"Robert Parker's Bitch" - Truth Be Known ...

[DonRocks]

The naiveté in this video - particularly that of Karen MacNeil - is astonishing.

[johnb]

Worth viewing.  Yes, Ms. MacNeil is naive.  Otherwise I find most of the comments fairly reasonable.  I believe Parker has pretty much destroyed wine for an entire generation.  This is one situation where I'm glad I'm old so had the opportunity to learn a little about the subject before he muscled his way in, and didn't become beguiled by the numbers and the phoney "expertise".

I am prepared to make a strong statement and damn what anyone thinks.  In my (most humble) opinion, Robert Parker doesn't know what good wine is.  And the saddest part is he probably doesn't realize it himself (although he surely understands why his schtick has been so influential, and it has nothing to do with his understanding of wine).

What he thinks is good wine is super powerful fruit bomb high alcohol fermented grape juice.  That is not good wine -- never has been.  Good/fine wine, in my opinion and I think the opinion most of those who have been around appreciating the stuff for hundreds of years up until about 1985, exhibits subtlety, grace, fragrance, elegance, balance, and has finesse, among other qualities.  Fruit bombs, and most of the wines Parker rates highly, are not any of those things even though he does sometimes pay lip service to those qualities.

I will make an analogy with motor vehicles.  A fine wine may be like a Ferrari, a Rolls, a Corvette, a Mercedes, a Duisenberg, a Mclaren, a '59 Cadillac Eldorado convertible, or maybe even a Jeep Rubicon.  Fruit bomb wines are like a Peterbuilt, a Kamaz, or a Cat 797B -- they are great vehicles for what they are designed to do, but they are not fine motor vehicles.

It would be wonderful if somebody with an actual good palate, perhaps some actual training, and who actually understood good wine were to come along and start rating wines on a 100 point scale.  A good starting point might be wines that Parker has rated around 75-80.  There probably have been such people, but breaking through the Parker/WS wall into mass consciousness is practically impossible.

Meanwhile, speaking only for myself,  I'll continue to avoid these ratings and look for something different, however hard it may be to find such things in this age that Parker has created for us.

[DonRocks]

Worth viewing.  Yes, Ms. MacNeil is naive.

...

I believe Parker has pretty much destroyed wine for an entire generation.  This is one situation where I'm glad I'm old so had the opportunity to learn a little about the subject before he muscled his way in, and didn't become beguiled by the numbers and the phoney "expertise".

...

It would be wonderful if somebody with an actual good palate, perhaps some actual training, and who actually understood good wine were to come along and start rating wines on a 100 point scale.  A good starting point might be wines that Parker has rated around 75-80.  There probably have been such people, but breaking through the Parker/WS wall into mass consciousness is practically impossible.

A few things:

1. Karen MacNeil knows too much to be naive (as I first said); she merely appears to be putting on airs, perhaps out of self-interest.

2, Robert Parker *is* an expert; he just doesn't have a nuanced palate. His first Bordeaux book was groundbreaking, and very impressive (even his point scores seemed to make sense to me at the time since he was only comparing apples to apples) - I don't know what happened to him, but all I can guess is that he spread himself too thin - his Burgundy book was as outrageously bad as his Bordeaux book was historically good - he missed the 83 Burgundy vintage to the same extent that he connected with the 82 Bordeaux vintage.

3. Allen Meadows, Josh Raynolds, John Gilman, David Schildknecht, and Gerry Dawes are all bonafide experts with outstanding palates, and all use the 100-point scale (out of financial necessity, or so they all claim). I know them all extremely well (David fairly well), and strongly disagree with their use of points to "rate" wines. The only person (in my cadre) who thinks points are as ridiculous as I do is Terry Theise. I could write an entire dissertation on this concept (which absolutely extends to restaurants, and for that matter, movies, paintings, museums, oysters, peanut butter, etc.), but am going to stop here. Just let it be known that these people whom I like and respect (and all of whom know *much* more than I do about wine) are, in my eyes, infected with one incredibly self-serving and hypocritical flaw which plays into the laziness and trophy-collecting mentality of the general public. To Gerry's credit, I don't think he does this anymore - to the credit of them all, their point scores aren't increased because a wine is "weighty" or "syrupy"; all of them are in search of balance, terroir, elegance, and detail.

[johnb]

2, Robert Parker *is* an expert; he just doesn't have a nuanced palate.

3. Allen Meadows, Josh Raynolds, John Gilman, David Schildknecht, and Gerry Dawes are all bonafide experts with outstanding palates, and all use the 100-point scale (out of financial necessity, or so they all claim). I know them all extremely well (David fairly well), and strongly disagree with their use of points to "rate" wines. The only person (in my cadre) who thinks points are as ridiculous as I do is Terry Theise. I could write an entire dissertation on this concept (which absolutely extends to restaurants, and for that matter, movies, paintings, museums, oysters, peanut butter, etc.), but am going to stop here. Just let it be known that these people whom I like and respect (and all of whom know *much* more than I do about wine) are, in my eyes, infected with one incredibly self-serving and hypocritical flaw which plays into the laziness and trophy-collecting mentality of the general public. To Gerry's credit, I don't think he does this anymore - to the credit of them all, their point scores aren't increased because a wine is "weighty" or "syrupy"; all of them are in search of balance, terroir, elegance, and detail.

Parker may be an "expert" on the book-lernin side, like all about the geography and the techniques, etc., but 99% of what he presents himself as is as a judge of the quality of wine in the bottle.  What makes wine good or not good is highly nuanced.  If you either can't or refuse to take into account those nuanced qualities in making judgements about the quality of wine (in the bottle), then you can't be an expert on the quality of wine in the bottle.  So yeah, you're right that he (or his ghost writers?) may be expert in some aspects, but he is not and can't possibly be the expert he claims to be in the areas where it really matters for what he primarily does.

Since I long ago stopped closely following the current literature of wine, I'm not versed on the folks you mentioned, but it sounds good and I wish them well.  Parenthetically, in my own defense there was a time when I devoured anything about wine I could get my hands on, and I believe I owned the majority of books on the subject that were current then.  That was when Harry "gobs of fruit" Waugh was grading wine on a five point scale, and people like Alexis Lichine were doing the same thing on various such scales.  At that time (late sixties) California's "fine" wine selection consisted primarily of BV GLPR and some very few others that probably no longer exist.  Producers like Sterling and Mondavi were just planting their first grapes and establishing their wineries.  Bordeaux and Burgundy were pretty much it.

Then from out of nowhere (Baltimore) along came this totally untrained (self-trained) lawyer with his 100 point scale and his self-published newsletter.  It sold because, IMO, humans are hard-wired to relate to numerical ratings, and everybody who was interested in wine had tertiary education and was accustomed to being graded on a 100 point scale, and knew that in college at least the difference between 89 and 91 was highly meaningful.  So everybody bought in to the 100-point scale for rating wine, and just assumed the publisher-taster-lawyer was of course an "expert."  The rest is history, and wines had to be made to receive a rating from him, based on his preferences or "knowledge" or whatever, of at least 90, come hell or high water, or the wine-maker could kiss his multi-million dollar investment goodby.  The perfect storm.   And now here we are, with shelves full of alcohol and not a whole lot else.

So fighting the 100 point scale is probably an impossibility; I'm actually surprised nobody (?) has started using a 1000-point scale.  Why not -- "this wine got 913 points so it clearly miles better than this one that only got 907."

What fools we humans are, and I'm certainly no exception.  But that's what makes the world go 'round.

[Bart]

I wonder if the obsession with chasing and catering to Parker's 100 points will be beneficial to VA wine makers?

Since none of them are getting cover stories in the wine mags, and since Parker is not scoring them, they're free to make the kind of wine they want to.  Maybe in a few year when/if the tide turns, VA wines will be way out in front (in getting back to the way things used to be)?

[DonRocks]

Parker may be an "expert" on the book-lernin side, like all about the geography and the techniques, etc., but 99% of what he presents himself as is as a judge of the quality of wine in the bottle.  What makes wine good or not good is highly nuanced.  If you either can't or refuse to take into account those nuanced qualities in making judgements about the quality of wine (in the bottle), then you can't be an expert on the quality of wine in the bottle.  So yeah, you're right that he (or his ghost writers?) may be expert in some aspects, but he is not and can't possibly be the expert he claims to be in the areas where it really matters for what he primarily does.

Since I long ago stopped closely following the current literature of wine, I'm not versed on the folks you mentioned, but it sounds good and I wish them well.  Parenthetically, in my own defense there was a time when I devoured anything about wine I could get my hands on, and I believe I owned the majority of books on the subject that were current then.  That was when Harry "gobs of fruit" Waugh was grading wine on a five point scale, and people like Alexis Lichine were doing the same thing on various such scales.  At that time (late sixties) California's "fine" wine selection consisted primarily of BV GLPR and some very few others that probably no longer exist.  Producers like Sterling and Mondavi were just planting their first grapes and establishing their wineries.  Bordeaux and Burgundy were pretty much it.

Then from out of nowhere (Baltimore) along came this totally untrained (self-trained) lawyer with his 100 point scale and his self-published newsletter.  It sold because, IMO, humans are hard-wired to relate to numerical ratings, and everybody who was interested in wine had tertiary education and was accustomed to being graded on a 100 point scale, and knew that in college at least the difference between 89 and 91 was highly meaningful.  So everybody bought in to the 100-point scale for rating wine, and just assumed the publisher-taster-lawyer was of course an "expert."  The rest is history, and wines had to be made to receive a rating from him, based on his preferences or "knowledge" or whatever, of at least 90, come hell or high water, or the wine-maker could kiss his multi-million dollar investment goodby.  The perfect storm.   And now here we are, with shelves full of alcohol and not a whole lot else.

So fighting the 100 point scale is probably an impossibility; I'm actually surprised nobody (?) has started using a 1000-point scale.  Why not -- "this wine got 913 points so it clearly miles better than this one that only got 907."

What fools we humans are, and I'm certainly no exception.  But that's what makes the world go 'round.

Parker's expertise goes long beyond bookishness - he's been there, in the vineyards, and in the Chateaux, and knows what he's talking about. That said, I think you and I typed pretty much the exact same thing - once that glass gets under his nose ... from that point forward, we diverge. "Ah! Blueberries and Licorice with low acidity and hugely viscous tears clinging to the side of the glass! 98 points!"

No ghostwriter for Parker. He's universally recognized as a poor writer, and no ghostwriter would be this banal. I don't say this to get a jab in; it's just pretty much accepted that his prose leaves much to be desired. It's also nearly impossible to write one-paragraph wine descriptions over, and over, and over again, tens of thousands of times, and be considered "a good writer" - it's too constricting of a format.

I wonder if the obsession with chasing and catering to Parker's 100 points will be beneficial to VA wine makers?

Since none of them are getting cover stories in the wine mags, and since Parker is not scoring them, they're free to make the kind of wine they want to.  Maybe in a few year when/if the tide turns, VA wines will be way out in front (in getting back to the way things used to be)?

I do agree that Americans in particular are "hardwired" to accept the 100-point system from tests in school, and I've written elsewhere that I predict Parker's one, lasting imprint will be the 100-point scale. Like it or not, it was *brilliant* in terms of garnering widespread, public acceptance. I also propose that if it weren't for that system, not many people would know who Robert Parker even was - when he started, he was just another wine geek who was bitten by the bug, and made regular treks down to MacArthur Liquors. He *is* an expert with all the bonafides (at this point, he may know more about Bordeaux than anyone outside of France); a uniquely talented wine taster he is most certainly not, and never has been. I'm not talking about "blind tasting" (he is probably a great blind taster); rather, all the hype about "insuring his palate for a million dollars," etc. It may be true that he took out a policy, but anyone with their own business should have a disability policy. I refuse to say the man doesn't have talent (because he absolutely does), but I also refuse to say he is "the first and last word when it comes to evaluating wines" (because he absolutely isn't).

I agree with what Bart writes about Virginia wines. The quality and terroir are both there, and it took someone with a platform like Dave McIntyre to get the word out. There's no reason that Virginia shouldn't be poised to take its place among the nation's wine elite.

[johnb]

Parker's expertise goes long beyond bookishness - he's been there, in the vineyards, and in the Chateaux, and knows what he's talking about. That said, I think you and I typed pretty much the exact same thing - once that glass gets under his nose ... from that point forward, we diverge. "Ah! Blueberries and Licorice with low acidity and hugely viscous tears clinging to the side of the glass! 98 points!"

No ghostwriter for Parker. He's universally recognized as a poor writer, and no ghostwriter would be this banal. I don't say this to get a jab in; it's just pretty much accepted that his prose leaves much to be desired. It's also nearly impossible to write one-paragraph wine descriptions over, and over, and over again, tens of thousands of times.

I do agree that Americans in particular are "hardwired" to accept the 100-point system from tests in school, and have written elsewhere that I predict Parker's one, lasting legacy will be the 100-point scale. Like it or not, it was *brilliant* in terms of garnering widespread, public acceptance. I also propose that if it weren't for that system, not many people would know who Robert Parker even was - when he started, he was just another wine geek who was bitten by the bug, and made regular treks down to MacArthur Liquors. He *is* an expert with all the bonafides (at this point, he may know more about Bordeaux than anyone outside of France); a uniquely talented wine taster he is most certainly not, and never has been. I'm not talking about "blind tasting" (he is probably a great blind taster); rather, all the hype about "insuring his palate for a million dollars," etc. It may be true that he took out a policy, but anyone with their own business should have a disability policy. I refuse to say the man doesn't have talent (because he absolutely does), but I also refuse to say he is "the first and last word when it comes to evaluating wines" (because he absolutely isn't).

I agree with what Bart writes about Virginia wines. The quality and terroir are both there, and it took someone with a platform like Dave McIntyre to get the word out. There's no reason that Virginia shouldn't be poised to take its place among the nation's wine elite.

Well, perhaps I spoke a bit unclearly regarding the book part.  I know he's been in the vineyards and the chateau (so have I and many others), but obviously that in and of itself doesn't confer depth of knowledge about anything.  My point was that while his writings about vineyards and wine making may be fine, that is not what he is noted for nor what he presents himself as being all about.  What he presents himself as is THE judge of wine, and that's where the problem arises.  I don't think you meant to say we diverge on that -- I think our thoughts about this are pretty much in alignment. Are were you saying that you and I diverge from him?

A vignette from my early days visiting vineyards.  I was in Bordeaux during the harvest in 1970.  Margeaux was still using horses.  I have photos, including a great one of little old ladies sitting at tables and affixing labels by hand to bottles, and men shoveling the horse droppings on to a wagon.  No doubt those contributed to the flavor of the wine -- I doubt Parker mentioned that particular nuance in any of his ratings.

[DonRocks]

Well, perhaps I spoke a bit unclearly regarding the book part.  I know he's been in the vineyards and the chateau (so have I and many others), but obviously that in and of itself doesn't confer depth of knowledge about anything.  My point was that while his writings about vineyards and wine making may be fine, that is not what he is noted for nor what he presents himself as being all about.  What he presents himself as is THE judge of wine, and that's where the problem arises.  I don't think you meant to say we diverge on that -- I think our thoughts about this are pretty much in alignment. Are were you saying that you and I diverge from him?

A vignette from my early days visiting vineyards.  I was in Bordeaux during the harvest in 1970.  Margeaux was still using horses.  I have photos, including a great one of little old ladies sitting at tables and affixing labels by hand to bottles, and men shoveling the horse droppings on to a wagon.  No doubt those contributed to the flavor of the wine -- I doubt Parker mentioned that particular nuance in any of his ratings.

Well, 1970 *was* a pretty weak year for Margaux ...

No, we don't diverge on this. But whenever someone brings up this very point, Parker will defend himself by saying something like, 'it even says, on the front page of every Wine Advocate issue, that 'there's no substitute for using your own palate.''

So he's able to say, 'Well, it isn't *me* who appointed myself God; in fact, I've done just the opposite and encouraged people to make up their own minds' - which is only true as a whisper.

Parker is about Parker. No different than the vast majority of critics, I suppose.

[SeanMike]

 I could write an entire dissertation on this concept (which absolutely extends to restaurants, and for that matter, movies, paintings, museums, oysters, peanut butter, etc.), but am going to stop here. Just let it be known that these people whom I like and respect (and all of whom know *much* more than I do about wine) are, in my eyes, infected with one incredibly self-serving and hypocritical flaw which plays into the laziness and trophy-collecting mentality of the general public. To Gerry's credit, I don't think he does this anymore - to the credit of them all, their point scores aren't increased because a wine is "weighty" or "syrupy"; all of them are in search of balance, terroir, elegance, and detail.

I give this rant a 7/10. Needs more deep sea lifeforms and/or Paris Hilton references, but the bouquet piquant sense of ranting injustice was there.

[DonRocks]

On 6/24/2014 at 8:31 PM, DonRocks said:

A few things:

1. Karen MacNeil knows too much to be naive (as I first said); she merely appears to be putting on airs, perhaps out of self-interest.

2, Robert Parker *is* an expert; he just doesn't have a nuanced palate. His first Bordeaux book was groundbreaking, and very impressive (even his point scores seemed to make sense to me at the time since he was only comparing apples to apples) - I don't know what happened to him, but all I can guess is that he spread himself too thin - his Burgundy book was as outrageously bad as his Bordeaux book was historically good - he missed the 83 Burgundy vintage to the same extent that he connected with the 82 Bordeaux vintage.

3. Allen Meadows, Josh Raynolds, John Gilman, David Schildknecht, and Gerry Dawes are all bonafide experts with outstanding palates, and all use the 100-point scale (out of financial necessity, or so they all claim). I know them all extremely well (David fairly well), and strongly disagree with their use of points to "rate" wines. The only person (in my cadre) who thinks points are as ridiculous as I do is Terry Theise. I could write an entire dissertation on this concept (which absolutely extends to restaurants, and for that matter, movies, paintings, museums, oysters, peanut butter, etc.), but am going to stop here. Just let it be known that these people whom I like and respect (and all of whom know *much* more than I do about wine) are, in my eyes, infected with one incredibly self-serving and hypocritical flaw which plays into the laziness and trophy-collecting mentality of the general public. To Gerry's credit, I don't think he does this anymore - to the credit of them all, their point scores aren't increased because a wine is "weighty" or "syrupy"; all of them are in search of balance, terroir, elegance, and detail.

*Thank you*! I'm glad I've lived long enough to see my personal beliefs begin to take hold.

"It's Time To Rethink Wine Criticism" by Eric Asimov on nytimes.com

[deangold]

My disdain for Robert Parker is second to none and really knows no bounds. I entered the wine collecting world at age 16 in 1973 and I was drinking 1970 cabs from California at $3 TO $6 a bottle. I could go to Trader Joe's and buy Bordeaux from 1962, 1966 and 1970 at $7.50 to $19.99 {Latour 1970.} TJ's got a shipment of some Barolo stuff from some guy Mascarello {Giuseppi, not Bartolo} and the 1964 was $7.00 a bottle and so rough and huge a decade after bottling that it took me 15 years to try another Italian red. 

So I know wine from before wine was WINE and before wine writers could change wineries approach two wine. But here is who I blame: Bonny Doon and Ruthie Graham. I was wine buyer for Evan Kleiman's Angeli Restaurant Group and Ruth Graham came to us with some of the first vintages of Randall's hallucinations on wine. We bought all we could and poured every one of them by the glass. Even the first Le Cigare Volante was available. We bought 5 cases and got a major discount and poured it by the glass.  

An aside on Ruth Graham. Many people know Randall, but far fewer knew his mom. She was off the "This is my son's wine and I'm s proud of him; if you don't buy his wine I'll go home and stick my head in the oven" school of wine selling. We all loved her and dreaded her visits because no pressure was needed to get me to buy and she used every guilt trip known to the world to get us to buy what we would have bought if she just called us and said you can buy this amount.  I would ahve poured MD 20-20 if she tried to sell it to me in hopes of cutting her short, but I am sue she would have sung the praised of 20-20 for an hour.

In any case, then the wine press came along and Le CIgare went from easily available to allocated and the allocations were just too small.  I recall one day when she came by on a new release of the cigar. And I had to endure 20 minutes of her showing me the 90+ point scores in the wine press {don't remember who it was but selling on scores was already an occupational hazard.} And I also remember clearly telling Ruthie that she was singlehandedly destroying the wine buiness touting her scores. There was simply no need to. Her wines sold themselves on flavor and drinkability. Why give credence to wine writers who, even then, didn't know shit about most of the wine they wrote about. And her answer was "But we got xx points!!!

I have not done business with Bonny Doon is over two decades. I doubt Ruth Graham is still around. And no, she didn't singlehandedly ruin wine. But she was one of the original killers.

I remember a year in Brunello when the scores came out for a massive array of Rosso and Brunello di Montalcino. The wine writer who tasted the wines did so in Montalcino over 2 days, and tasted over 100 wines, perhaps 150. This was told to me by winemaker after winemaker who called him the American and laughed at how drunk he was on his visit. I am pretty sure he also drank a slug of super Tuscans those 2 days but anyone in Montalcino would say, with a disdainful sniff and followed by an Italian shrug: If you want a Super Tuscan, drink Montalcino"

The scores made no sense. Wines at the top were the most extracted and alcoholic. Most of the Burnello got scores of 88 and above, while only a couple, may 5 at the most, Rosso got scores or 89, 90 or 91 one scored a 93 IIRC. ANd what's the point? All Brunello are greater than all Rosso? Only n idiot would say that. Rosso is meant for drinking with abandon with spicy foods were long oak aging would interfere with the match. While on can drink Brunello with pizza, no Montalcinese would. A perfectly made Rosso di Montalcino {2001 Costanti, Pertimali 2004 and 2007} are as deserving of 97+ scores as a perfectly made Brunello  {2001 Costanti, Pertimali 2004 and 2007 all come to mind. Cerbaiona 99 too!}

Wine writing sucks and has destroyed the wonder of wine, bring a homogenaity to wine that needs to go. While our local wine writer mostly touts every day drinking wines easy on the oak and extraction, he is a small voice of chest thumping wine writers who need to STFU.

Unfortunately, with Global Warming, soon bad wine making {17%+ alcohol on non Amarone and Zinfandel} will be all that can be made in classic wine growing regions. But buy Finnish cabernet on futures! 

[DonRocks]

2 hours ago, deangold said:

My disdain for Robert Parker is second to none and really knows no bounds. I entered the wine collecting world at age 16 in 1973 and I was drinking 1970 cabs from California at $3 TO $6 a bottle. I could go to Trader Joe's and buy Bordeaux from 1962, 1966 and 1970 at $7.50 to $19.99 {Latour 1970.} TJ's got a shipment of some Barolo stuff from some guy Mascarello {Giuseppi, not Bartolo} and the 1964 was $7.00 a bottle and so rough and huge a decade after bottling that it took me 15 years to try another Italian red. 

So I know wine from before wine was WINE and before wine writers could change wineries approach two wine. But here is who I blame: Bonny Doon and Ruthie Graham. I was wine buyer for Evan Kleiman's Angeli Restaurant Group and Ruth Graham came to us with some of the first vintages of Randall's hallucinations on wine. We bought all we could and poured every one of them by the glass. Even the first Le Cigare Volante was available. We bought 5 cases and got a major discount and poured it by the glass.  

An aside on Ruth Graham. Many people know Randall, but far fewer knew his mom. She was off the "This is my son's wine and I'm s proud of him; if you don't buy his wine I'll go home and stick my head in the oven" school of wine selling. We all loved her and dreaded her visits because no pressure was needed to get me to buy and she used every guilt trip known to the world to get us to buy what we would have bought if she just called us and said you can buy this amount.  I would ahve poured MD 20-20 if she tried to sell it to me in hopes of cutting her short, but I am sue she would have sung the praised of 20-20 for an hour.

In any case, then the wine press came along and Le CIgare went from easily available to allocated and the allocations were just too small.  I recall one day when she came by on a new release of the cigar. And I had to endure 20 minutes of her showing me the 90+ point scores in the wine press {don't remember who it was but selling on scores was already an occupational hazard.} And I also remember clearly telling Ruthie that she was singlehandedly destroying the wine buiness touting her scores. There was simply no need to. Her wines sold themselves on flavor and drinkability. Why give credence to wine writers who, even then, didn't know shit about most of the wine they wrote about. And her answer was "But we got xx points!!!

I have not done business with Bonny Doon is over two decades. I doubt Ruth Graham is still around. And no, she didn't singlehandedly ruin wine. But she was one of the original killers.

I remember a year in Brunello when the scores came out for a massive array of Rosso and Brunello di Montalcino. The wine writer who tasted the wines did so in Montalcino over 2 days, and tasted over 100 wines, perhaps 150. This was told to me by winemaker after winemaker who called him the American and laughed at how drunk he was on his visit. I am pretty sure he also drank a slug of super Tuscans those 2 days but anyone in Montalcino would say, with a disdainful sniff and followed by an Italian shrug: If you want a Super Tuscan, drink Montalcino"

The scores made no sense. Wines at the top were the most extracted and alcoholic. Most of the Burnello got scores of 88 and above, while only a couple, may 5 at the most, Rosso got scores or 89, 90 or 91 one scored a 93 IIRC. ANd what's the point? All Brunello are greater than all Rosso? Only n idiot would say that. Rosso is meant for drinking with abandon with spicy foods were long oak aging would interfere with the match. While on can drink Brunello with pizza, no Montalcinese would. A perfectly made Rosso di Montalcino {2001 Costanti, Pertimali 2004 and 2007} are as deserving of 97+ scores as a perfectly made Brunello  {2001 Costanti, Pertimali 2004 and 2007 all come to mind. Cerbaiona 99 too!}

Wine writing sucks and has destroyed the wonder of wine, bring a homogenaity to wine that needs to go. While our local wine writer mostly touts every day drinking wines easy on the oak and extraction, he is a small voice of chest thumping wine writers who need to STFU.

Unfortunately, with Global Warming, soon bad wine making {17%+ alcohol on non Amarone and Zinfandel} will be all that can be made in classic wine growing regions. But buy Finnish cabernet on futures! 

Thank you, Dean, for so cogently summarizing what I've been trying to say for over two decades.

With me, it isn't "Robert Parker" per se; it's the enablers (who should have known better), and the sheep (who couldn't haven't known better) who led Parker to the mountaintop, and never gave him an exit path. Also, it *is* Robert Parker himself for not having seen the level of damage that a world-famous wine critic was doing to what he supposedly loved - he should have known his own limits; instead, he flew too close to the sun, his wings melted, and he fell into the sea - he could have - and, in my opinion, was obligated to have done - so, so much better.

I purposely designed this community so that any power I accumulated would be self-limited via checks and balances. God give the hubris to those who deserve it, and I've yet to meet anyone who did. 

[Bart]

I need a tutor, or a class or a damn degree to understand this thread!!!! 

[Steve R.]

Hey, I'm even older than Dean (only 3 or 4 years) but I've been drinking wine since 1970.  If you count Mateus (the bottle made a great candle holder).  All these years later, I can now renew my disdain for many "experts", as they are focused on "natural" fizzy, cloudy stuff without any body.

[Mark Slater]

1 hour ago, Steve R. said:

Hey, I'm even older than Dean (only 3 or 4 years) but I've been drinking wine since 1970.  If you count Mateus (the bottle made a great candle holder).  All these years later, I can now renew my disdain for many "experts", as they are focused on "natural" fizzy, cloudy stuff without any body.

Steve, I've been drinking wine since 1968, if you count Bali Hi and Gallo Pink Chablis. There were no experts I knew of at the time. My wine epiphany was in 1975 when a friend and I split the $25 cost of a bottle of 1970 Chateau Lafite. My gripe with Parker was writing the book about Rhone wines. At the time almost all Rhones were under $10, including Cote Rotie, Cornas and Chateauneuf du Pape. After the book, the prices skyrocketed, much like Bordeaux did later. 

[lion]

On 12/10/2019 at 12:48 AM, DonRocks said:

Thank you, Dean, for so cogently summarizing what I've been trying to say for over two decades.

With me, it isn't "Robert Parker" per se; it's the enablers (who should have known better), and the sheep (who couldn't haven't known better) who led Parker to the mountaintop, and never gave him an exit path. Also, it *is* Robert Parker himself for not having seen the level of damage that a world-famous wine critic was doing to what he supposedly loved - he should have known his own limits; instead, he flew too close to the sun, his wings melted, and he fell into the sea - he could have - and, in my opinion, was obligated to have done - so, so much better.

I purposely designed this community so that any power I accumulated would be self-limited via checks and balances. God give the hubris to those who deserve it, and I've yet to meet anyone who did. 

Unfortunately, in many 'arts' the process of maturation as a group of people coalesce around something they love begins the long slow walk to commercialization and the inevitable decline in quality and process. Very few cultured actives are able to continue to maintain a high standard when these forces are able to act. The process of extraction starts and be it for financial rewards, respect or ego issues such as control less to lack of originality and stagnation. 

People really do kill the golden goose unless collectively as groups of people there are self imposed limits.  

[DonRocks]

20 hours ago, Mark Slater said:

My gripe with Parker was writing the book about Rhone wines. At the time almost all Rhones were under $10, including Cote Rotie, Cornas and Chateauneuf du Pape. After the book, the prices skyrocketed, much like Bordeaux did later. 

No, he jumped the shark with his "Burgundy" book, in which he tried to be the same expert he was in his "Bordeaux" book, and failed spectacularly. 

Everyone remember his "brave, decisive call" on the the 1982 Bordeaux vintage; nobody remembers how terribly he missed the disastrous 1983 Burgundy vintage - the "point scores" in that Burgundy book were eye-raising back then, and turned out to be just plan laughable and pathetic several years later, when the truth of the wines was revealed. He had no business writing about something that he knew nothing about, and for which he had absolutely no palate.

He should have stopped with Bordeaux - that's more than enough territory for one person to cover for a lifetime; instead, he had to be Mr. Generalist - he even published a section in The Wine Advocate where he assigned point scores to Sake! It was ridiculous, and absurd in its seemingly random assignment of point scores.

Parker was genuinely excellent in Bordeaux when he published that book, which is still relevant today.

For those who don't understand, picture Michael Jordan deciding to play baseball.