Parker in the Early Days

Parker’s first appearance on the internet was back on the old Prodigy computer system. His claim to be the first internet wine blogger is probably correct. He posted almost every day (mainly answering questions from subscribers.) We called him “god” (note the little g)

But it soon became clear that:

1. He viewed the world in black and white. Either you agreed with him or you were the enemy. (I made the enemies list very quickly.) This pattern is well document in the biography, “The Emperor of Wine.”

2. He couldn’t simply say, I disagree with you. He had to make it an insult. He’d say something like you don’t agree with me because you have a squeeky clean California palate.

3. We saw a lot of his anger and disdain back then–not so much publicly as via private e mails (something Prodigy allowed) Such notes were treated as private. He got so bad with me, I finally told him that anything he sent me I would consider public and post it. The nasty notes stopped.

I have a friend who is a shrink. When asked what happens to people as they get older, he has a two word response, “More so.” None of Parker’s jabs and barbs on the Asia trip should come as a shock to anyone. It is just “more so” of what we saw years ago.

And the poit of this post is what exactly?

To describe Parker in the early days, perhaps, like the title suggests?

i’ve always been struck with his black/white view of the wine world, and sadly, i think many of his readers picked up those traits over the years, too.

• 1 and I agree.

Thanks for posting…Bob. as I do not know the old Prodigy computer system.

I thought it was maybe to compete with Bill Klapp.

A preview of the present. There was a daily column and a bulletin board. Mr Foster is correct in his assertion that the discussions were often contentious bordering on toxic at times. Mark Squires was a participant. I remember that one of Mr Foster’s primary issues concerned the 1985 Heitz Martha’s Vineyard which he was convinced was tainted and Parker thought was great.

MrBigJ

he should have listened to more MJ. It don’t matter if you’re black or white

That could apply to a lot of people around here, I suspect.

And you add alcohol to the mix and you have chaos.

I remember asking RP (on Squires BB) about MP Shiraz which he had extolled. We of course all went out and bought it to check it out. Several of us found massive heat from alcohol and the wine description for me was it was like motor oil in color and consistency. He never answered us directly but made a statement in the thread that anyone who could not decern the greatness of the wine was not qualified to render an opinion. Up until that point he had my attention after that I was not so sure I could trust his reviews.

Mr. Foster was correct about the 1985 Heitz Martha’s. All the Heitz reds in 1984 and 1985 had the same taint. A moldy, fungal aroma akin to mild TCA. I’ve seen speculation that there was some kind of cellar issue. First time I noticed it with the Martha’s 1984, at a tasting, I told the pourer the bottle was corked. He opened another. Same thing. Saw this again with the 2004 Bella Oaks. And then with both in 1985. I don’t remember if I ever tried the 1986.

That seems like a strong thread within the Raj / Asimov clique as well.

Step back from this narrow topic a bit and you will be struck by people on both sides getting so angry and hostile about wine. How far are we straying from what wine is about when we arrive a that point?

Kyle, there is room for dozens in this space with no need for competition…

I assume you mean point,not poet?
Sounds like a question that Squires might have asked…except he would not have allowed the answer.

I meant “point,” not poit or poet. Looks like auto-correct failed both of us.

Actually,I meant to write poet as it was a poseibility…

Speaking of MJ, Charlie did you see that the kid may HAVE been his son?

Not interested in another Parker bash, but as far as the above wines perhaps Foster, you and RP didn’t drink the same bottles? Personally, I don’t agree that all the 84 and 85 Heitz wines had “taint”. I have read some accounts of variation, and the 86 despite being another good vintage was a little disappointing. But I’ve had quite a few excellent bottles of 84 & 85 Heitz Martha’s. Perhaps a dozen tries between the two, with most being excellent, and honestly I can’t remember a flawed bottle. There certainly wasn’t any sort of vintage bottling wide flaw in those wines. Especially TCA, as I am more susceptible to that than many. Could you be describing brett? That seems like a more likely cause of repeated reaction, but I don’t like brett in most wines either. I certainly don’t discount someone that may have had a negative experience, but can attest that there are a lot of really good bottles of 84 & 85.

John, I noticed it in more than a dozen bottles over two vintages in different settings all over the Bay Area when the wines were released. It was the same off aroma every time. So more likely it’s just a flaw that I was particularly sensitive to. For calibration sake, I’ve always been overly sensitive to TCA, but brett and pyrazines don’t seem to bother me much.

Bob
Your post prompted me to sign up, not to have a pop at Parker(though it may sound like that at times), but to suggest a theory as to why there us so much mention of the guy here.

You made reference to him as ‘god’ in those early discussions, and from these distant shores, it did at times feel like he was a hugely popular prophet. He spoke with confidence, with firm belief, and quickly established the most loyal group of followers there had ever been in the wine world. For many it seems, he awakened an interest and they felt like they were being led to the promised land by this man. The perfect palate, calls it right, etc. the followers believed.

Over time, many have found their own palates, and now look back on that time with anger that they trusted this man. For some there may even be anger with themselves, that they were so easily led, or anger at him for leading them astray. Yet they have their own palates now, and a home where they can share opinions without censorship or moderator abuse. Parker is fading now. He’s cashed out, and the new owners may find the brand has little value, whether he is there or not.

There are many here that exposed the stupidity of believing in the ‘perfect palate’, of someone who always ‘called it right’. They may have swallowed the story for a while, but they stood up for themselves, proud and defiant, even if they got slung out of their favourite bar for doing so. The battle needed to happen, and many eyes needed to be opened to what was going on. For many the battle was one to protect the ‘innocent’ from being taken in by the myths.

Maybe that battle has been won, the prophet exposed, and his time has passed, the followers dwindling. Maybe the time has come to leave the disgraced prophet alone in the wilderness to dream of the glory days when he held the world in his hand. There is a new dawn here, and it allows freedom of thought, and those thoughts can look to the future, not the past?

Regards
Ian