Robert Parker

[Roy Hersh]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... TIE+TEAGUE

[Peter W. Meek]

Nice article. I think it may alleviate a bit of the mild hostility I have had towards Mr. Parker. (I have always felt that his opinions tend to drive winemakers in directions I don't care for.) It seems to show a bit more of a human side.

[Tom D.]

I found it pathetic he denied the plain meaning of "Parkerized," prefering to interpret it as a compliment to himself as champion of the working man winemaker. As a man primarily responsible for the obliteration of regional character in wines and their dumbing-down to his prefered least common denominator, it would be nice if he at least had the integrity and guts to stand by his palate and his work.

[Ray Barnes]

In my humble personal opinion only, it is worth remembering that Mr. Parker's remarks reflect his personal opinions and they should be taken in that context, no more or less. He considers his work to be a guide and there is absolutely no substitute for one's personal own palette. For instance, I tried the 2003 Taylor VP on the strength (in part) of its recommendations in the Wine Advocate (and also in this site's notes, which are more reliable on Portugese wines). Mr. Parker himself gave this wine an informal perfect score in his Hedonist's Gazette. Yet, I find the 2007 Sandeman VP, which was scored lower than the Taylor, to be a better wine than the Taylor, and about half the cost to boot. On the other side, Parker has rated some wines 89 points, which is the proverbial kiss of death, making them unsaleable at full retail price. Having taken advantage of the triple cursed Domaine Zind Humbrecht 2005 Riesling Herrenweg de Turckheim Lot 144, given 3 scores of 89 (WA, WS and ST), it turned out to be a fabulous wine. While some wines are inflated based on his approval, others are unjustly disserviced by his lack of support, and one should take advantage of such opportunities. If Mr. Parker has too much influence on wine price, that is the fault of winemakers, especially the vignerons, who take advantage of peoples' unwillingness to form their own conclusions. He has that level of influence because people cede it to him.

I applaud Mr. Parker's advocacy of the Rhone, and was literally salivating at the photo of Chateau de Beaucastel Chateauneuf-du-Pape blanc (Vielles Vignes Roussanne). Top drawer white Rhone can match up with any still white table wine in the world, regardless of price.

[Derek T.]

I found it pathetic he denied the plain meaning of "Parkerized

Tom,

This might be a shock to you given our previous exchanges, but I agree with you 100%.

I think the author is naive, but RP's conscious ignorance of what that term means is astounding.

I have a feeling this will be a rare occurrence, so perhaps we should both savour the moment.

Derek

[Andy Velebil]

As a man primarily responsible for the obliteration of regional character in wines and their dumbing-down to his prefered least common denominator, it would be nice if he at least had the integrity and guts to stand by his palate and his work.

Agree 100%. He has single handedly caused the destruction of wines with unique identity. Thankfully many winemakers have now realized that and are slowly returning to their old ways of making wine.

[Tom D.]

In my humble personal opinion only, it is worth remembering that Mr. Parker's remarks reflect his personal opinions and they should be taken in that context, no more or less. He considers his work to be a guide and there is absolutely no substitute for one's personal own palette.

Agreed Ray, absolutely. I just don't know why he can't acknowledge that he's human and he prefers a certain style, just like the rest of us do. He keeps trying to make himself into a crusader for the downtrodden unknown winemakers, he is in reality a crusader for winemakers whose style he personally likes. For every winemaker he has vaulted into celebrity, there are a dozen others making better wines (for some peoples' palates) that he ignored for reasons of pure personal preference. This is certainly not a mortal sin, critics are paid to give their opinion. I just cringe when he plays the hero for doing so, as if he is putting all things right in the wine world by pronouncing his judgment.

I admire a critic like Roy, on the other hand, because his notes show some effort at objective assessment, even a bit of humility and respect. They demonstrate that it is in fact possible to critique a wine without making it sound like an imperial pronouncement.

[Eric Ifune]

Personally, I believe that the world of wine is a better place because of Parker. You may rail away at the homogention of wine, but he was the first to discuss Cote Rotie and Barolo, especially in the States. They were dying appelations before. Much of Bordeaux and Burgundy was crap and riding on their reputations. People like Peynaud and Jayer were influential in improving things and Parker championed their work. People forget how bad things were in the 1970's, how many lousy first growths and grand crus there were.

[Andy Velebil]

Personally, I believe that the world of wine is a better place because of Parker. You may rail away at the homogention of wine, but he was the first to discuss Cote Rotie and Barolo, especially in the States. They were dying appelations before. Much of Bordeaux and Burgundy was crap and riding on their reputations. People like Peynaud and Jayer were influential in improving things and Parker championed their work. People forget how bad things were in the 1970's, how many lousy first growths and grand crus there were.

Eric,

While I would agree with you on him back then, it's the past 12-15 years where things have seemingly gone "south." That article is a classic example of the guy not admitting what he prefers now (big jammy alcoholic wines) is what most wine makers were (and many still are) trying to make solely to please him. I know this first hand from people I know in the Cali wine making scene. I've been flat out told wines are made to please him in the hopes of getting a good score. Thankfully some producers have bucked this trend yet it was apparent Parker shunned them. Ridge comes to mind off the bat. He refused to evaluate them until the public pressure got so bad he had to recently. The question is why did he stop reviewing them in the first place? Simple, they refused to coddle him and make wines he wanted and preferred. They stuck to their guns (on various fronts) and he generally shunned reviewing them for a good stretch of time.

I've also been told these "Parkerized" wines have generally turned out to be a mess. They aren't aging very well at all and now people have realized their mistake. In defense, there are always some rare exceptions. But I've been told many producers have learned their lesson the hard way and are now dialing things back. I applaud these producers who aren't afraid to buck Parker and make wines they want to make.

Lets also talk about his "I buy almost all the wines I taste" claims. Some wine folks with way too much time on their hands estimated what it would cost him to buy a significatant portion of what the WA reviewed...results, it was a huge sum that was in no way sustainable or realistic. IIRC, it was far more than what the WA brought in in estimated subscriptions annually. And that didn't take into account all those travel costs, employees and their travel costs, etc. Again, from people I know in ITB he rarely if ever paid for wine samples. I have no issues with that, as it's impossible to do what he and his staff does without samples, but don't claim something you know is a lie. Be upfront that you receive free samples, it's no big deal. But again, when you claim one thing and it's clearly obvious it's the opposite it doesn't bode well for your credibility IMO.

[Tom D.]

I guess it comes down to style and a person's palate. I drank a considerably broader range of French wine in the late 1970's and 1980's than I do now, and for my tastes the wines I drank then (before Robert Parker had descended to earth to enlighten and save the industry) were generally more interesting and enjoyable than the ones I drink today. But it's paradoxically true that many French AOC's have greatly expanded commercially and gained followings in the USA during that time, which sadly does seem the main yardstick of success in most endeavors nowadays.

[Ray Barnes]

The so-called international "Parker" style, as I understand it, in general, is alcoholic, very highly extracted, and incorporates lots of new oak. At the time of the publication of Robert Parker's 100 Greatest Wine Estates of the World, the Domaine with the highest level of perfect scores was Guigal, with no less than 21 of them for the Cote Roties La Landonne, La Turque and La Mouline, all of which spend 42 months in new oak. The critics of Guigal claim his wines taste more like Grange or Clarendon Hills' Astralis than Cote Rotie. It comes down to style. Parker claims, in spite of the prodigious oak, that the wines display their terroir. Each must decide for himself.

[Rob C.]

Well...the thing that piqued my interest was the daughter of drinking age, who currently has no interest in his 10,000 bottle cellar...

[Ray Barnes]

If I may add a belated post script to Andy's thoughtful observations, it begs the question, why did these California wines turn out to be "messes" which did not age well? Well, I'm likely out of my depth here, but in general terms as I aspire to understand them, the risk of a grower harvesting overripe or sur maturite fruit, is that with many varietals the increases in grape sugar and potential alcohol are also marked by reductions in acidity, and it is the latter which is responsible for the wine's ageing potential. Three very admirable exceptions to this general rule are riesling, Loire chenin blanc, and Furmint in the Tokaji region of Hungary, producing late harvested wines high in sugar and acidity. I recently received an email from Huet in Vouvray, who claims its 1995 Cuvee Constance has the potential to last 100 years - and ironically, this wine was never reviewed by the Wine Advocate.

I think the rule of thumb is to harvest when the grapes are phenologically mature, having a good balance between acid and sugar, with ripe tannins. One does not have to get carried away seeking over-ripeness.

[Ray Barnes]

PS - I meant to type, the drop in acidity reduces a wine's ageing potential.

[Eric Ifune]

So if a producer kowtows to Parker and produces wine they do not like, is that Parker's fault or the producers? Any critic will have their preferences, as we all do, but to completely submit is the producer's fault in my mind. Now personally, I do not like Parker's palate (at least for rich red wines, he did rate Trimbach highly) and have never subscribed to the Wine Advocate, but I can't lay all the faults of the wine world at his feet as many do.

I did, at one time, subscribe to Clive Coates who had the reputation of requiring a case or two of wine for a producer to get a good review. (He was the one who left the trunk of his car open while tasting at the wineries.) While this is a serious lapse, I did feel his palate was more aligned to mine so I continued to subscribe.

[Ray Barnes]

As far as I am concerned, everything can be delegated, except responsibility. If a producer makes faulty wine to attempt to appease a critic and his or her fans, the buck stops with the producer.

[Tom D.]

So if a producer kowtows to Parker and produces wine they do not like, is that Parker's fault or the producers? Any critic will have their preferences, as we all do, but to completely submit is the producer's fault in my mind. Now personally, I do not like Parker's palate (at least for rich red wines, he did rate Trimbach highly) and have never subscribed to the Wine Advocate, but I can't lay all the faults of the wine world at his feet as many do.

You're right. I don't blame Parker for being a critic and having opinions that others choose to follow. The complicty of producers in pursuit of commercial success is plainly on them. And the complicity of dumbed-down consumers who seek no better, is plainly on them.

But again, considering his stature and intelligence, I would have hoped Parker would have the guts and honesty to reflect thoughtfully on what his influence has meant over the years, and to express at least a little concern about the resultant homogenization of winemaking that is clearly going on around him. He chose instead to glibly deny that in this interview.