Heimoff article about Parker

Bob_Kaminski · November 6, 2009, 7:03pm

Max Marinucci:

Glanced at the article and it’s nothing special. Parker’s situation is due to a combination of factors. It’s a different world, the economy sucks and people are still losing their jobs. There is sort of a theme of “the boy that cried wolf” out there with people tired of hearing the same crap, vintage of the century, blah blah. There is plenty of wine out there and many have pulled back their buying or changed their habits. Parker DOES NOT have the power to change the fundamentals or power the Bordeaux world to think they can pull another 2005. 2006, 2007 and 2008 have taught everyone a lesson and for many it was a hard one learned (see Diageo, Southern and others through the chain). So, he’s not necessarily losing relevance because of his own doing but because everything is different out there. One thing is to get a truly monumental vintage every 6-10 years from the most important wine region like the old days but now we’re all bombarded with the latest and greatest from somewhere around the world every year and truthfully the consensus for the most part is…okay, who gives a shit? Next!

So, even if the 2009 is going to be better than 2005 (if that’s even possible) and considering that 2008 was a total flop and there are still mounds of 2005s and 2006s (many deeply discounted), who is going to propel 2009? Where is this thirst and interest going to come from? I just don’t see it.

. “It’s the economy stupid”. Also consider changing demographics. Aging baby boomers think twice about buying wines they may not get to drink. No amount of flowery prose or numeric scores can prompt one to pay ridiculous prices for wine. The economic crisis has forced people to take stock of their spending behaviors and luxury products like wine are not the only asset class losing ground. Parker’s focus is on those highly sought after wines ($$$) which he pushed into that status with his success. So Parker’s success helps lead to his loss of influence, mostly because people are no longer looking at wines in this price range.

Keith_Levenberg · November 6, 2009, 9:32pm

How do you know? How many other eras have you lived in?

Max_Marinucci · November 6, 2009, 9:37pm

Mike Reff:

Max Marinucci:

Glanced at the article and it’s nothing special. Parker’s situation is due to a combination of factors. It’s a different world, the economy sucks and people are still losing their jobs. There is sort of a theme of “the boy that cried wolf” out there with people tired of hearing the same crap, vintage of the century, blah blah. There is plenty of wine out there and many have pulled back their buying or changed their habits. Parker DOES NOT have the power to change the fundamentals or power the Bordeaux world to think they can pull another 2005. 2006, 2007 and 2008 have taught everyone a lesson and for many it was a hard one learned (see Diageo, Southern and others through the chain). So, he’s not necessarily losing relevance because of his own doing but because everything is different out there. One thing is to get a truly monumental vintage every 6-10 years from the most important wine region like the old days but now we’re all bombarded with the latest and greatest from somewhere around the world every year and truthfully the consensus for the most part is…okay, who gives a shit? Next!

So, even if the 2009 is going to be better than 2005 (if that’s even possible) and considering that 2008 was a total flop and there are still mounds of 2005s and 2006s (many deeply discounted), who is going to propel 2009? Where is this thirst and interest going to come from? I just don’t see it.

Welcome back Max, where have you been?

Hanging out/getting drunk with Posner and Frenchie!

Max_Marinucci · November 6, 2009, 9:43pm

Tom,

You ain’t going to find many of the “highly rated” '07 CDPs now at good prices now because he and Park Smith already cleaned out the market …

As far as 2008 Bordeaux, where is that going once all the hype for 2009 gets rolling? Nowhere. The whole thing is tiring already…

Daniel_Posner · November 6, 2009, 10:22pm

Yes and No to Max’s point.

$100 100 point 2007 CDPs are sold out (or now at $175) but $70 98 point BDX is still at $70.

Strange times.

We cannot keep Sassicaia, Ornellaia, and some other Italian goodies in stock at a reasonable price.

Different critic rating those bad boys.

GregT · November 6, 2009, 10:43pm

Hilarious series of posts on the blog site. But the argument really is inherently contradictory. If Parker no longer matters, why is he writing about him?

There are many more critics than ever these days but I have 2 thoughts on that situation. First, the audience for wine writing is vastly larger than it’s ever been in the past, at least in the US, as wine consumption has increased over the past 20 years. So while Parker doesn’t have a fairly clear field these days, it’s a bigger field.

More importantly, there is a lot more BAD writing and criticism out there too. Last night once again I had the misfortune of spending quite a bit of time with a few “writers” who were quite certain that they knew what they were talking about because one or all of them had enrolled in and perhaps even completed the diploma course at some wine school. Of course, they weren’t able to identify a badly corked wine as having anything wrong with it, or a wine reeking of VA as having anything wrong with it, or a sulfur bomb as being unfit to drink.

People like that actually increase the influence of Parker.

Max_Marinucci · November 6, 2009, 11:51pm

GregT:

Hilarious series of posts on the blog site. But the argument really is inherently contradictory. If Parker no longer matters, why is he writing about him?

There are many more critics than ever these days but I have 2 thoughts on that situation. First, the audience for wine writing is vastly larger than it’s ever been in the past, at least in the US, as wine consumption has increased over the past 20 years. So while Parker doesn’t have a fairly clear field these days, it’s a bigger field.

More importantly, there is a lot more BAD writing and criticism out there too. Last night once again I had the misfortune of spending quite a bit of time with a few “writers” who were quite certain that they knew what they were talking about because one or all of them had enrolled in and perhaps even completed the diploma course at some wine school. Of course, they weren’t able to identify a badly corked wine as having anything wrong with it, or a wine reeking of VA as having anything wrong with it, or a sulfur bomb as being unfit to drink.

People like that actually increase the influence of Parker.

Did you have dinner with Dan?

M.Kaplan · November 7, 2009, 6:24am

Coelho?

Panos_Kakaviatos · November 7, 2009, 10:03am

I responded to that blog calling on the author not to “overinterpret” (should have said misinterpret) my decanter.com article… At least offering my opinion, as follows (sorry I have not read all the posts in this thread, neither in that blog but my computer crashed and I am at an internet café…):

Thanks for highlighting my article in decanter.com. I love blogs and wine bloggers and need to get my website in gear for that very purpose! But please the article should not be over-interpreted especially in terms of Parker points. Sure some experts may discount Parker’s points, and I reported what they told me. But I doubt that Parker’s “point influence” is waning all that much, if any. Just take a look at how prices of CndP in 2007 jumped after Parker’s new scores - and this within the midst of a questionable economy… following also a string of good to excellent vintages in CndP since 1998 barring 2002, also with high scores. My personal opinion is that Parker scores still matter very much although he may have “overdone it” in 2008 in Bordeaux. As much as I liked the Haut Bailly 2008, to take one example, I would not have scored it as highly. Certainly Haut Brion is better in 2008. In any case, Parker’s influence remains profound.

Mike_Reff · November 7, 2009, 12:32pm

Panos Kakaviatos:

I responded to that blog calling on the author not to “overinterpret” (should have said misinterpret) my decanter.com article… At least offering my opinion, as follows (sorry I have not read all the posts in this thread, neither in that blog but my computer crashed and I am at an internet café…):

Thanks for highlighting my article in decanter.com. I love blogs and wine bloggers and need to get my website in gear for that very purpose! But please the article should not be over-interpreted especially in terms of Parker points. Sure some experts may discount Parker’s points, and I reported what they told me. But I doubt that Parker’s “point influence” is waning all that much, if any. Just take a look at how prices of CndP in 2007 jumped after Parker’s new scores - and this within the midst of a questionable economy… following also a string of good to excellent vintages in CndP since 1998 barring 2002, also with high scores. My personal opinion is that Parker scores still matter very much although he may have “overdone it” in 2008 in Bordeaux. As much as I liked the Haut Bailly 2008, to take one example, I would not have scored it as highly. Certainly Haut Brion is better in 2008. In any case, Parker’s influence remains profound.

Panos, I agree, that Parker is still profound. Profound enough for reatilers to display his ratings and descriptors to sell wine… But he is losing ground with new wine geeks who can take the time and research other writers and formulate their own opinion.

Panos_Kakaviatos · November 7, 2009, 3:15pm

Good point.

GregT · November 7, 2009, 6:24pm

Max - it wasn’t Dan but come to think of it, she bore a striking resemblance!