ROBERT M. PARKER, JR. and OUR WINE CRITIC STANDARDS

[John D. Zuccarino]

THE ROLE OF ROBERT M. PARKER, JR. and OUR WINE CRITIC STANDARDS

Click On Me

is everyone happy,yet? I am...put this behind and move on or this BB will be known as a blathering hall...IMHO...

[K_F_o_l_e_y]

[steffenpelz]

I am not happy yet. At all. At the core, he's just putting in action Goebbel's words "If you repeat something often enough, the people will believe it". This long winded manifesto on ethical standards of the WA is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS as long as they continue to taste non-blind.

Tasting blind is the only way to give unbiased opinion, notes, and scores. Anything less than that is not up to par with his stated ethical standards.

And I don't believe we have to cut this discussion short. If you, John, can post multiple posts on a bad wine blogger, then we can certainly discuss in many more facets the issues of the most important wine critic in the world ever.

SP

[Peter C.]

I am not happy yet. At all. At the core, he's just putting in action Goebbel's words "If you repeat something often enough, the people will believe it". This long winded manifesto on ethical standards of the WA is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS as long as they continue to taste non-blind.

Tasting blind is the only way to give unbiased opinion, notes, and scores. Anything less than that is not up to par with his stated ethical standards.

And I don't believe we have to cut this discussion short. If you, John, can post multiple posts on a bad wine blogger, then we can certainly discuss in many more facets the issues of the most important wine critic in the world ever.

SP

All the way around SP.

Look at the endless self-aggrandizing economic posts JZ throws out there - and he of ALL people has nothing to complain about regarding ponderous discussions.

[Peter Cargasacchi]

Prediction: the next great wine scandal will be the shocking discovery that wineries are submitting adulterated (or at least specially selected) bottles of wine to WA, WS... You think so-and-so is an idiot for giving 95 points to that wine? Well maybe he didn't taste the same wine that you are buying at your corner store.

I think this point was also made in the movie Mondovino. IIRC the French fraud ministry was worried about adulteration of wine as well in order to get higher scores.

[mike pobega]

He should have summed it up in one paragraph.

[Steve Saxon]

I think there is a bigger issue here that nobody brought up. We the comsumers are spending thousands of dollars on wines based on reviews. A lot of people are subscribers to Parker to read the reviews that are written in his newsletter. Those people are paying good money and should expect 100% honesty in those reviews. There should be no hint of taint.........Would you drink a wine that is tainted? No. And the fact that Parker lets his reviewers take perks, taints every review we depend on.

So until Parker sets a standard that is beyond approach, I really don't see how, or why the public should let him off the hook.

[Jim Brennan]

John - I'm not at all not satisfied. It seems ridiculous to have one set of standards for himself, and another for his "independent contractors."

PS - I'm not dogmatic about whether wine is tasted blind or non-blind, but I do want disclosure on how each particular wine was tasted (blind / non-blind).

[John D. Zuccarino]

I am not happy yet. At all. At the core, he's just putting in action Goebbel's words "If you repeat something often enough, the people will believe it". This long winded manifesto on ethical standards of the WA is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS as long as they continue to taste non-blind.

Tasting blind is the only way to give unbiased opinion, notes, and scores. Anything less than that is not up to par with his stated ethical standards.

And I don't believe we have to cut this discussion short. If you, John, can post multiple posts on a bad wine blogger, then we can certainly discuss in many more facets the issues of the most important wine critic in the world ever.

SP

everyone ready to fall down... I agree all wine tastings should be done blind...this is a different issue for me , than pay to play...so I am not too far out...posting this , what I thought was that , hey I miss some of the real good old wine talk... that's all, maybe it's just me...

If all publications blind then I would start to submit my wine for review...thought I would never say that, but blind...I am all in and giving you a run for the money, so yes :::::

Tasting blind is the only way to give unbiased opinion, notes, and scores. Anything less than that is not up to par with his stated ethical standards.

on this issue what say the collective?

[Kevin Harvey]

PS - I'm not dogmatic about whether wine is tasted blind or non-blind, but I do want disclosure on how each particular wine was tasted (blind / non-blind).

Nor am I. While transparency is critical, I have no use for blind tasting reviews. I find the results just a random reflection of a moment in time and highly affected by the context of the other wines in the flight. Does anyone have good blind tasting reviewers to recommend? (Wilfred, I admire the GJE but found the Burg results were typical of the method employed)
When I pay for reviews, I want to tap the experience of critic as he looks at the wine in multiple phases (barrel, bottle and later) and factors in the past history of the wine as it ages. Sniff and spit snapshots in the perception-altering context of other wines are not worth paying for IMO.
But to be clear, I think transparency is critical (mainly because then I know how to use the reviews).

[John D. Zuccarino]

PS - I'm not dogmatic about whether wine is tasted blind or non-blind, but I do want disclosure on how each particular wine was tasted (blind / non-blind).

Nor am I. While transparency is critical, I have no use for blind tasting reviews. I find the results just a random reflection of a moment in time and highly affected by the context of the other wines in the flight. Does anyone have good blind tasting reviewers to recommend? (Wilfred, I admire the GJE but found the Burg results were typical of the method employed)
When I pay for reviews, I want to tap the experience of critic as he looks at the wine in multiple phases (barrel, bottle and later) and factors in the past history of the wine as it ages. Sniff and spit snapshots in the perception-altering context of other wines are not worth paying for IMO.
But to be clear, I think transparency is critical (mainly because then I know how to use the reviews).

Kevin,

Nice post you have a very good point...

As long as the reviewer could give me the option of either or then once I have that option ...I would still be ok with it...

[Loren Sonkin]

PS - I'm not dogmatic about whether wine is tasted blind or non-blind, but I do want disclosure on how each particular wine was tasted (blind / non-blind).

Nor am I. While transparency is critical, I have no use for blind tasting reviews. I find the results just a random reflection of a moment in time and highly affected by the context of the other wines in the flight. Does anyone have good blind tasting reviewers to recommend? (Wilfred, I admire the GJE but found the Burg results were typical of the method employed)
When I pay for reviews, I want to tap the experience of critic as he looks at the wine in multiple phases (barrel, bottle and later) and factors in the past history of the wine as it ages. Sniff and spit snapshots in the perception-altering context of other wines are not worth paying for IMO.
But to be clear, I think transparency is critical (mainly because then I know how to use the reviews).

I agree with Kevin. I also think blind tastings, especially in flights, have their own built in faults. The whole thing is subjective anyway.

[Daniel Posner]

THE ROLE OF ROBERT M. PARKER, JR. and OUR WINE CRITIC STANDARDS

Click On Me

is everyone happy,yet? I am...put this behind and move on or this BB will be known as a blathering hall...IMHO...

John

I urge you to pickup the Wall Street Journal from yesterday, look at the Wine Spectator forums, the Parker forums (which SHUT DOWN a thread yesterday on this subject).

Move on? We are only getting started it would appear. Front page of the WSJ section, and you think it is just on this forum?

I am not sure of the motive here, but this is hardly a blathering hall. If you do not care for the content, then move along. I mean no disrespect, but telling people what they should believe and what they should talk about is why people are here. Mao has done that for years. It does not work.

[Jim Brennan]

Wilfred, Kevin:

Fwiw, my preferred approach for tasting would be for the reviewer to initially taste blind, write notes, then unmask the bottle and write additional notes with the added context.

In any event, clear disclosure about the method of tasting for all tasted wines would allow each reader to make their own decision about how to weight/discount the reivew, or even to discontinue your subscription if the critic doesn't taste in a manner that you find valuable.

[Todd F r e n c h]

I'm allowing these threads about the WSJ article and the 'standards' that people are requesting because it appears there is no possible way for them to be discussed on RMP's forum.

I hope not to have them turn into bashing threads, and so far, they have not. These are important topics to discuss for many of you, so I'd like to be sure we can allow for it here.

[Kevin Harvey]

Move on? We are only getting started it would appear. Front page of the WSJ section, and you think it is just on this forum?

Dan,
What would satisfy you on this topic?
I am not trying to be combative, but I would like to understand what the "unfinished business" here is.

Is the desired outcome to see Jay Miller fired?
or
All wines reviews to be blind (which would end the utility of Tanzer, Meadows and WA IMO)?
or
something else entirely?

Initially I understood that there were issues that were being brought to light, but now I wonder what is left unfinshed or unsaid here?

[Randy Sloan]

Fwiw, my preferred approach for tasting would be for the reviewer to initially taste blind, write notes, then unmask the bottle and write additional notes with the added context.

That's is actually how Wine Spectator does it. They are not allowed to change their score but they can hash out details on the notes based on context.

[Daniel Posner]

Kevin

Each discussion brings new things to light.

For example: $25k trip to Australia is new info
For example: Parker's new standards on reviewing wines.

This second one is a doozy. He offered up a whole new method of how his critics are tasting wines and reaffirmed many old methods (much of which was partly criticized previously).

Should we just accept this new piece of information as fact and not question it?

How many more trips, meals, vacations, etc have we not heard about it?

How come Jay Miller is soooooooo silent?

Where are the explanations, the apologies?

Where is the truth? Parker once again attacked yesterday, saying much of what is being said are lies. Which lies does he speak of? If most of it is lies, then defend the actions of your men.

[steffenpelz]

There's no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there's no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It's like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others...Food for thought.

SP

[Daniel Posner]

There's no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there's no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It's like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others...Food for thought.

SP

Inconsistent...yes.

I questioned for years, how Suckling can review a wine from barrel 94-96 and then 91 in btl...that is what blind tasting is all about...

[Ken V]

That's is actually how Wine Spectator does it. They are not allowed to change their score but they can hash out details on the notes based on context.

You mean that they can't change their 93 point score, but they can change the note from "a terrific Cabernet" to "a terrific Chardonnay"?

[Kevin Harvey]

There's no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there's no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It's like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others...Food for thought.

SP

Steffen,
I think your quote nails an interesting dichotomy. Most people like the sound of "blind tasting" but find the results of other review methods to be more consistent and useful. There are good reasons for this that I outlined above. Lack of bias is one issue in wine reviews but accuracy and consistency are more important. Lowest common denominator tasting methods minimize bias and accuracy simultaneously.

Also, no critic (that I know of) reviews wines double blind. Even those that market their "blind reviewing" methodology, typically know the vintage and region and re-taste highly regarded wines when they score low. This is all done so that the reviews do not look obviously random and to avoid embarrassment. Most experienced tasters can ID familiar producers in a blind (or more accurately semi blind) format, which is utilized to increase consistency.
That said, I don't know any winemaker that feels they can predict the results of "blind tasting" critics. Some like the anyone-can-win, lottery-like nature of the results, but none find the results predictable. Meanwhile, I find the reviews in Tanzer, BH and the WA to be very consistent and predictable (even for new wineries) based on their historic palate preferences (not all of which I share).

Just food for thought...like all things in wine there are no absolute answers.

[Terence T-Bone Livingston]

There's no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there's no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It's like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others...Food for thought.

SP

Inconsistent...yes.

I questioned for years, how Suckling can review a wine from barrel 94-96 and then 91 in btl...that is what blind tasting is all about...

Witnessed this when WS reviewed SB Wine Futures in the past. But from mid- 90's down to high 80's for bottled wine. WTF?

[John D. Zuccarino]

Move on? We are only getting started it would appear. Front page of the WSJ section, and you think it is just on this forum?

Dan,
What would satisfy you on this topic?
I am not trying to be combative, but I would like to understand what the "unfinished business" here is.

Is the desired outcome to see Jay Miller fired?
or
All wines reviews to be blind (which would end the utility of Tanzer, Meadows and WA IMO)?
or
something else entirely?

Initially I understood that there were issues that were being brought to light, but now I wonder what is left unfinshed or unsaid here?

Daniel,

I too wonder what's the end result you are looking for...?

It looks like the type of thing that nobody is happy until someone is fired...I am getting this vibe and J.M. is the target...am I wrong ?



if it's to listen about more trips etc, women...hold on that would be the good part ...we know that's the past...I tend to look forward, like a fresh start...you can't go back in time it's over, don't you think?

eBob has been raked over the hot coals ... I am glad I did not cast the first stone, who then is pure and perfect to do so//>?>?>???

[Vincent Fritzsche]

Hell hath frozen. I'm agreeing with Zuccs. Consider the hatchet buried.

I wrote about this whole mess on my blog http://elevage.blogspot.com/2009/05/parker-brouhaha.html last night. In short, I'll be more concerned when there are bodies found. So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines. HE GIVES HIGH SCORES TO EVERYTHING! What's new?

Meanwhile, Squires' junket to Israel was featured on CNN last year and celebrated by many on ebob. Hard to be more conspicuous than that.

As I wrote on my site, unless there's pay to play or something of similar magnitude uncovered, there's smoke, no fire. Sure, I agree with Kevin, I would want more transparency if I were a subscriber. Otherwise, this isn't the big story yet.

[Bill Tex Landreth]

There's no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there's no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It's like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others...Food for thought.

SP

Inconsistent...yes.

I questioned for years, how Suckling can review a wine from barrel 94-96 and then 91 in btl...that is what blind tasting is all about...

Witnessed this when WS reviewed SB Wine Futures in the past. But from mid- 90's down to high 80's for bottled wine. WTF?

Perfect example of this was the 1997 Far Niente Cab. It got 88 pts in bottle but was rated 95-100 pts in barrel. Guy what noob bought some on the barrel rating for $120 a bottle?

[John D. Zuccarino]

Hell hath frozen. I'm agreeing with Zuccs. Consider the hatchet buried.

I wrote about this whole mess on my blog http://elevage.blogspot.com/2009/05/parker-brouhaha.html last night. In short, I'll be more concerned when there are bodies found. So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines. HE GIVES HIGH SCORES TO EVERYTHING! What's new?

Meanwhile, Squires' junket to Israel was featured on CNN last year and celebrated by many on ebob. Hard to be more conspicuous than that.

As I wrote on my site, unless there's pay to play or something of similar magnitude uncovered, there's smoke, no fire. Sure, I agree with Kevin, I would want more transparency if I were a subscriber. Otherwise, this isn't the big story yet.

Love the post , especially the first line... ....

went over what you wrote, it's staggering , yes we are in agreement and you bring up some very interesting points...

[LMD Ermitaño]

Perfect example of this was the 1997 Far Niente Cab. It got 88 pts in bottle but was rated 95-100 pts in barrel. Guy what noob bought some on the barrel rating for $120 a bottle?

I thought the '97 Far Niente nice enough for what it is. It's been 3 years since I've last tried it though. Never bought any, a friend buys and opens a lot from them.

[Bill Tex Landreth]

Point chaser

Baby killer.

[Bill Tex Landreth]

Perfect example of this was the 1997 Far Niente Cab. It got 88 pts in bottle but was rated 95-100 pts in barrel. Guy what noob bought some on the barrel rating for $120 a bottle?

I thought the '97 Far Niente nice enough for what it is. It's been 3 years since I've last tried it though. Never bought any, a friend buys and opens a lot from them.

Noel, I think it is good for $50 a bottle. Never was even close to a 95+ pointer IMHO and I learned about buying solely on points...well kinda.

FWIW, I really like the SVD cabs coming out of their sister winery Nickel & Nickel. Most are substantially cheaper than the flagship wine and actually deliver with what is in the bottle.

[Steve M c C a l l]

Vote with your feet. If you believe RP's model is tainted, then don't renew your subscription, don't participate on the Squires board, and devote your efforts to building community and value in sites like this one.

Parker made his bones when there was no internet, when he represented the best information people had available to them. Those times are no more, and while Parker's influence remains, it's clearly waning, as bloggers and forums like this take his place. So who cares if his writers get comped, and who cares about his palate? He's rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Move along, folks... nothing to see here.

[Bill Tex Landreth]

Love em young...

[Daniel Posner]

So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines.

I think we have lots more than that.

John,

Fresh starts? So have you stopped stalking that blogger?

[Mo K a n g]

Wilfred, Kevin:

Fwiw, my preferred approach for tasting would be for the reviewer to initially taste blind, write notes, then unmask the bottle and write additional notes with the added context.

In any event, clear disclosure about the method of tasting for all tasted wines would allow each reader to make their own decision about how to weight/discount the reivew, or even to discontinue your subscription if the critic doesn't taste in a manner that you find valuable.

I like this approach too. Best of both worlds.

[Guillaume Deschamps]

I have no beef in this matter since I never subscribed to the WA. I had a brief look at the statement since I was interested in the update. There's one part that made me smile, and I quote: "There are occasions where several of the independent writers have been in the rural countryside of an emerging wine region (i.e., in Israel, Greece, Portugal, Chile, Argentina) where there are no hotels, and the only way of visiting these areas and getting a night’s sleep is to stay at the producer’s guest house or residence."

Seriously? There might not be a Hilton, Sheraton or Four Seasons at every corner, but a "rural countryside" (repetition as emphasis of the remoteness?) without any kind of accommodation? As a guy who's been around quite a bit, I have yet to find such a "rural countryside", and I'd venture to say I have been to more remote places than any WA critic. And the 5 countries quoted aren't even really remote or underdeveloped in the first place. I'd be hard pressed to think of any part of Chile or Argentina with a significant wine producer who doesn't live 20 miles from the nearest accommodation and where a driver can't be hired for the day for $50 or so.

And the statement goes on to say: "This may also happen in the future in such emerging wine regions as Eastern Europe, China, or India. This is acceptable, but only for a first-time visit." - so basically there would be a second visit only if appropriate accommodation has been built in the meanwhile?

Why not call a cat a cat?