday is a salesman/flack for the Australian wine industry. Who has credibility here?

A final (I hope) note on those "big blockbuster wines" that Parker gives the high scores to.

Lafitte? a big block buster? Cheval Blanc? Pichon Lalande? where are the arguments when Parker rates these wines highly?

How many have tasted Screaming Eagle, Pride, Colgin, Mondavi PR, Harlan? all these get high scores yet they are all incredibly different wines different from the Bordeaux he rates highly and the Burgundies from Leroy and D' Angerville Rhones from Ogier and Chapoutier and Guigal, Loire wines from Baumard, and Dagganeau and Cuilleron --all these wines are:" blockbusters?"

Really?

One can disagree with Parker--he is a critic and writer--but where is the cogent and factual based

argument?

[carswell]

i say be more like parker and live and let live

←

Oh, please. Parker has no hesitation about savaging high-profile persons who dare to criticize or publicly disagree with him. See his comments re Ms. Robinson and several other critics during the 2000 Pavie shit-slinging for a recent example. See his board for the company he keeps: legions of True Believers who attribute the most fantastic motives (professional jealosy, resentment over lack of validation, rage at seeing their racket exposed, an ingrained hatred of success, etc.) to those who haven't drunk the RP kool-aid and then put words in their mouths, misrepresent their positions, twist their logic and malign their characters even as they construct and take down straw men and refuse to acknowledge points any honorable debater would concede. (There are exceptions, of course, though their numbers appear to be diminishing.) While I haven't followed the present brouhaha and won't because I find so much Australian wine to be incapable of providing pleasure, I admire Robinson and Halliday for their overall stand against the Night of the Living Parkerites. And, yes, I'm being a little over-the-top to goad our very own Parker apologist.

let us also not forget that Le Parkair is a gentleman and RARELY reviews a bad wine (under 80 points). in fact i cant think i ever saw one. there are so many wines out there who has time for bad ones?

How does depriving consumers of information make someone a gentleman? Parker claims he tastes thousands of wines he doesn't report on because they're sub 80-pointers. But how do you, the consumer, know whether a wine isn't listed because RP thinks it's plonk or because he didn't taste it? You don't. Phaneuf simply lists his two and one-star wines without notes. Why doesn't Parker do the same, if not in his print publications then on his website? It couldn't be because he's afraid of getting into hot water with producers and distributors, could it? A former local wine columnist of my acquaintance, a man of great integrity, says one of the main reasons he gave up his column was due to the reaction to his negative reviews — reaction from the "don't ruffle advertisers' feathers" editors, of course, but mainly from the producers, their representatives and the SAQ. The path of least resistance would have been only to review wines he could recommend but, viewing himself as a consumer advocate, he considered that a disservice to his readers, who couldn't always find the recommended wines and might choose instead to buy a wine he knew to be dreck. After several years of swimming against the current and suffering abuse for his honest opinions, he quit instead of compromising his principles. Now, that's a gentleman.

Edited December 1, 2005 by carswell (log)

[JohnL]

hello nimzo

maybe jancis does not like the same wines but parker and halliday have some faves in commons. this includes some monster wines from aussie such as torbreck and some others.

parker is not tending towards fruit driven wines in aussie - they have always made them there! in fact even with no help from the winemaker due to the hot climate the wines there will always be blockbusters. see grange from 50 years ago, same story

i also enjoy some wines from cooler regions but parker has no issue with these wines unless they are thin and watery. also in time we are seeeing parker delegate authrotiy for some regions to others (burgundy, germany, italy) who have more appreciation i think for those regions.

←

Vinfidel--you should read the Australia issue of the Wine Advocate.

Under "Current realities and myths surrounding Australian wines"--he makes a case for the diversity of Australian wines--including unoaked chardonnays and rieslings. also--grange hermitage--IMOP is not a "blockbuster" but rather an elegant wine that with age resembles a fine Bordeaux--another myth.

Some Torbreck wines are very big scaled--not all.

You are on to something with your "thin and watery" comment.

Often those touting a wine that is thin, not concentrated , overly acidic (out of balance)or from unripe fruit will use the terms"elegant" "terroir expressive" "finesse" ad nauseum.

If one disagrees with the application of these terms then that person is said to "not appreciate" the style or not to "get it"--one has to keep things straight here.

A wine is either well made or it isn't--this is not subjective. It has nothing to do with "liking" a wine. Anyone who would claim that a flaw or defect is an attribute to be prized is a shill. The argument that one man's thin watery wine is another's rich and concentrated wine is so ridiculous as to be absurd--there is room for subjectivity in this world but we are not living in wonderland.

also you are propegating another myth about Parker. "He doesn't appreciate Italy or Germany or Byurgundy etc"--suggest you at least read him on these areas. "The World's greatest Wine estates" was just published and those areas are covered in detail. The fact that he has enlisted help with the Wine Advocate indicates no lack of appreciation or knowledge--where's the evidence?--rather he is approaching his sixties.

[JohnL]

Carswell--so angry!

We are talking about a wine writer. If you don't like him that's fine.

Don't read him.

That's what Ms Robinson should do--ignore him.

You would both be much happier!

(unless you both achieve some sort of catharsis in you blind hatred of the man).

Note I said "blind."

because if you want to discuss or debate Parker you need to read and understand what he is about.--you know --understand the topic.

In fact, the Halliday, Robinson thing we are talking about here--is pretty much a lot of silliness that is really of little or no consequence to wine lovers anywhere in the world.

As I see it --it comes down to Halliday taking umbrage at parker who wrote:

"Yarra valley--This is Australia most fashionable viticultural area as well as a darling of the their wine press. It's proponants (the provincial Australian wine press) argue that the climate and resulting wines come closest in spirit to those of Bordeaux and and Burgundy in France. I am not convinced. Located in Victoria, this is a cool climate area outside Melbourne, and every major red and white glamour varietal is planted.....There is much more sizzle than substance for most wines wines from Yarra valley."

This is the opinion of a critic--he is paid to express his opinions--people follow them to one degree or another or they don't subscribe to them.

Parker hasn't purchased billboards or broadcast this on world wide TV it's in a damned newsletter! Some of these wines go for fifty bucks and more a bottle.

For this, Halliday goes on the attack--Parker doesn't like cool climate wine, Parker doesn't get Yarra, he hasn't tasted enough Australian wine on and on and on.

None of this is remotely true. Or you can believe Halliday totally.

OK

But why does anyone care here?

Why do you care?

Why does Jancis Robinson allocate any space on her website? Is this a major topic of debate in the wine world?

Wouldn't her subscribers be better served with her review of these Australian wines rather than what some other critic thinks?

As for Halliday--he's neglecting the fact that Parker actually raves about the current state of Australian wines--the chamber of commerce couldn't do a better job touting what Australia is doing these days. Halliday can't see past one perceived slight over one of many regions. That's his problem. What is yours? or Ms Robinson's.

In the end--I am at a loss as to why Parker (or anyone) drives you folks to distraction.

He's a critic. He is supposed to have opinions--you agree or disagree--or better yet don't care.

also

I notice that you attempt to "pre-empt" any debate by labeling us--"Apologists"

actually, I do like Parker (I don't worship him) and I also read any number of other critics. Tanzer, Wine Spectator, Coates,Burghound, Robinson, Waugh, and so on.

I just believe that Parker is often attacked on grounds that are either baseless or vague. I just like to see some reason ansd fairness in any debate.

Edited December 1, 2005 by JohnL (log)

[Vinfidel]

johnl - i have issue 161 with the australia reviews. in fact i just finish reading it. sorry my english is not good so sometime my point is not clear

maybe blockbuster is not a good term but grange is a big big wine. maybe not in comparison to recent monsters but taste older vintages next to old vintage of bordeaux or rhone and it show very big. yes with age it becomes more like a bordeaux but never a delictate bordeaux always a big one like 1961 1980,1982, 1990 bordeaux.

for torbreck the high-score points for parker and halliday for run rig and factor - these are bgi wines. again not maybe compared to some monsters from dan phillips and ringland but in a lineup you can see which one is big monster from down under!

to clarify - i enjoy all these wines as long as are a bit aged. i read jancis (mainly for french wines and to help with my english understanding!), halliday (i like his wine tour guide and was so useful to me when i live in australia for 1 month), and parker (less for review more because i like his style - as a cowboy seeking the truth!).

for the other regions, i am not saying he does not like/know/review those regions - it is a fulltime job for a person to focus on one region of one country! see how many people complain how late he is with review of other regions. not because he is lazy but of course he is busy. parker is also a great voice for burgundy no doubt but in time pierre will have more time and efforts to focus on this great region. the many voices now at the wine advocate is a great thing i hope to see more.

i did not yet get the great wine estate book i hope santa will bring it for me

carswell, it is a joke to mention phaneuf (for you people - he is a local wine reviewer) in the same breath as parker. this is like speaking of fellini or bergman in the same sentence as a local village man that video weddings. where is your basis that parker is afraid of distributors and producers?au contraire mon ami! he is to expose the frauds in this industry and there are many many of them. can you imagine his opinion of the SAQ (local monopole). why would he review a bad wine? to take space from a good wine? which idiot would put a bad parker score on his bottle? why dont the consumer look at the good wine review as a guide of which producer and vintage is good why do he need a bad review.

you are very angry at parker i dont know why. as for your friend who quit the newspaper because he didnt like the pressure commercial, maybe he should go join le parkair and work with him since that is part of the manifesto of parker - no pressure from commerce!

like johnl said if you dont agree with parker or do not like him as a man then feel free to read other reviewers. just respect his works.

johnl remember that for jancis and halliday they have only a very small percent of the voice of the wine reviewers even if you consider that they are both excellent voices. for whichever reason they have a problem with parker. he does not effect them in any way except to take a piece of their market. they are always attempting to gain more viewers by being controversial but i think this is SO BAD for their image and respect for their works. makes it like a tabloid magazine. best to keep the focus on what is in the glass than who said what and who is bad and who is good

[JohnL]

Vinfidel!

I do agree with you. (Your English is fine--where are you from?).

I think that there is a lot of professional jealousy.

Ms Robinson-- also reviews wines for a living is a fine writer and it is a shame that she engages in petty sniping and gossip.

as I noted earlier--why did she feel the need to perpetuate this petty feud (Halliday and Parker) on her website?

Notice that she does not provide any insight by discussing the Yarra Valley and its wines (at least for non paying customers--I am not a "purple pages" member).

So what was her motivation?

Also no one ever provides any supporting evidence when they attack Parker--it is always vague claims like "he only likes big wines." or "he doesn't like cool climate wines" etc.

Anyway Parker's new book is expensive--but in the opening he does a great job explaining what in his opinion constitutes greatness in wines. His detractors would do well to read this before they toss conventional wisdom around.

also

Steve Tanzer in his latest newsletter interviews Michel Rolland giving Rolland a chance to respond to the portrayal in Mondovino--this is very enlightening.

I think a lot of people tend to jump on a bandwagon and do not look at any other sides to these issues.\

cheers!

[MaxH]

The moderators might wish to consider putting something in this wine forum's Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) list, or creating one if necessary. It will mention keywords that evoke consistent, reliable responses, evident in the large data base here of thread profiles like this one --

Rebel Rose Aug 3 2005, 12:45 PM Post #1

jbonne Aug 3 2005, 01:09 PM Post #2

JohnL Aug 3 2005, 02:40 PM Post #3

--["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."]

jbonne Aug 3 2005, 03:05 PM Post #4

JohnL Aug 3 2005, 03:27 PM Post #5

Rebel Rose Aug 3 2005, 03:33 PM Post #6

JohnL Aug 3 2005, 04:02 PM Post #7

Phil Ward Aug 4 2005, 06:22 AM Post #8

Brad Ballinger Aug 4 2005, 07:44 AM Post #9

JohnL Aug 4 2005, 09:28 AM Post #10

Rebel Rose Aug 4 2005, 10:23 AM Post #11

jbonne Aug 4 2005, 10:39 AM Post #12

JohnL Aug 4 2005, 11:34 AM Post #13

--["I don't consider myself a "Parker partisan""]

Brad Ballinger Aug 4 2005, 12:45 PM Post #14

JohnL Aug 4 2005, 01:22 PM Post #15

--["So why are the reactions so strong? So visceral?"]

(Merely one such example, of dozens). If I may be of professional assistance, for example assembling hot-button keyword lists, I have some experience in other very consistent contexts.*

Respectfully -- MaxH, amicus curiae.

* For example the high-tech-startup mission statements during the dot-com boom. Reference "HTSHI."

[Boris_A]

Anyone who would claim that a flaw or defect is an attribute to be prized is a shill.

←

There's some disagree in the world of wine:

It is also the defects that often give the wine its singular individiuality and character. ... despite all the techniques to make higher qualitiy, there is still a place for wines with a handful of defects that give them undeniably character as well as greatness."

Robert M. Parker jr., The Wine Advocate 146 , p. 4

But I still think that Parker is biased towards "Wagner"-wines opposed to "Schubert"-wines (to use a music metaphor). Fortunatley, what wine merchants here told me, recently the public showed a lot of interest in elegant (aka "thin, watery") wines. Could be that the worst of the blockbuster fad is over now.

[JohnL]

Anyone who would claim that a flaw or defect is an attribute to be prized is a shill.

←

There's some disagree in the world of wine:

It is also the defects that often give the wine its singular individiuality and character. ... despite all the techniques to make higher qualitiy, there is still a place for wines with a handful of defects that give them undeniably character as well as greatness."

Robert M. Parker jr., The Wine Advocate 146 , p. 4

But I still think that Parker is biased towards "Wagner"-wines opposed to "Schubert"-wines (to use a music metaphor). Fortunatley, what wine merchants here told me, recently the public showed a lot of interest in elegant (aka "thin, watery") wines. Could be that the worst of the blockbuster fad is over now.

←

Boris, a very good point.

Much of all this " too do" is a result of mis communication.

It is also a result of the imprecise nature of wine evaluation.

Few would argue that only a miniscule number of wines are "perfect" and that a "perfect" wine could be less than exciting to drink.

Imperfections are often what makes a wine interesting to drink.

However, "elegant" should have nothing to do with "thin and watery." That was and is my point.

Grapes that are under ripe is not a good thing. If it were there would be no chaptalization. (no one would care). There would also be no laws or restrictions on what grapes are grown where in Europe. It is why for eg,. Cabernet Sauvignon is not grown in the Champagne district.

What happens though, is the trade has to sell their wine regardless of its quality. The trade has a history of taking a poor quality wine and making it attractive to consumers. They distort things by calling poor quality wines "elegant" "food wines" "wines of great character" "charming wines" and so on.

There are many perfectly fine wines that are deserving of these descriptors--but the trade takes advantage of the imprecision of the wine vocabulary.

This isn't neccessarily wrong, it is what salepersons often resort to.

For years Detroit sold inferior automobiles via some pretty creative use of language.

We should also note a very important fact. For many years, wine writers and critics were often part of the trade. If you can find it, I strongly recommend "Wine Snobbery" by Andrew Barr which deals with the "shoddy practices" of the wine trade.

Along comes Parker who takes an independant approach as well as a consumerist point of view.

I have noticed that a large part of the criticism of Parker starts with the trade. Parker tastes a wine gives his opinion. Most of the time Parker only features wines that score 80 or more though he tastes many many more wines. He is writing the "Wine Advocate" containing recommendations. Most other newsletters do the same. It would be pointless to include wines that score poorly. Stereo equipment review books do this as do other wine publications.

However on occasion, Parker notes something negative about a group of wines and sometimes notes when a wine that has a strong track record and thus, great expectations--underperforms-- for eg--Mouton or a wine that is touted by the wine press--the Mount Mary's Australian wine that set Mr Halliday off. Parker went on to alert his readers/consumers that in his opinion, the Yarra region (where the Mount Mary's is from) though highly touted by the trade (and the press--one and the same here) was not performing well. His professional opinion.

It is understandable why Halliday was bent out of shape--he is part of the wine press/trade and they are promoting wines from Yarra (the Mount Mary's is listed at Fifty Dollars or more). I would posit that if the Mount Mary's were a $20 wine this whole thing would not amount to much at all.

As a result Halliday declares that Parker, obviously does not like or "get" wines that come from cool climates. This is patently ridiculous--I can reel off hundreds of wines that come from cool climates that Parker has rated highly and recommended.

But this now becomes part of the conventional wisdom about Parker and anyone who has an axe to grind accepts it as fact.

In reality, if anyone takes the time to read the Parker review of the wine and the Yarra, one would see Parker is critical of wines that are made from under ripe fruit. In fact, there are a few wines in Parker's review--from the Yarra Valley that recieve good to exellent scores from him.

It is easier to attack Parker on the grounds that he (parker) does not like wines from cool climates (an untruth) than to claim parker doesn't like wines that are made from under ripe fruit.(the truth).

So, in the end, Halliday, for the reasons stated often here, is basically questioning Parker's professional ecpertise because Parker has been critical of wines Halliday is promoting--Parker also "exposed" the Australian wine press for their less than critical approach.

Jancis Robinson throws some fuel on the fire by featuring this "tempest in a teapot" because she has her own axe to grind. Here I am disgusted with her constant nit picking Parker--it should be beneath her. She is a fine writer and taster in her own right. Note she merely deals in the gossip of the Parker Halliday feud rather than provising her own opinion of the Yarra Valley and its wines.

Again, Parker is a critic and wine writer. He is expressing his opinions--that's really all. One would expect that a good critic would be at odds with the wine trade--they need each other--but they are also adversaries (or should be). The conventional wisdom about him--he only likes big wines (whatever they are) he doesn't like wines that have finesse (whatever that is) and so on are so much silliness. To say a professional wine taster can not differentiate between his own personal likes and dislikes and assess wines accurately is wrong headed.

There is one interesting fact to point out here--

James Halliday is a wine critic, writer and wine judge for trade tastings in Australia--he has also been a wine maker.

in the Yarra Valley.