I would be more prone to agree with your points above if you could demonstrate statistically that “firsts are always first, seconds always second”, etc. I think in the case of any honest critic that would not hold true and that lesser known wines often rise dramatically either from a single vintage or over multiple vintages
M. Mauss:
We are in concurrence that one should reveal how wines were tasted. It is clear to all that tastings done at chateaux or other wine estates are not done blind. It should also be clear that no critic in the world can afford to purchase every wine that he/she reviews. That is most certainly true of areas such as Bordeaux or Burgundy where hundreds of wines, many selling for hundreds of dollars would need to be purchased. I see no sin in a critic considered important enough to receive a single bottle of eachof the wines of any winery that chooses to send them.
As to blind tasting, that is always possible in one’s own tasting room. It is far from possible in many other circumstances. An example - at VinItaly I always attend the tasting room of the Consortia of Brunello di Montalcino and there one of my own assistants arranges the tasting so that I know which category of wines I am tasting but not the identity of the producer. On another day I visit the Consortia of Chianti Classico Riserva and there that arrangement is impossible. Helas, but I am not going to give up the tastings because of that. Nor would my readers want me to give up those tastings.
Again, I am not opposed to criticizing critics. To repeat myself “if the critic is not open to criticism, no-one should be so open”. Like you, M. Mauss,I am to some extent an old fashioned person and believe that wine criticism should be carried on in a gentlemanly manner. You can believe for example that I can “kill” a wine in my critique but I try in almost all cases to do that in a civil manner.
I think criticism of the critics should be carried on in the same manner. With a friendly nod in the direction of Daniel Posner, for example, referring to Robert Parker as “Bobby” may cause a smile but I wonder if the smile is not a somewhat cynical one at the writer rather than the target. Might that not have something akin to “knocking” Albert Einstein because he had the unconscious habit of sometimes scratching his crotch in public?
Hopefully with a bit of grace I will now retreat from this particular discussion.
I got your point and you may know that I discussed the issue at the Parker Board. It is obvious IMO that Parker doesn´t taste blind that often (any more?).
I think he feels it is a big thing only for few people and the majority doesn´t care that much the way he taste and rate wines. To me it´s clear that in blind tastings his results would be different. But he feels comfortable with the way he do things I guess. Terry Theise mentioned Parker gave up blind tasting for most of the part because tasting not blind let the experience with some wines play a role in his judgement.
One thing I am certain: The more people talk about the issue the more he will behave as he does. He has a reasons since Parker may think a group of enemies (a lot of them at this place) will never discuss things in a fair way.
I think wines should be tasted and rated blind. In a comment it is quite easy to say i.e. that the First Growth xy didn´t perform as expected but due to experience it may be that the wine will turn out to be better as thought when tasted blind. So the argument that wines meant for long cellaring have a handicap at blind tastings doesn´t work. And the times I rate Bordeaux blind some cult wines were at the top of the list - 2001 Lafite and Leoville Las Cases come to mind. Both wines backward and tannic when tasted but among the best wines of the entire tasting (160 wines from 2001) anyway. If I recall correctly the majority of taster thought 2001 Lafite was superb although it was not easy to taste.
Parker signs off as Bob everywhere. Robert is not really what he goes by out there.
As for other things mentioned, I agree with everything that you say.
Critics, wine mags, etc, need to have a disclosure of how they taste, in the same manner as you have just pointed out.
No doubt that critics cannot afford to purchase everything. I, for one, am not asking them to. WS accepts samples. They are open about that. I assume BH and IWC are open about their tasting methods as well. WA has policies to view as well. Are they they correct policies? No one put a gun to Parker’s head and told him to tell his subscribers that he buys his BDX in the manner listed above. And if a gun was held to his head, it was himself holding it (as his new avatar indicates).
WS came out with their reviews. I assume Suckling tasted them blind in BDX, or Tuscany, or wherever he conducts his tastings. The samples were provided by the Chateaus 99.9% of the time, I would presume. I am not sure how Tanzer used to taste BDX, I know he used to visit the region, and I would presume he tasted there.
Specious reasoning at best. Everyone was pretty happy about Parker’s rating brackets and appelation descriptions for the 07s when they came out; they saw it as a kick in the craw of the Bordelais for their rampant pricing. However for 08, there must be some sort of dark hidden conspiracy behind his actions. How about he’s getting older and the constant stress of travel/tasting is not as enjoyable as it once was?
Even more selective reasoning regarding Parker’s approach to the Bordeaux heirarchy. I didn’t see anyone up in arms when Parker gave 05 Pontet Canet higher scores than 05 Lafite/Latour/Petrus. He flatly proclaimed the brilliance of the vintage yet downgraded some of its most heralded estates.
The fact of the matter is with such massively structured vintages, where basic aoc wines have the structure to age for a decade, to pin one’s hopes on the finality and authority of grades for wines in their most primal infancy, is more of a marketing circus than a substantive excersise. I look forward to Parker’s 10 year retrospective on 00 BDX to shed more light on this issue.
Regarding Dan’s point about Parker’s tasting methodolgy, I’m very interested in this as it is often swept under the rug of discussion.
I think if one approaches 05s are they should, knowing that the biggest estates are massive, multi-generational wines, how could one not expect less 100 pt wines than in 2003? Many of the 2003s showed zealously hedonistic out the gates. I would assume that in time, the 05s will round out with better balance and structure, meriting higher consideration. Check back in 20 years on what wines the community thinks are consensus 100 pt wines 03 vs 05.
What makes 05 BDX such a fantastic vintage, akin to 07 in the Rhone, is the depth and breadth of fantastic quality, as farmers were left with little need for manipulation to produce wines that express the classic terroir of their plots.
Not only is this the first Bordeaux vintage that I did not buy one bottle EP in 25 years, I really don’t care if I ever even taste a bottle from 07.
With Costco pretty much out of the game, I may not even get that chance unless Max does an offering for pennies on the dollar.
Your comments regarding the amount of chemicals used on this vintage got me to hold back as well, and I didn’t buy into any of the futures craziness once the ‘100 Euro’ pricing came out.
[quote="Serge Birbrair]
You are right, wine critics should be only criticized by the jury of their own peers - the other wine critics.
Convicted felons deserve the jury consisting of other convicted felons.
Only winemakers may criticize the work and wines of other winemakers.
EVERYTHING out of this realm is nothing but crucifixion by the “wet behind the ears mob”.[/quote]
Serge…
I never said nor do I believe anything like that! And you know very well that I do not feel this way.
Fungicides were bad in 07 but the excessive chemical vintage was Parker’s highly touted 08. He won’t be tasting them in bottle this trip. I guess even he doesn’t want to be over exposed to the fungies.
Are there any comperable prior vintages that used similar amounts of fungicides? If so, what qualities do you perceive in the wines that have been affected.
Dan’s comments on Dr Vino are the nut : It is not how the WA gets the wines and reviews them, it is the rather large void between how they do and how they say they do it. I don’t care if RP reviews wines while doing lines of blow off the tits of Bordelais strippers - just say that is how it is done.
The WA has always set itself up as different in methods and practices. That was part of the whole selling point, the specialness of the brand and the methodology. Without changing what he promotes, he has changed what the claim really is - I am special, a unique, expert and experienced taster who can translate what is in the glass to words/scores. Thing is, that is really no different than what any other critic claims. It is very much a cult of personality, but it wants to pretend to be something else.
Faryan, wine estates do not publish the amounts or the actual fungicides used to combat rot and fungus. They would rather not even discuss the subject. I have friends who were in France in 08 that advised me that on the left bank, the use of fungies was required very frequently at most chateau until the weather finally improved in late September. Not as much on the right bank I believe August was so overcast and damp that rot was considered a probable cause of total vintage failure. I recall excessive use in the early 90’s 93 or 94 and I believe in the mid 80’s 87 I think??, but the chemicals used are more potent today. Some have half lives of 5 years. Maybe some of the winemakers and vineyard mavens can chime in.
Much of the fungicides are destroyed during the fermentation process, but no one knows the long term effects of years like 08 where the vintage was saved not by the weather but by the large use of chemicals that allowed the weather to eventually save the harvest.
This is no different from what I have been saying for a while now. The truth shall set you free. I am tired of the lies. Tyler’s latest excerpt just puts it all in a nutshell. Parker is a liar. His policies are a complete crock of shit. Some of us are tired of it. He has pages of legal mumbo jumbo on his website and in the books tha the publishes. People eat this stuff up. Take it at face value. Why would they think otherwise?
![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
![[thumbs-up.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f84c5acc11486ee4baba6dee6cf61dbd133abb18.gif "[thumbs-up.gif]"){kind=small}
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}