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...

Too long. If you can't say what you mean in fewer word than that, you are just blathering.

Interesting that he claims they have higher ethical standards than any other wine publication. Where specifically does he think that WA does better than WS? (Not to mention that not tasting blind makes a lot of this irrelevant, since a bias is a bias, whether it is intentional or not.)

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 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.

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.

He should have summed it up in one paragraph.

Why bring it up if you dont want people to discuss it?

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.

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).

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 :::::

on this issue what say the collective?

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...

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

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.

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'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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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"?

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.

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?

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//>?>?>???

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.

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?

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...

Point chaser

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.

Baby killer.

Love em young...

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.

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.

I think we have lots more than that.

John,

Fresh starts? So have you stopped stalking that blogger?

I like this approach too. Best of both worlds.

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?

Yeah, that got me giggling too...I've never been anywhere where their wasn't a country inn or a pousada or a youth hostel.

While I tend to agree this issue is perhaps being talked into the ground, there is still one key point that has never been addressed by Parker, and which will keep this issue alive until he does so, IMO. It is: Why are there different ethical standards for "independent contractors" than for an "employee" (Parker)? I know of no other business or profession that maintains a code of conduct or ethical bylaws that has standards that are different based upon the employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) of the individual subject to the standard. Ethical standards shouldn't depend on whether the person required to abide by them receives a 1099 or a W-2 at the end of the year for his services.

Perhaps there is a legitimate basis for this distinction, but it's certainly not self-evident. Until Parker explains this in a way that makes sense (or establishes a single standard for all WA reviewers including himself), this issue will persist.

Daniel,

I even wished them all a good wine-tasting event they have planed...told them the glass could be half full this time...told the wineries that provided the free wine don't come crying to me if you get dogged out...so we are cool...

Lenn does try his best, that much I can say...maybe we can get the team to preform a bit more open-minded like double blind tastings, etc... time will tell...

Thank you, Steve - you are a perfect example of putting your money where your mouth is in this regard.

Exactly!

These kinds of threads, while enjoyable reading, are hard on my mouse.

Yeah, please, no more pics like that. OMG.

sometimes it's better to be silent than to say anything at all.

Something about better to sit there with your mouth shut and appearing stupid than opening your mouth and removing all doubt.

JD

Kevin (and others)... you might be interested in taking a peek at the following Wine Spectator conversation. Jim Molesworth has weighed-in on the subject of blind vs non-blind tasting: http://forums.winespectator.com/eve/for ... 101426/p/3

Jim,
Thanks for the link. Molesworth touches on several of the key issues. While he thinks it is a feature to rate village wines above Grand Crus (because the village wine will typically be more fruity and forward and the Grand Cru more structured and in need of time), this was one of the reasons that WS Burg reviews used to be essentially random number generated. Producers do make mistakes but I find that the non-blind reviewers do a good job at identifying these. Meanwhile, blind reviewers are much more likely to mis-rate ageworthy wines like Burg Grand Crus, Petrus, Latour etc. These wines just don't show all that they will eventually offer when young so it is not possible to assess them in a snapshot. The ideals of "Blind tasting" market reviews so powerfully, that some publications will actually change the meaning of the reviews to fit the method. The best example of this is the WS declaration that wine should not be aged. If people only bought wine without the intent to age it, the methodology would be more useful.

FWIW, when I want to really figure out what I think of a wine, I bring it home (usually by itself) and taste it throughout an evening. Blind lineups emphasize small flaws and differences which are not always relevant to a normal drinking experience. Tasting a wine multiple times with and without food allows me to really assess what I think of it. This is probably the most accurate review method because it is essentially the same way I enjoy wine. If I think that looking at the wine blind will be useful (due to some pre-conceived notion), I will start off looking at the wine that way.

While I am rambling on context.....In a blind tasting a week ago, I purposefully added a wine that I knew would throw off the context of a CA Pinot/Burgundy lineup. the trick worked and 3 burglovers guessed almost all the wines wrong. If I changed that one wine, I am pretty sure those same tasters would have gotten most of the wines right. Blind tasting is a game that is usually a better test of the tasters than the wines.