Heimoff article about Parker

WINE TALK
1

Interesting article about Parker “losing his ground” to independent people, those that are on the fence about ratings and his palate.

Life after Parker: More proof that the times are changing | STEVE HEIMOFF BLOG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

2

Nice. Thanks for posting.

3

Is this guy talking about himself in the third person at the end?!?

4

The post is meh and someone needs to take away his bucket of metaphors. generally interesting comments though.

5

Rick, totally agree. Talk about metaphor abuse! deadhorse

Guillaume: yes, he’s talking about himself in the third person, and (as is typically the case in such situations) he comes off sounding like a pompous ass, when his intent is exactly the opposite.

6

Why bring up Leve? [stirthepothal.gif]

7

“Heimoff’s like a little town councilman who can keep on getting re-elected, as long as he does his job.”

Please give me a f%^ing break!

8

I don’t really get it. Seems like the quote, “Parker no longer matters,” applies to the Bordelaise, but not necessarily his reader base. If Parker thinks 2008 is great, and 2009 is a bit better, then isn’t he going to say that? It may not sell more wine, but he can still be of much utility to his paying customers. The author says that Parker’s “day is done,” but even if that was the case isn’t that just in his unannointed role as a tool to sell Bordeaux futures? While I am sure Parker takes great pride on being the axe in the Bordeaux market, unless the author is claiming that Parker is not, and was never, beholden first and foremost to his readership then I don’t understand his point.

Or the quote that Parker played his hand too heavily? What does he mean by that? Is that another way to say he overrated 2008 in an effort to drum up support for some reason? What would be the reason that he would “play his hand too heavily?” I am sure I am naive, but I still believe Parker calls it like he sees it. Maybe there are more people that don’t like his vision of the world anymore, but again, that’s not really what the author is saying.

9

Gee, there’s a difference between the assertion that someone is losing influence and this statement:

“Now, the perception is that Parker has played his hand too heavily. Either that, or his engine has run out of gas. Either way, the inevitable conclusion is startling: Parker no longer matters.”

I don’t care whether you love or hate Parker. As a matter of market observation, this claim that 'Parker no longer matters" is beyond silly. How many retailer emails have you folks received in the past few days flogging 2007 CdP with high Parker scores?

While it is clear the 2009 Bordeaux futures MAY be a tough sell, don’t think for a moment that Parker scores are going to be irrelevant to how the futures are priced, and which ones are bought…

Bruce

10

Bruce and Thomas - I agree with your posts. This guy sounds like he has an ax to grind with Parker.

I don’t believe Parker intentionally manipulates the market and I haven’t heard too many vociferous arguments that he does so. His problem is his organization and his management of it. His underlings (well, one especially) have severely damaged his organization’s credibility and they very well MIGHT be intentionally manipulating their respective markets. Parker has become sloppy and somewhat nonchalant about his scoring of wines and never seems to want to admit a problem. He is fiercely loyal (bullheaded, head in the sand, etc.) to his own fault and that has caused his relevance to many to crumble. I consider the fact that he thought he could weather all this unscathed as a sign of arrogance.

On top of all that, the rise of the consumer generated content out there - bulletin boards, blogs, CellarTracker, etc. - have made people stop looking at any critic as the final word.

Chris

11

Interesting given the statements about Parker still being relevant in his September 29th blog “Why Do Bloggers Hate Parker?” I haven’t read much of his writing, but based on that earlier article I’m not impressed by his ability to construct an argument.

12

Actually he’s defended Parker in the past (see the comments on his post esp from Posner). I don’t disagree with his conclusions (noted nicely by Chris S above) but I think there are multiple reasons - the economy, a string of very good vintages, a move away from one dominant source generally (not just in wine criticism but in how we get news and reviews about most things), score inflation and compression of things at the top end of the range, etc. Some of is is that Parker is less relevant, but much of it is that other things have increased in relevance. It’s rather like wine itself - 20 or 30 years ago exceptional wines stood head and shoulders above the mass of wines. Now we have a lot of very well made wines so truly exceptional wines are seen in a different context.

13

I certainly don’t have a dog in this race…although he may be able to evaluate the relevance of particular wine critics, doesn’t he know the difference between a metaphor and a simile?

\

14

The author frames his argument around poorly construed assertions.

15

To even take it back a step, he references Panos’s article in Decanter which is basically a rehash of Parker Board member quotes surrounding the recent demystifications of the critics. Not exactly anything new here for us.

16

Fact of the matter is, both Heimoff and Parker are in the same boat, since they’ve both hung their hats on 100 point scoring systems. Expect more pieces about Heimoff talking about Parker, and maybe Parker talking about Heimoff and other 100 point publications because all these guys have to hang together.

In the current issue of Sommelier Journal there’s an interesting commentary by Deborah Parker Wong talking about scores being bound to disappear because a lot of Millennials aren’t into numbers. Hallelujah!

Here’s my story: I got into the restaurant biz right out of college in 1974, caught the wine bug by 1976, and was working full-time as a sommelier as well as a wine retail store manager by 1978: pre-Parker/Spectator/point-scoring days. Since I was weaned on more of the British approach to wine journalism (talking about wine, rather than rating them), I was against scores from the beginning. Never could stand them, never used them in the way I ran my businesses (in both restaurants and wine stores). In fact, I think scores are instruments of the devil because they cripple a bourgeoning wine consumer’s ability and wherewithal to figure out his/her taste for his/herself. Numbers don’t tell the story, and they never will…

Earlier this week I had lunch with Chris Hancock, who was the original winemaker for Rosemount, and then its president until its sale to the Big Guys in 2001 thereabouts. Hancock was talking about how scores have actually crippled the development of a number of Master Sommeliers and Masters of Wine as well, while also blaming the pursuit of 98/99 point scores for much of the disinterest of Australian wines in general today. I didn’t record our conversation, but he basically was saying this: “We’re paying the price for all these years of trying to make big, fat, alcoholic wines which are basically undrinkable, but get the highest scores, because today many consumers are turned off to Australian wines… it’s become an uphill battle for us.” (Note: Hancock has recently teamed up again with Rosemount’s original founder, Robert Oatley – the new Robert Oatley label was introduced into the U.S. just last year).

Then Hancock went on to talk about the trade that has emerged on the heels of the 100 point culture: “‘Pomposity, lies and arrogance’ is how I describe much of trade, who have been riding on the backs of high scoring wines to make their living. I don’t even think a lot of these MWs and MSs know how to taste wine… they know how to score it, but not taste it.” When I asked for an example, Hancock related a recent experience when he was in the U.K., and he brought an older vintage of a well loved wined for a group that included a couple of MWs: “I opened my bottle, poured it for everyone, and immediately saw that it was badly corked, and was right about to apologize and take it away, when the two MWs actually began to talk to each other about the ‘unusual’ aroma in the wine, even speculating about what kind of oak was creating the character they were tasting… as unbelievable as it may sound, I just don’t believe that those MWs could tell a good bottle from a bad one, let alone species of oak or something as basic as TCA!”

17

Sounds a lot like a number of people here.

18

Just to say:

  • Parker definitely played his hand a bit heavily in 2008 with his Bdx reviews, desperately wanting to grab the spotlight again by being a contrarian (and therefore at the same time going back to what he did in the beginning, and imitating the bloggers trying to emulate him). This bid was largely unsuccessful since it soon became clear that not even Parker dithyrambic reviews would manage to move the 2008s in a sluggish market.
  • Retailers might very well be sending emails after emails about 2007 CdPs quoting Parker points. Each new email hitting one’s mailbox is basically saying “these wines are not moving” (again, probably more because of the economy than Parker’s fall from grace).
  • who is Heimoff? Is he supposed to be famous?
19

Deleted by Author

20

Guillaume, Heimoff is the Wine Enthusiast’s main writer, and although less influential, his blogs make him more widely read than Parker. But like I said, these guys are all pretty much the same: all feeding from the 100 point trough… meaningful from the perspective of influence and sales, and meaning_less_ from the perspective of actually being correct barometers of quality and taste…