I’d be more interested in a debate over whether Thucydides’ theory that the Peloponnesian war was inevitable was correct. It at least raises pertinent issues of historical interpretration, which is one more pertinent issue than this debate would raise.
Difficult to see how something written on this subject, by someone with a vested financial interest in the Parker name, could be seen as in any way impartial. A bit like the bumf that comes out from the cork producers.
Nothing like a revisionist pov from WA to confirm the general decline of the publication. Many Bordeaux lovers have spend decades at this point noting the changes in wine making across Bordeaux to make bigger and richer wines to match Parker’s tasting sweet spot.
I’m liberated from it. I never buy those wines. I do have some 84 Monbousquet left, though, to contribute as well as a bottle of Clos St. Jean 03 (again bought before I knew I had to give up on him even for CdP) I can contribute.After we line up all those wines, we can all go to another table and drink what we like.
I thought you were offering those wines. I don’t have any but the ones I mentioned either. So let’s just pretend we did that tasting and move on to the next one.
Reading her say that she had her first glass of wine in 1990 and then assert that pre-Parker, pre-Peynaud wines were dirty and thin was pretty gag-inducing.
Which reminds me … I need to add “hagiography” and “sycophancy” to the cool words thread in Asylum…
I believe I read it pretty closely, best I can tell she is not denying that Perkerization is a historical fact, only claiming that it occurred because of Parker’s excellent reflection of wine consumers’ preferences, rather than some evil plot. Personally I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive.