Rovani and Thomases Out at the Wine Advocate

[JohnL]

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!

←

"Drift"???

IMOP you have actually touched upon what the real issue in this thread is.

The issue is with a rapidly expanding wine world can one critic (any critic) adeqautely cover so many regions and so much wine for consumers. Can any singular publication maintain a level of comprehensiveness?

Thus, Jancis Robinson is not bringing Ms Murphy aboard because she (Jancis) can not or is not qualified to write about and assess wines from California. (or anywhere).

Same for Steve Tanzer, the Wine Spectator and yes, Mr Parker. They all have help now! I would ask how much longer Meadows can keep his very narrowly focused publication as such (he has already "branched out" to include New World Pinot Noir).

Also, will the future allow for any one individual to be as established across the entire wine world as Parker was when he carried the entire load alone?

I do not think so.

Interestingly, there is way too much talk about "palates" here. The attributes Jancis Robinson cites ".....I did ensure we like the same characteristics in wine

balance, refreshment, ability to develop in glass and bottle....."

ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ATTRIBUTES OF QUALITY WINE THAT ROBERT PARKER CITES IN HIS MOST RECENT BOOK.

If one thinks for just a moment, one would realize that the attributes Robinson cites are almost universally accepted by most everyone (professional and amateur) everywhere for all wines.

I would be shocked if Ms Murphy (or anyone) had a different set of criteria.

In the end, this had nothing to do with any real or imagined "Parker palate" or even the tasting abilities of Rovani or Thomasses. The one (and only) fact that can be cited is that the scope, the breadth and depth of the coverage of key areas Italy and Burgundy (and others) was lacking. I would accept a quality argument but no one seems able to make one with any logic or evidence in support.

Rumour and innuendo still abound. "Parker is not competent to write on Burgundy

so he has to hire somepone else to do it..."

"He has the wrong palate for Burgundy..."

Blah, Blah, Blah.......

I realize that many are far too hung up in the "palate" matching nonsense to ever even consider they just might be wrong.

Conventional wisdom, even the most erroneous and myth based just lives on.

So instead of Oliver Stone's "JFK" we get Nossitor's "Mondovino."

What we do have, in abundance, is good wine.

From many places.

"Old Style"

"New Style"

"Old world" and "New World"

Whatever and however you want to label it.

I refuse to look at wine as a zero sum game. Oak vs no Oak or "Cult wine" vs whatever....

To me, good wine is good wine and those who insist in making wine an issue of polemics ("I only drink unoaked chardonnay..") are missing half the fun!!!!

Pigeon holing critics and writers (really one writer) has become a sport that adds nothing to anything.

When they stick to writing about wine all of them are good (some better). The criteria Jancis Robinson cites applies to all wine. All styles. Those who selectively apply that criteria are dishonest and are not good critics.

A good critic can write and assess all types of wines and when a critic is confused or baffled by a wine they need only note it. All critics (and people at large) have likes and dislikes--the difference for a professional is they can put them aside.

Anyone who has taken even a rudimentary tasting class at a good school is taught to taste and evaluate many different types of wines and to recognize the universal attributes in all of them. Not just taste and evaluate only wines they "like."

IMOP (of course).

[wkl]

any thoughts on what galloni's coverage for the wine advocate will be like?

will it simply be reprinting of the piedmont report? if so, isn't parker just paying galloni for his current writings and reprinting them for the wine advocate subscribers? i mean, the scores and comments can't be different.

and if his coverage will be different ( covering different producers, visiting other areas of northern italy, etc.), as a piedmont report subscriber (i am one) will you feel a little cheated?

is there another critic with his own newsletter that is writing for a competitor? (although the piedmont report is kinda like david and wine advocate golaith)

i'm assuming the piedmont report will continue in its current format.

just food for thought.

Edited September 1, 2006 by wkl (log)