Rovani and Thomases Out at the Wine Advocate

[Craig Camp]

The departures of Daniel Thomases and Pierre Rovani from Robert Parker's The Wine Advocate have finally been announced, but is it too-little-too-late? The damage they did to The Wine Advocate in the areas of Burgundy and Italy had long ago driven sophisticated consumers to other sources for their information. The appointments of replacements will be very interesting as Parker must select writers that are both highly respected and in-tune with his palate - something that may be a mutually exclusive concept.

http://decanter.com/news/93121.html

Edited August 23, 2006 by Craig Camp (log)

[docsconz]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

[JohnL]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

I'm sorry but this "palate" stuff is patently ridiculous.

A good wine critic should be able to evaluate all types of wines.

Some choose to specialize--it is difficult and demanding to cover all areas of wine (especially today).

I find it very curious that this theory holding that one must have a specifically "tuned" palate to appreciate a specific type of wine persists, especially applied as it is to wine writers and critics.

Let me qualify this--to one specific critic.

Palate "tuning" is a myth.

Professional (and many amateur) tasters are trained to be able to assess and evaluate a wide range of wines and to convey these assessments accurately.

If, in fact, there is a "Parker palate" then there is a Robinson palate and a Kolm palate and a Tanzer palate and on and on. These people then are only "qualified" to write credibly about certain wines.

Nonsense.

So if Meadows decides to write about anything but Burgundy his opinions of wines from other areas are less valid?

How is it he can write about distinctly different types of pinot noir wines from various parts of the world with any authority. How can his finely "tuned" Burgundy palate properly assess New World Pinot let alone other varietals--can we trust him to tell us about a cabernet??

Every wine evaluation course I have ever seen--assumes people can appreciate, assess and evaluate many types of wines--will they "like" or "love" them? Not necessarily.

The wine world is really fascinating. I have never seen so much petty sniping and snarky gossip in any other industry I was previously a part of.

If any wine critic is so out of touch with the public he/she would cease to exist--people would simply not subscribe to that critic's opinions.

This is a critical point I believe. Critics write for people, consumers not for other critics and wine writers. This is where most of the sniping comes from--insiders.

critics sniping at other critics, wholesalers touting a critics good scores for their wines and in the next breath slamming that same critic for a bad review of one of their offerings.

Wine makers bemoaning a critic's influence then jacking up their prices after a good review. Retailers who complain they can't sell a wine unless it gets a good review--yet, oddly, all their wine seems to get sold somehow.

So I would ask--what specifically did Rovanni or Thomases write that led to this supposed "damage"?

Most importantly, who is it that is making these claims? Is there a significant decline in subscribers to the newsletter? (There may be--I have no statistics).

The grapevine possibly?

anyway--

it is so much more fun to just drink wine.

and we should appreciate all the critics and writers who simply want to educate and guide consumers.

[Craig Camp]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker.

[docsconz]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

I'm sorry but this "palate" stuff is patently ridiculous.

A good wine critic should be able to evaluate all types of wines.

Some choose to specialize--it is difficult and demanding to cover all areas of wine (especially today).

I find it very curious that this theory holding that one must have a specifically "tuned" palate to appreciate a specific type of wine persists, especially applied as it is to wine writers and critics.

←

John, though I very much respect your opinion, I must disagree. Parker has always favored big, brash, blockbuster wines and does an excellent job of ferreting them out. He has been especially successful with the wines of Bordeaux that are consistent with his aesthetic. He is a great critic because he is very cionsistent and one can make judgements based on his critique whether or not one shares the same aesthetic. Burgundy, however, is a bit of a different animal. Most afficionados of Burgundy that I know tend to favor less brash, more subtle wines that vary from Parker's aesthetic. His scores for Burgundies never meshed as well with that and it shouldn't be surprising. That he brought in someone else to evaluate those wines was, I thought, a tacit admission of that and something for which I respect him. I think it is impossible for one person to be the lighthouse for all wines. People have their various strengths and weaknesses as do wines and people have their biases. That doesn't mean that he cannot evaluate, enjoy or appreciate Burgundy, just that his strengths and aesthetics don't play to that wine as well as someone else's perhaps.

[docsconz]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker.

←

It may very well be that Rovani wasn't a very good Burgundy critic either. As I said, I haven't really followed the Wine Advocate for a number of years now and don't really have an opinion on his perfiormance. That Parker has someone else evaluating Burgundy is still IMO a good idea.

[Craig Camp]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

I'm sorry but this "palate" stuff is patently ridiculous.

A good wine critic should be able to evaluate all types of wines.

Some choose to specialize--it is difficult and demanding to cover all areas of wine (especially today).

I find it very curious that this theory holding that one must have a specifically "tuned" palate to appreciate a specific type of wine persists, especially applied as it is to wine writers and critics.

←

John, though I very much respect your opinion, I must disagree. Parker has always favored big, brash, blockbuster wines and does an excellent job of ferreting them out. He has been especially successful with the wines of Bordeaux that are consistent with his aesthetic. He is a great critic because he is very cionsistent and one can make judgements based on his critique whether or not one shares the same aesthetic. Burgundy, however, is a bit of a different animal. Most afficionados of Burgundy that I know tend to favor less brash, more subtle wines that vary from Parker's aesthetic. His scores for Burgundies never meshed as well with that and it shouldn't be surprising. That he brought in someone else to evaluate those wines was, I thought, a tacit admission of that and something for which I respect him. I think it is impossible for one person to be the lighthouse for all wines. People have their various strengths and weaknesses as do wines and people have their biases. That doesn't mean that he cannot evaluate, enjoy or appreciate Burgundy, just that his strengths and aesthetics don't play to that wine as well as someone else's perhaps.

←

That's a very concise and accurate viewpoint of the history and reality of the situation when in comes to Parker, the WA and Burgundy - all pinot noir for that matter.

[JohnL]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker.

←

First, can you please provide some specific support to your statement that "Rovani has been under attack for inaccurate reports and blatant errors." What reports? What errors?

I would also love for you to please name these "producers" and "aficionados"--just a few.

Second, You note that the "oxidation issue is the final straw." The link you provide is six years old. How and where has Rovani "taken an indefensible position"? His post in the thread is quite well reasoned.

Third, would you guys at least admit that it is even remotely possible that Parker hired Rovani to cover Burgundy (he also covers other wine regions) because Parker approaching sixty at the time found it difficult to personally cover every major (and some minor) wine making regions?

And not because Parker: A) was run out of Burgundy by the wine makers, B) realized he is not competent to evaluate Burgundy and/or C) doesn't appreciate burgundy?????????????

How is it you are not criticizing Tanzer for doing the same?

Fourth, I have scanned the reviews and ratings for Burgundy by Rovani, Tanzer, Coates, Robinson and Meadows. Interestingly I find they generally agree as to a wine's quality more often than not. Can you explain this?

Fifth, as to the "Parker palate" I do agree that Parker favors wines where the grapes achieved adequate ripeness (he himself has complained about over ripe or over extracted grapes/wines.

He also looks for adequate mouth feel as well as complexity and typicity and a sense of place. If one looks at the wine makers in Burgundy that Parker promotes as making the best wines: D'Angerville, D'Auvenay,Coche-Dury,Dugat, Dugat-Py,Jadot, Comtes Lafon,Domaine leflaive, leroy, Lignier, Niellon, DRC, De Vogue, and also see that he has championed wines from Beaujolais and the Macon--please tell me where there is a monolithic palate that only likes big wines. really, the breadth of styles this small list represents is --well--breathtaking!

If you assert that Parker "doesn't get" Burgundy--I wonder If you have read what he has written about it in his book "Burgundy" and his buying guides. Show me where you disagree with anything he has written.

"Big, Brash, Blockbuster wines?

Are you saying that D'Angerville is making "Big Brash Blockbuster wines????

Parker championed Dominus for years. (I disagreed with him here) he also championed Harlan estates--would you or anyone seriously say that Dominus was/is making Big brash Blockbusters?

recently Parker was criticized for liking Aussie Shiraz--wines that were big and brash etc yet at the same time Parker wrote glowingly (and rated highly) many unoaked Clare valley Chardonnays. No one seemed to notice this. The critics only seem to select the reviews that make their case--ignoring those that do not.

While we are on Shiraz/syrah--how is it that Parker can love Australian Shiraz and Rhone wines?

Can the styles be more different?

Yes he likes Guigal but he also likes Ogier.

some people like to buy into a piece of conventional wisdom--"Parker only likes ---type of wines. They jump all over anything that supports this while totally ignoring the mass of evidence that refutes the wisdom.

I realize a lot of this debate and criticism is generated by the trade--Clive Coates called Rovani a "naive ingenue" months before Rovani had written a word.

The trade is more obsessed with Parker (and Rovani) than the general public certainly is.

I too believe that the WA has lost some of its authority in some areas. Not because Rovani or Parker are incompetent or somehow possessing palates that "don't get" some mythical paradigm.

Rather Parker is getting old--publishing notes on huge numbers of wines from an ever expanding world of wine making is a mentally and physically demanding task. There is also more competition out there/here. Just as meadows is discovering that he may have to cover more than just Burgundy, Parker is finding that one can only cover so much.

Again, I ask the question--why is it that no one seems to be questioning if Meadows with his "Burgundian" palate can possibly cover New World Pinot and Rhone wines???

Rovani (or anyone Parker hires) is walking into a hornets nest of petty sniping, jealousy, and back stabbing.

I would advise anyone who revels in the conventional wisdom to at least read Parker. His current "The World's greatest Wine Estates" opens with some wonderful insights into how Parker views all the big issues in the world of wine today (the downside is the book is very expensive).

I leave you with this:

two tasting notes:

same producer same vintage

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

--the second wine is '`restrained, well delineated white...(which) represents the the essence of granite liquor. There is no real fruit character, just glycerin and, alcohol and liquid stones."

the first is Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes hermitage Blanc

the second is his Hermitage Blanc l'Ermite

the first wine is scored 85 points (good)

the second is scored 93-95 points (outstanding)

by Robert Parker

so please tell me more about that Parker palate that only loves big massive fruit bombs!

(by the way--how can Parker cover Rhone whites--they are much too terroir driven--Parker likes fruit and oak!!!!)

The comparison or notes and scores by Parker is from Andrew Jefford's superb "The New France"

cheers!!!!

Edited August 24, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[wkl]

the link craig supplied begins with a post from rovani dated 10/14/2005. most recent posts are from 7/2006. not sure where your seeing a post that is 6 years old.

[Craig Camp]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker.

←

First, can you please provide some specific support to your statement that "Rovani has been under attack for inaccurate reports and blatant errors." What reports? What errors?

I would also love for you to please name these "producers" and "aficionados"--just a few.

Second, You note that the "oxidation issue is the final straw." The link you provide is six years old. How and where has Rovani "taken an indefensible position"? His post in the thread is quite well reasoned.

Third, would you guys at least admit that it is even remotely possible that Parker hired Rovani to cover Burgundy (he also covers other wine regions) because Parker approaching sixty at the time found it difficult to personally cover every major (and some minor) wine making regions?

And not because Parker: A) was run out of Burgundy by the wine makers, B) realized he is not competent to evaluate Burgundy and/or C) doesn't appreciate burgundy?????????????

How is it you are not criticizing Tanzer for doing the same?

Fourth, I have scanned the reviews and ratings for Burgundy by Rovani, Tanzer, Coates, Robinson and Meadows. Interestingly I find they generally agree as to a wine's quality more often than not. Can you explain this?

Fifth, as to the "Parker palate" I do agree that Parker favors wines where the grapes achieved adequate ripeness (he himself has complained about over ripe or over extracted grapes/wines.

He also looks for adequate mouth feel as well as complexity and typicity and a sense of place. If one looks at the wine makers in Burgundy that Parker promotes as making the best wines: D'Angerville, D'Auvenay,Coche-Dury,Dugat, Dugat-Py,Jadot, Comtes Lafon,Domaine leflaive, leroy, Lignier, Niellon, DRC, De Vogue, and also see that he has championed wines from Beaujolais and the Macon--please tell me where there is a monolithic palate that only likes big wines. really, the breadth of styles this small list represents is --well--breathtaking!

If you assert that Parker "doesn't get" Burgundy--I wonder If you have read what he has written about it in his book "Burgundy" and his buying guides. Show me where you disagree with anything he has written.

"Big, Brash, Blockbuster wines?

Are you saying that D'Angerville is making "Big Brash Blockbuster wines????

Parker championed Dominus for years. (I disagreed with him here) he also championed Harlan estates--would you or anyone seriously say that Dominus was/is making Big brash Blockbusters?

recently Parker was criticized for liking Aussie Shiraz--wines that were big and brash etc yet at the same time Parker wrote glowingly (and rated highly) many unoaked Clare valley Chardonnays. No one seemed to notice this. The critics only seem to select the reviews that make their case--ignoring those that do not.

While we are on Shiraz/syrah--how is it that Parker can love Australian Shiraz and Rhone wines?

Can the styles be more different?

Yes he likes Guigal but he also likes Ogier.

some people like to buy into a piece of conventional wisdom--"Parker only likes ---type of wines. They jump all over anything that supports this while totally ignoring the mass of evidence that refutes the wisdom.

I realize a lot of this debate and criticism is generated by the trade--Clive Coates called Rovani a "naive ingenue" months before Rovani had written a word.

The trade is more obsessed with Parker (and Rovani) than the general public certainly is.

I too believe that the WA has lost some of its authority in some areas. Not because Rovani or Parker are incompetent or somehow possessing palates that "don't get" some mythical paradigm.

Rather Parker is getting old--publishing notes on huge numbers of wines from an ever expanding world of wine making is a mentally and physically demanding task. There is also more competition out there/here. Just as meadows is discovering that he may have to cover more than just Burgundy, Parker is finding that one can only cover so much.

Again, I ask the question--why is it that no one seems to be questioning if Meadows with his "Burgundian" palate can possibly cover New World Pinot and Rhone wines???

Rovani (or anyone Parker hires) is walking into a hornets nest of petty sniping, jealousy, and back stabbing.

I would advise anyone who revels in the conventional wisdom to at least read Parker. His current "The World's greatest Wine Estates" opens with some wonderful insights into how Parker views all the big issues in the world of wine today (the downside is the book is very expensive).

I leave you with this:

two tasting notes:

same producer same vintage

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

--the second wine is '`restrained, well delineated white...(which) represents the the essence of granite liquor. There is no real fruit character, just glycerin and, alcohol and liquid stones."

the first is Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes hermitage Blanc

the second is his Hermitage Blanc l'Ermite

the first wine is scored 85 points (good)

the second is scored 93-95 points (outstanding)

by Robert Parker

so please tell me more about that Parker palate that only loves big massive fruit bombs!

(by the way--how can Parker cover Rhone whites--they are much too terroir driven--Parker likes fruit and oak!!!!)

The comparison or notes and scores by Parker is from Andrew Jefford's superb "The New France"

cheers!!!!

←

JonnL,

I refuse to get into yet another circular argument with you. You have your positions and that's that. I don't happen to agree with many of those positions and your arguments only convince me of the futility of arguing with you. Let's just say you're right and I'm wrong and save time, but a few points first...

If you are unaware of the controversy surrounding Rovani's coverage of Burgundy you are out of the loop. He has been ridiculed by both winemakers and Burgundy collectors for years. He has been banned from a long list of cellars - thank God the Burgundians have enough guts to make such a risky commercial decision. Even on Parker's own forum there have been ongoing howls of protest over the content, timeliness and comprehensiveness of the Burgundy coverage. Burghound has completely overwhelmed the WA as the journal of record when it comes to reporting on Burgundy. It should be noted that Allen lives there almost half the year and this depth of experience shows in his reports. If you don't understand the problem with Rovani's post on why white Burgudies are oxidizing prematurely you did not read the entire thread where he is torn apart by chemists and winemakers. This was a major embarrassment to Parker, which was widely reported in the wine world. How did you not know this? Not of these things are (or should be) news to anyone following Burgundy.

I don't think Parker hired Rovani because of age, I think he hired him because he is a very smart guy and knew his coverage of Burgundy was not stellar and because the world of wine is just too big for one person to report on in-depth four times a year. He wanted someone to come in and pick up an area he was weak on - and knew he was weak on.

As most of your post defends Parker and we are discussing Rovani and Thomases (who for some reason you don't mention) we will ignore that part. I have made clear many times my great respect for Parker at what he does. The Wine Advocate is still the wine journal of record, but only for the regions that Parker covers personally and now also for German wine as David Schildknecht's coverage is excellent. Good coverage is not defined by the palate of the writer, but by their consistency of palate and depth of knowledge. I don't agree with Parker's Bordeaux scores, but I respect them for their accuracy and ability to communicate to me exactly what the wines taste like. You don't have to agree with a critic for them to be useful to you as long as that critic is precise and consistent in their notes. No one is better than this than Robert Parker when it comes to Bordeaux.

(by the way, the e e cummings style posts are hard to read for old guys like me)

[JohnL]

the link craig supplied begins with a post from rovani dated 10/14/2005. most recent posts are from 7/2006. not sure where your seeing a post that is 6 years old.

←

you are right--I stand corrected.

the "issue" has been around for a while.

[JohnL]

Very interesting. I thought Rovani was brought in in the first place because Parker's palate appeared to be more in tune with Bordeaux and less so with Burgundy. My impression was that he needed another palate for Burgundy as he was getting a lot of criticism on his Burgundy scores. I also was under the impression that he added the other specialists because Rovani was working out relatively well. As my buying needs have diminished in recent years i have paid less attention to the Wine Advocate and other critics, so I don't really have an opinion on his specialist program outside of Rovani, who I thought did a decent job.

←

John - Rovani has been under attack for years by Burgundy producers and aficionados for what can only be called inaccurate reports and blatant errors. The final straw seems to have been the whole issue with the premature oxidation of white Burgundy (http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=162). where Rovani was clearly and publicly blown own of the water for taking an indefensible position on why and how the problem occurred. Supposedly this last issue pushed things over the top for Parker.

←

First, can you please provide some specific support to your statement that "Rovani has been under attack for inaccurate reports and blatant errors." What reports? What errors?

I would also love for you to please name these "producers" and "aficionados"--just a few.

Second, You note that the "oxidation issue is the final straw." The link you provide is six years old. How and where has Rovani "taken an indefensible position"? His post in the thread is quite well reasoned.

Third, would you guys at least admit that it is even remotely possible that Parker hired Rovani to cover Burgundy (he also covers other wine regions) because Parker approaching sixty at the time found it difficult to personally cover every major (and some minor) wine making regions?

And not because Parker: A) was run out of Burgundy by the wine makers, B) realized he is not competent to evaluate Burgundy and/or C) doesn't appreciate burgundy?????????????

How is it you are not criticizing Tanzer for doing the same?

Fourth, I have scanned the reviews and ratings for Burgundy by Rovani, Tanzer, Coates, Robinson and Meadows. Interestingly I find they generally agree as to a wine's quality more often than not. Can you explain this?

Fifth, as to the "Parker palate" I do agree that Parker favors wines where the grapes achieved adequate ripeness (he himself has complained about over ripe or over extracted grapes/wines.

He also looks for adequate mouth feel as well as complexity and typicity and a sense of place. If one looks at the wine makers in Burgundy that Parker promotes as making the best wines: D'Angerville, D'Auvenay,Coche-Dury,Dugat, Dugat-Py,Jadot, Comtes Lafon,Domaine leflaive, leroy, Lignier, Niellon, DRC, De Vogue, and also see that he has championed wines from Beaujolais and the Macon--please tell me where there is a monolithic palate that only likes big wines. really, the breadth of styles this small list represents is --well--breathtaking!

If you assert that Parker "doesn't get" Burgundy--I wonder If you have read what he has written about it in his book "Burgundy" and his buying guides. Show me where you disagree with anything he has written.

"Big, Brash, Blockbuster wines?

Are you saying that D'Angerville is making "Big Brash Blockbuster wines????

Parker championed Dominus for years. (I disagreed with him here) he also championed Harlan estates--would you or anyone seriously say that Dominus was/is making Big brash Blockbusters?

recently Parker was criticized for liking Aussie Shiraz--wines that were big and brash etc yet at the same time Parker wrote glowingly (and rated highly) many unoaked Clare valley Chardonnays. No one seemed to notice this. The critics only seem to select the reviews that make their case--ignoring those that do not.

While we are on Shiraz/syrah--how is it that Parker can love Australian Shiraz and Rhone wines?

Can the styles be more different?

Yes he likes Guigal but he also likes Ogier.

some people like to buy into a piece of conventional wisdom--"Parker only likes ---type of wines. They jump all over anything that supports this while totally ignoring the mass of evidence that refutes the wisdom.

I realize a lot of this debate and criticism is generated by the trade--Clive Coates called Rovani a "naive ingenue" months before Rovani had written a word.

The trade is more obsessed with Parker (and Rovani) than the general public certainly is.

I too believe that the WA has lost some of its authority in some areas. Not because Rovani or Parker are incompetent or somehow possessing palates that "don't get" some mythical paradigm.

Rather Parker is getting old--publishing notes on huge numbers of wines from an ever expanding world of wine making is a mentally and physically demanding task. There is also more competition out there/here. Just as meadows is discovering that he may have to cover more than just Burgundy, Parker is finding that one can only cover so much.

Again, I ask the question--why is it that no one seems to be questioning if Meadows with his "Burgundian" palate can possibly cover New World Pinot and Rhone wines???

Rovani (or anyone Parker hires) is walking into a hornets nest of petty sniping, jealousy, and back stabbing.

I would advise anyone who revels in the conventional wisdom to at least read Parker. His current "The World's greatest Wine Estates" opens with some wonderful insights into how Parker views all the big issues in the world of wine today (the downside is the book is very expensive).

I leave you with this:

two tasting notes:

same producer same vintage

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

--the second wine is '`restrained, well delineated white...(which) represents the the essence of granite liquor. There is no real fruit character, just glycerin and, alcohol and liquid stones."

the first is Chapoutier's 1999 Crozes hermitage Blanc

the second is his Hermitage Blanc l'Ermite

the first wine is scored 85 points (good)

the second is scored 93-95 points (outstanding)

by Robert Parker

so please tell me more about that Parker palate that only loves big massive fruit bombs!

(by the way--how can Parker cover Rhone whites--they are much too terroir driven--Parker likes fruit and oak!!!!)

The comparison or notes and scores by Parker is from Andrew Jefford's superb "The New France"

cheers!!!!

←

JonnL,

I refuse to get into yet another circular argument with you. You have your positions and that's that. I don't happen to agree with many of those positions and your arguments only convince me of the futility of arguing with you. Let's just say you're right and I'm wrong and save time, but a few points first...

If you are unaware of the controversy surrounding Rovani's coverage of Burgundy you are out of the loop. He has been ridiculed by both winemakers and Burgundy collectors for years. He has been banned from a long list of cellars - thank God the Burgundians have enough guts to make such a risky commercial decision. Even on Parker's own forum there have been ongoing howls of protest over the content, timeliness and comprehensiveness of the Burgundy coverage. Burghound has completely overwhelmed the WA as the journal of record when it comes to reporting on Burgundy. It should be noted that Allen lives there almost half the year and this depth of experience shows in his reports. If you don't understand the problem with Rovani's post on why white Burgudies are oxidizing prematurely you did not read the entire thread where he is torn apart by chemists and winemakers. This was a major embarrassment to Parker, which was widely reported in the wine world. How did you not know this? Not of these things are (or should be) news to anyone following Burgundy.

I don't think Parker hired Rovani because of age, I think he hired him because he is a very smart guy and knew his coverage of Burgundy was not stellar and because the world of wine is just too big for one person to report on in-depth four times a year. He wanted someone to come in and pick up an area he was weak on - and knew he was weak on.

As most of your post defends Parker and we are discussing Rovani and Thomases (who for some reason you don't mention) we will ignore that part. I have made clear many times my great respect for Parker at what he does. The Wine Advocate is still the wine journal of record, but only for the regions that Parker covers personally and now also for German wine as David Schildknecht's coverage is excellent. Good coverage is not defined by the palate of the writer, but by their consistency of palate and depth of knowledge. I don't agree with Parker's Bordeaux scores, but I respect them for their accuracy and ability to communicate to me exactly what the wines taste like. You don't have to agree with a critic for them to be useful to you as long as that critic is precise and consistent in their notes. No one is better than this than Robert Parker when it comes to Bordeaux.

(by the way, the e e cummings style posts are hard to read for old guys like me)

←

\Craig

"Circular arguments"???

I ask you a questions and you chose to ignore them.

Anyway, I am not "defending" Parker (or anyone), I am merely asking you to support your claims and criticisms. You do take a jab or two at Parker.

I am fully aware of the various "controversies"--Rovani has been quite outspoken.

As for the oxidized Burgundies thread you provided, I see a theory as valid at this point as any, you believe that Rovani was "trashed" and discredited. What you are reading are many conflicting opinions and theories, with no resolution.

It may well be that Parker has lost confidence in Rovani (and Thomases) I agree that the WA has lost some standing in the areas of Burgundy and Italy. However, I do not believe it is because either Rovani or Thomases are incompetent.

My criticism, which I can support, is that Rovani needed to spend more time in Burgundy and focus more on reviewing and rating the wines. He was often too intent on making bold statements

and set himself up as an easy target. I am not sure about Thomases though broader coverage of all the regions would be an immediate improvement.

I also believe that the WA was stronger when Parker did it all. We agree.

I am still waiting for some evidence from you to support your assertion that Parker's coverage "was not stellar."

And I am still waiting for any support that Parker is somehow adrift when it comes to Burgundy.

At the time, and for many years, it was basically just Parker and Coates when it came to Burgundy.

What we are dealing with here is mostly gossip. The wine business is rife with it. I listen to distributors and wine makers and importers and retailers all day long. I read it from critics and writers, endless sniping and innuendo.

You see it out here in chat rooms and on web sites, people just passing along the conventional wisdom, tossing out bon mots about the Parker palate and old world vs new world (why does this have to be a competition?).

Like the oxidation thing. The truth is no one, critics, writers, chemists, wine makers et al have discovered the answer. There may be no answer (this is wine after all).

finally, you should reacquaint yourself with ee cummings, he was a great poet after all.

(I got evidence to support that )

[Craig Camp]

JohnL,

I see no need to rehash the obvious.

What we are dealing with here is mostly gossip. The wine business is rife with it. I listen to distributors and wine makers and importers and retailers all day long. I read it from critics and writers, endless sniping and innuendo.

You need to hang out with a more positive group. I have to admit that means avoiding The Parker Forum, which is the essence of sniping and innuendo. However, this could be a nice place if we all play nice.

[bobferdon]

The Parker forum had an interest thread just last week. One member wanted to learn more about Burgundy and asked the members for their recommendations on who to read. Except for Mark Squires it was hands down anybody but Parker.

Parker has not been welcome in Burgundy for many years. The list of wineries not wanting him there was growing every year. He hired PR because he knew burgundy but he has the same palate. Do you think RP would hire someone who would not agree with him?

Hopefully he will change his ways and hire someone who understands tradition, finesse and elegance. It will help with their burgundy reviews.

Edited August 25, 2006 by bobferdon (log)

[Craig Camp]

The Parker forum had an interest thread just last week. One member wanted to learn more about Burgundy and asked the members for their recommendations on who to read. Except for Mark Squires it was hands down anybody but Parker.

Parker has not been welcome in Burgundy for many years. The list of wineries not wanting him there was growing every year. He hired PR because he knew burgundy but he has the same palate. Do you think RP would hire someone who would not agree with him?

Hopefully he will change his ways and hire someone who understands tradition, finesse and elegance. It will help with their burgundy reviews.

←

Could anything lay out the reality of the situation more clearly? On Parker's own forum, where any hint of criticism of Bob himself is met by attack dogs, criticism of Rovani and the WA coverage of Burgundy (and Italy for that matter) were everyday facts.

[JohnL]

The Parker forum had an interest thread just last week. One member wanted to learn more about Burgundy and asked the members for their recommendations on who to read. Except for Mark Squires it was hands down anybody but Parker.

Parker has not been welcome in Burgundy for many years. The list of wineries not wanting him there was growing every year. He hired PR because he knew burgundy but he has the same palate. Do you think RP would hire someone who would not agree with him?

Hopefully he will change his ways and hire someone who understands tradition, finesse and elegance. It will help with their burgundy reviews.

←

So you are saying Parker does not understand:

"tradition. finesse, elegance"?????

Have you any first hand evidence to support this?

Can you cite something from his book or notes for eg --that would

support these sweeping claims?

also

Please explain what exactly finesse and elegance are

and what they have to do with tradition?

These terms are tossed around quite a bit.

Also--I would love for you to explain which wineries do not want Parker around.

as well as your comment that he is "not welcome" in Burgundy.

Lastly,

It is ultimately amusing that all this silliness and innuendo and gossip are of interest to anyone.

Especially anyone who really loves wine.

Parker is a wine writer and critic, if he not one's cup of tea--then one shouldn't subscribe or certainly be bothered by anything Parker writes.

Really? What's the fuss?

More importantly--why is of concern to anyone who doesn't subscribe to Parker that they have to run him down even take the time to "jump in"???

I would really love to know why these people care?

[docsconz]

The Parker forum had an interest thread just last week. One member wanted to learn more about Burgundy and asked the members for their recommendations on who to read. Except for Mark Squires it was hands down anybody but Parker.

Parker has not been welcome in Burgundy for many years. The list of wineries not wanting him there was growing every year. He hired PR because he knew burgundy but he has the same palate. Do you think RP would hire someone who would not agree with him?

Hopefully he will change his ways and hire someone who understands tradition, finesse and elegance. It will help with their burgundy reviews.

←

So you are saying Parker does not understand:

"tradition. finesse, elegance"?????

Have you any first hand evidence to support this?

Can you cite something from his book or notes for eg --that would

support these sweeping claims?

also

Please explain what exactly finesse and elegance are

and what they have to do with tradition?

These terms are tossed around quite a bit.

Also--I would love for you to explain which wineries do not want Parker around.

as well as your comment that he is "not welcome" in Burgundy.

Lastly,

It is ultimately amusing that all this silliness and innuendo and gossip are of interest to anyone.

Especially anyone who really loves wine.

Parker is a wine writer and critic, if he not one's cup of tea--then one shouldn't subscribe or certainly be bothered by anything Parker writes.

Really? What's the fuss?

More importantly--why is of concern to anyone who doesn't subscribe to Parker that they have to run him down even take the time to "jump in"???

I would really love to know why these people care?

←

Love him, hate him or anywhere in between, it should be no surprise why people care. Robert Parker is the most influential wine critic on the planet, possibly ever. His ratings or the ratings from the WA have an inordinate influence on the price of wine and more importantly the kinds of wines produced aiming to "please the Parker palate" or at least what is often perceived as such rightly or wrongly. For that a lot of people resent Parker, especially those who make wines that don't generally fit that perceived profile. Frankly, as a buyer I would be very happy if my favorite wines did not get good scores from him, although my ego might suffer a little bit Of course, you already know all this, but I thought I would supply an answer to your question anyway. I am not being sarcastic, John. You obviously have a very extensive knowledge of wine and the wine world and I believe your question is a rhetorical one.

[Craig Camp]

Lastly,

It is ultimately amusing that all this silliness and innuendo and gossip are of interest to anyone.

Apparently you are very interested in all this silliness and innuendo.

[JohnL]

Love him, hate him or anywhere in between, it should be no surprise why people care. Robert Parker is the most influential wine critic on the planet, possibly ever. His ratings or the ratings from the WA have an inordinate influence on the price of wine and more importantly the kinds of wines produced aiming to "please the Parker palate" or at least what is often perceived as such rightly or wrongly. For that a lot of people resent Parker, especially those who make wines that don't generally fit that perceived profile. Frankly, as a buyer I would be very happy if my favorite wines did not get good scores from him, although my ego might suffer a little bit Of course, you already know all this, but I thought I would supply an answer to your question anyway. I am not being sarcastic, John. You obviously have a very extensive knowledge of wine and the wine world and I believe your question is a rhetorical one.

←

[russ parsons]

for the most part, i agree with john on this one. wine writing was very much an old boys club until parker. for whatever reason, american consumers embraced his palate and very quickly he became very powerful (much to the chagrin of Europeans, Americans still buy the lion's share of great wines).

much that has been written about parker has been silly, and worse (hugh johnson, whose writing on wine i grew up worshipping, compared him to bush). as john points out, parker's perceived lack of appreciate for finesse, i read as a barely disguised swipe at what is perceived as a boorish American middle class wine buying public. furthermore, as has been badly punned before, this is all just sour grapes. if any of his critics had parker's influence, how would they behave differently?

furthermore, though the "parker palate" is much discussed, i think that is really only a caricature. sure, he likes a style of wine that I don't much care for. but he likes other styles of wine as well. several times, well into multi-bottle wine dinners, i have seen someone ridicule parker, then to prove their point pick up one of his books and begin to read the descriptions of the wines we are drinking. this usually ends rather shame-facedly as they are forced to admit that, yes, the descriptions are fairly accurate.

i think the part that irks me the most about the parker-bashing is that so much of it comes from winemakers and wineshop owners, who decry parker's influence and taste, and then are quick to post his scores and tasting notes as shelf-talkers when it benefits them commercially.

this is not to say that parker is the be-all and end-all of wine writing. personally, i don't much follow him. i prefer to drink wines that i find on my own, taste for myself and know that i enjoy. but to attack him as wine's great satan is simply ridiculous.

[wkl]

this thread was started to discuss the departure of rovani and thomases. what's that got to do with parker's palate?

[JohnL]

this thread was started to discuss the departure of rovani and thomases. what's that got to do with parker's palate?

←

Everything!

The original post notes:

"Parker must select writers that are both highly respected and in tune

with his palate, something that may be mutually exclusive."

I would also note that one rarely sees much debate/discussion regarding other

noted critics. For eg. Clive Coates recently stopped publishing his newsletter.

Not much discussion over this--especially re who would take his place.

The fact is Parker seems to be dragged into any debate/discussion about wine these days.

Note also that no one has really provided any specific complaint about either Rovani or Thomases.

Most of this, again, seems to be from a perspective that brings Parker into it.

I would suggest, having read both Rovani and Thomases this problem has more to do with their comprehensiveness in covering two very important regions.

It raises a larger issue of given the wine world's expansion both in terms of drinkers (readers/subscribers) and the sheer number and diversity of wines being produced--Italy alone has exploded--can one journal, newsletter--what have you--do a good job?

I would also add that Rovani took some strong positions and should have been a bit more diplomatic in how he espoused them. Basically, he stuck his neck out and appeared somewhat arrogant before he had "established" himself more firmly.

I believe he needed to keep his head down and work harder in covering Burgundy and establish himself more before he made some of his bold pronouncements.

The silliness about "matching palates" or tuned palates and grousing wine makers

(bans etc) are not the real issues. Unless, of course, one is obsessed with Parker.

One also rarely hears any criticism about any other critic's abilities to assess and write about particular wines. If this palate nonsense hods any water (wine) then critics like Jancis Robinson, or Hugh Johnson for eg, who write and critique wines from all over the world would be scrutinized as closely as Parker.

For eg. if Hugh Johnson "knocks" a Caligornian Cabernet or an Australian shiraz no one seems to question whether or not his "European/ Old World preferences/tuned palate whatever--should somehow disqualify him from writing about these wines.

No one suggests that Jancis Robinson Hire someone "in tune" with her palate, to cover Oregon etc.

I keep asking that anyone who believes that Parker is somehow not qualified to cover Burgundy or has a palate that is not in tune with some notion of what Burgundy wines are supposed to be (the delicacy and finess stuff)--to please provide some empirical evidence in support.

In fact, I would love to see someone even make a case that Burgundy is or should be all about delicacy and finesse.

These words are fine in context of tasting notes but to toss them around in such broad terms is sheer folly.

I would argue that if your Pommard displays delicacy and finesse--it is atypical Pommard, same for La Tache or Chambertin.--wines that distinctly about power and size when at their best.

Let's remember Parker wrote a pretty good book on Burgundy and is involved in growing and making pinot noir. To say he somehow doesn't get Burgundy is nuts!

But Parker has, as been noted (especially by Russ) is a lightening rod for people who have an agenda. Wine Makers, wine critics, retailers, distributors etc etc etc.

I would love to discuss Parker without the baggage. He has his faults his notes and scores are interesting. They deserve to be discussed, not trashed out of hand or praised blindly either.

But this ain'y gonna happen--when the wine world would rather get wrapped up in old world vs new world smackdowns and use Parker as a whipping boy for all their perceived wine world ills.

Edited August 31, 2006 by JohnL (log)

[Fengyi]

One also rarely hears any criticism about any other critic's abilities to assess and write about particular wines. If this palate nonsense hods any water (wine) then critics like Jancis Robinson, or Hugh Johnson for eg, who write and critique wines from all over the world would be scrutinized as closely as Parker.

For eg. if Hugh Johnson "knocks" a Caligornian Cabernet or an Australian shiraz no one seems to question whether or not his "European/ Old World preferences/tuned palate whatever--should somehow disqualify him from writing about these wines.

No one suggests that Jancis Robinson Hire someone "in tune" with her palate, to cover Oregon etc.

←

Sorry to cause even more thread drift, but hasn't Jancis Robinson just hired Linda Murphy to cover American wines? And indeed, the subject of palates did come up and she was asked about it by a couple of people. She answered:

"But as for how our palates compare, yes I have indeed tasted with both Julia and Linda and compared notes so that I did ensure that we like the same characteristics in wine – balance, refreshment, ability to develop in glass and bottle, integrity and interest." (quoted from "your Turn" on the Purple Pages 25 Aug). So, it seems more than possible that Jancis Robinson would want someone with a 'similar palate' to hers representing her.

Therefore (to try and bring this back to the original topic), as Rovani and Thomases are both leaving, it might probably be of some concern to Robert Parker that he find replacements who have a palate akin to his, if he has a similar approach to his wine-tasting publishing as Jancis Robinson.

But seeing as I have never gotten hold of a copy of Wine Advocate myself for careful study...it's all a pretty closed book to me. I do read the eBob board at times, but find it all quite too much to take in properly!

[wkl]

on steve tanzer's site, after the announcement of rovani and thomas' departure, there was some speculation of a merger between the int'l wine cellar and the wine advocate. this was mr tanzer's response today:

"Not to worry. I did have some conversations with Bob a couple of months back on this subject, but it turned out that we have very different ideas about the future of wine reviewing on the Internet--and, I suspect, the role and tone of discussion forums. So you will continue to receive a fully independent IWC, all of whose contributors speak with a single voice."

by Steve Tanzer

on Sep 01,2006

[Craig Camp]

Parker has announced his replacements and they are good ones indeed and the topic of my blog today, Advocating The Wine Advocate.

The changes are Antonio Galloni will take on Italy, Dr. J. Miller will cover the Pacific Northwest, Spain, Australia, and South America and the expansion of David Schildknecht’s role beyond Germany and Austria to include Burgundy, Champagne, Alsace, the Loire Valley and the Languedoc-Roussillon. Parker himself will refocus his considerable talents on his strong points; Bordeaux, California and the Rhone.

I think these are bold moves as each of these critics are very independent and do not necessarily mirror Parker's own likes and dislikes. Their addition will make The Wine Advocate a much stronger and more interesting publication. It will also make it a much hotter property to potentially sell.