Did anyone read Parker's latest screed?

I’m surprised there’s no thread on this (that I saw anyhow). I guess it’s behind the paywall, but here is a very small excerpt (totally fair use):

Most recently we had the low alcohol movement (I’m not sure if one can even call it a “movement”), which is/was essentially a phony anti-California, anti-New World movement by Eurocentric, self-proclaimed purists. I say “self-proclaimed” because what they espouse - and denounce - perverts the word “pure”. This has been spurred on by a very tiny group of wine producers who claim Europe as their spiritual mentor, which would be fine were it not for the fact that the along the way, they virtually trash just about everything in the USA, South America or Australia. Their preferred method of wine production is the crazy notion that fruit should be picked long before it’s ripe. Of course, anyone can pick grapes a month before they’re ripe. There is no risk, with chances of rain virtually zero. Get the grapes harvested and fermented and go on vacation in early October, when the serious producers are just beginning to start their harvests. Are those producers fools for busting their asses trying to make something with flavors reflecting the vintage and character of their terroir? Under-ripe fruit never has and never will show more terroir. It just brings hard, harsh, unpleasant flavors that a few wannabes and some lazy, self-aggrandizing producers then call terroir. Truth be known, it detracts from terroir, and from quality, so just repeating it ad nauseum doesn’t equate to the truth. Has anyone enjoyed eating an under-ripe apricot, peach apple, tomato or pineapple?

But, even these Euro-elitists have it wrong. They often quote from ancient texts. How do they explain the following extract from the late Richard Olney’s book, “Romanée-Conti - The World’s Most Fabled Wine”, published in 1995 by Rizzoli International Publications, New York, New York. Page 79 contains this passage regarding the diary notes of the estate’s proprietor:

This is from the diary notes at Romanée-Conti by the proprietor J.-M. Duvault-Blochet, who published vintage notes for 47 years, from 1822 to 1868. He defined quality as, “At 11.5% one makes barely passable wines, at 12% one makes decent, marketable wines, at 12.5% above average, at 12.75% lively, firm and ruby, at 13% and 13.5% one makes great wines, at 14, 14.5, 15 and 15.5% one makes altogether exceptional, incomparable wines.”

Why is it that nearly 150 years ago the proprietor of the world’s most famous vineyard then (and probably now) knew more about quality than today’s neo-intellectuals and extremists? Moreover, what about some sommeliers and retail wine buyers who refuse to purchase any wine in excess of 13 or 14% alcohol. How would the broad litmus test fare in the mid-1800s with the wines of Domaine de la Romanée Conti? Sommeliers following such nonsense would have wine enthusiasts drinking “barely passable” wines.

http://www.erobertparker.com/members/articlesofmerit/articleofmerit55.asp

I enjoy Mr. Parker’s binary world view.

I’m not sure Bob wrote this as there are not enough “…” in the post. newhere

Are we a bit bitter, Bob? Whoa!

FYI, there were LONG discussions on the Parker board years back about the Duvault-Blochet quote. Alcohol measurements in his day were VERY approximate, so you can’t put much weight on that statement.

I realized I forgot to include an example of the fascist imagery that appears more than once:

Of course, they would have you believe some godforsaken grapes that, in hundreds and hundreds of years of viticulture, wine consumption, etc., have never gotten traction because they are rarely of interest (such as Trousseau, Savagnin, Grand Noir, Negrette, Lignan Blanc, Peloursin, Auban, Calet, Fongoneu and Blaufrankisch) can produce wines (in truth, rarely palatable unless lost in a larger blend) that consumers should be beating a path to buy and drink. Most aren’t, and just how absurd this notion is becomes evident when the results are oxidized, stale, stink of fecal matter as well as look like orange juice or rusty ice tea being poured into a glass and passed off as “authentic”, “natural” or “real” wine. This is the epitome of cyber-group goose-stepping, a completely deranged syndrome that somehow the internet has allowed to persist.

I think this stuff is best left for the deaf ears of the ebob board.

Come on, it’s funny.

Bob likes raisins, I like grapes.

Can we extrapolate that Parker despises Champagne as it is a non-fortified wine that never exceeds 13% abv?

Who is this guy and what did he do with Bob Parker?

Or was he always this angry and delusional, but kept it mostly to himself as he was the sole owner of the WA?

Rereading his description and list of grapes, it sounds like the guiding philosophy of Chambers St., Crush and Flatiron.

“Their preferred method of wine production is the crazy notion that fruit should be picked long before it’s ripe. Of course, anyone can pick grapes a month before they’re ripe. There is no risk, with chances of rain virtually zero. Get the grapes harvested and fermented and go on vacation in early October, when the serious producers are just beginning to start their harvests.”

Pretty sure no one has ever suggested harvesting fruit “long before it’s ripe.” Must be nice to just redraw a line and make everyone else’s argument “extremist.”

Is this the same rant from a couple of months ago? He railed against what he percieves as fringe grapes not that long ago, and commented that a “real man” wouldn’t drink wines made from those grapes. Leaving the reader to infer that Bob was a real man. If alcohol content makes the man, why bother with wine at all? Cut straight to the hard stuff and skip all this foreplay.

Bob’s idea of hell must be some time spent in the Jura, with his professed hatred of Trousseau and Savagnin. I’ve never had a Calet or a Lignan blanc, but I suspect I should try to find some based on his statements. I’ve certainly had nice trousseau, savignin and blaufrankish.

In the end its always the same with this guy: More is always better, less is not only bad but rather a personal afront on all that is good and proper.

Can you say “straw man”?

Of course, yesterday’s fringe grape is today’s great grape. A generation ago in the English-speaking world, very few grapes from outside France ever got any kind of respect outside of obscure reference works.

Yes and I was thinking FALSE DICHOTOMY as well.

(ooh I love using “false dichotomy” in a sentence [wow.gif] )

Brodie

The bitterness is nothing new. He’s suffered a huge amount of criticism over the past several years. The man helped raise American awareness about fine wines beyond any predecessor. Will he someday let the hostility go and embrace the fact that his preferences may not suit everyone? Can a wine be great, or even good, unless he or a WA employee says so? It’s Bob and disciples vs. the forces of evil. Sadly, the definition of evil appears to have swept up a lot independent wine lovers along with unscrupulous ITBers, profiteering pseudo-journalists, blobbers and natural wine extremists.

RT

Classic example of why posting when drunk is a bad idea.

Nice to know I’m not missing anything over there.

There is ripe fruit and then there is overripe fruit. I like the former he likes the latter and Parker is no longer of use to me.

You get the feeling that Asimov’s columns are really getting to him, don’t you?

He’s not that coherent when he posts after drinking, Dan. By contrast, this looks carefully honed.