Is there anyone out there (seriously) who doesn't think RMP's palate has changed over the years?

WINE TALK
1

So I was reading Larry’s thread on the lack of board civility - cheers [wow.gif] .

And I gather one of the topics that people are tired of is the criticism of Parker.

Now in the interests of full disclosure, I no longer subscribe to the WA, but I did for many years, and to this day am grateful I did so because I still have a cellar of fine Bordeaux to drink in my dotage that Bob recommended. Those were the days when Bob could give the '86 Calon Segur 88 points, and you still knew you would be buying an eminently drinkable, ageable and nicely priced bottle of wine.

But, we all agree that palates tend to change over time - I actually believe it to be a normal part of the aging process (but I’m a decrepit, over-the-hill kind of poster, so that opinion may be enlightened self-interest). And our first “definitive” sign of RMP’s change in palate was his swooning over the Aussie ooze-bombs. I mean, I think it’s a legitimate question to ask - after literally drinking thousands of wines for multiple years, maybe at some point the only thing that can even resonate with your palate is “shock & awe”-type wines.

No one (not even Bill Klapp, I hope) would question Parker’s impact on wine criticism, and even more broadly, the wine industry itself. I think it inarguable that on the whole his influence has been a clear positive for the vast majority of fine wine drinkers. But that doesn’t mean that his palate remains infallible - it has changed, and just because I am not willing to line up for the 16.5% Cali Cab that he swooned over like I once did for the '86 Calon doesn’t mean that I am the one who’s palate is “out of line”.

I’m grateful for the “wine education” that RMP afforded me when I was a young wine tyke, but I really don’t see the downside to calling a spade a spade now that we’re all off our training wheels [cheers.gif] .

2

SMH

3

It has changed quite a bit and for the worse. It is like a chef that doesn’t know when to stop adding salt. I would guess Parker’s overall net is positive but he has been working pretty hard in recent years in the other direction. And these days he rarely misses a chance to make a spectacle of himself, wine writing and wine. And it is the last one that most concerns me.

4

Not exclusive to Bob Parker, I had a discussion with a very knowledgable and good friend the namesake of
The Durand. His name is Yves Durand and he was on the forefront of the whole wave of the Master Sommelier movement. Not in charge but influential.

Yves is over 70 now. He feels he can no longer taste with the kind of acuity he had when he was younger. Especially in his 30’s to 40’s. He felt there was a significant drop off at 50 or so that continued of his ability to discern nuance in wines. More power is required to develop a palate impression.

The fact is that as Bob Parker has grown older his ability to discern nuance has most likely gone that way too. It is just aging and you can’t fight that. This is really a moot exercise but it is always good for some speculation. His ability to discern nuance has no doubt gone down in the last 30 years. He is not alone however. It is less a function of volume of wines but more a function of getting older.

BTW, Yves thinks that Bob Parker has one of the world’s great palates especially in his heyday when the 1982/1990’s were coming out. He has really added to the lustre of Bordeaux and many other areas. He is responsible for the US becoming one of the worlds great consumers of French wines. (At least we were in the past)

5

All you have to do is look at score inflation. Massive at times.

6

If you started out by asking if Parker’s palate has changed more than other critics of a similar age this would be more appeal to a wider group. Start with a general observation then work the Parker bashing into the thread. I’m sure it’s been said elsewhere but for a clique that accuses Parker of a lack of subtlety your criticism is rather clumsy.

7

Don, great post. Unlike Bob, Yves is able to recognize the decline in one’s senses has one gets older. It’s just a natural progression. No different than one’s eyesight or hearing.

Like Yves, I also think Bob was awesome when younger.

8

Tom - be careful, I am not sure those types of comments are allowed on the “new kinder and gentler” WB.

9

Who can claim their palate does not change?

10

Nice post, Don!

I have noticed this exact thing with my father, who is Uncle Bob’s age. His palate his shifted toward more pronounced flavors over nuance and complexity, and higher alcohol. I am opening all of my 07 CDPs with him and he loves them. Sure glad I didn’t sell them!

11

I started following Robert Parker in the early 1980s, first reading his '81 Bordeaux report - I knew then that Mr. Parker loved “fruit bombs”. In fact, I believe that is where I first saw the phrase. When he started ripping 90% of the Burgundy he was rating, we pretty much figured out that the wines just weren’t big enough for him. He loved big, alcoholic Chateauneuf-du-Papes and big Napa Valley Cabernets… And again, this was in the early 1980s…

What has changed?

12

Has anyone said anything to the contrary of the title of the OP? Or am I missing something and what I thought was going to be a interesting discussion about palate change is actually just another drop in the proverbial bucket?

13

I don’t think much has changed- he’s always been a 100 point meatball.

14

Thomas, perhaps your tastes have always been different, but back in his heyday (that '82 through '95 vintage period in Bordeaux), I could literally buy virtually anything he rated in the 88-95 point range and put the stuff in a corner of the cellar without giving it a second thought. Maybe that’s just because his taste for Bordeaux was similar to mine at that time, but when you look at what he’s showering points on over the last 15 or so years, wines like the '86 Calon Segur don’t even get the time of day anymore (I’m pretty sure if he was served that wine blind, RMP would dismiss it as “AFWE”).

It’s been discussed in the past, but I think the '90 vintage proved to be his high water mark in terms of worthwhile wine criticism, and even in that vintage, we were starting to see the emergence of Frankenweins that were clearly designed to appeal to his palate but had little if any long-term viability - in my mind, the '90 Pavie Macquin has always been a poster child for a Bordeaux that was designed to appeal immediately (no waiting necessary), only to fall apart in relatively short order. Unfortunately for me, I accorded that 92 point rating with the same respect that previous 92 point ratings got, and had the singular misfortune of buying two cases of the wine. I still have some of this “science experiment” in the cellar, and every once in a while, I pull a cork just to see if anything drinkable remains. The answer more often than not being no.

I forget who it was that asked the question, and to be honest I don’t know Steve Tanzer’s age so he may be a lot younger than Bob, but at least so far I haven’t noticed a similar change in his palate.

15

This is more along the lines of my thinking. He’s always liked big wines. Traditionally ripe wines from certain varieties played to his strengths, so his perception of which wines were great lined up well with the vast majority of consumers. Since then wine making has evolved - in reaction to his (and Laube’s somewhat similar) palate. The easiest way to exploit his palate is to pick later and increase the new oak. The problem is a smaller percentage of consumers like these wines. Yves is probably right that he’s lost some nuance. But it comes down to, with his willful ignorance, he doesn’t understand the shift from broad acceptance of his reviews to a significant amount of dissent. To him, these riper wines are just better. To others, some are and some aren’t.

Another way to look at this is some great vintages produce riper wines that appeal broadly, retain vibrancy and complexity, and have the stuff to age and evolve well. Some winemakers try to replicate this in vintages that can’t retain all those elements picking that ripe. To some people the resulting wines are a world different, while to others they seem just as good. (Tip: listen to the dissenters on these in respect to ageability.) Also, other winemakers understand well how to consistently make great riper wines that do age and have broad appeal.

16

I’m not quite certain how one would determine whether a critic’s opinion of wine is “fallible” or “infallible.” It’s a subjective opinion. Whether you, as a reader and wine drinker, agree with his opinions is really a separate matter.

I would distinguish between the awarding of points and the writing of tasting notes. As far as points go, rather clearly there has been major grade inflation. But part of that is the wine market itself, where a positive review that results in a score of only 89 points is seen as a slam.

Where the rubber meets the road is reading the actual tasting notes. While I often disagree with RP’s scores on individual wines, he writes tasting notes in a fairly descriptive way–I can usually tell what the style of a wine is (and whether I’m likely to enjoy it) based on his notes. If he says something is “hedonistic” or “mindboggling,” you usually know what you’re getting. Of course, there are plenty of times you want to drink wines where you don’t want your mind boggled.

Bruce

17

I think it should be obvious that a) palates change over the years, and b) more importantly, physiology changes over the years. At 58, my vision is not as good as it was at 28 (though, amazingly, it’s still pretty good); my hearing is definitely not as good; my sense of smell is absolutely not as good; I can’t run as fast, jump as high, my attention span is shorter, etc., etc., etc. To think that my palate is as keen as it once was would be kidding myself. Fortunately, the experience of having tasted thousands of wines from dozens of vintages, young and old, partially makes up for that, I think, so that the wisdom of experience provides a lot value that is lost in the direct ability to taste.

Parker’s principle failure seems to be an inability to recognize that age can only act to deteriorate tasting abilities; and furthermore, that the amount of wine he has tasted (and continues to taste on a regular basis) cannot but exacerbate that process.

18

I must admit, I don’t follow the Bordeaux vintages as closely as I did ten years ago, and have always concentrated on the lower price scale because those are the wines that you were able to purchase as a retailer to resell, as the bigger wines sold themselves. So, I relied A LOT on Parker’s assessments back then on Petite Chateaux like “d’Angludet” and “Tour Saint Bonnet” etc and purchased them very heavy in futures as a result. As a retailer, I also had to try and sell French and Italian wines to predominantly California palates, so it was easy to search out all the over the top Cotes du Rhones Parker would rave about; knowing they were just what my customers wanted. You really just had to learn early how to use Robert Parker’s ratings, and not let them use you… While I knew that my palate personally didn’t coincide with Parkers, I knew the majority of the world’s drinking public did.

And - as far as your palate changing, I still like the exact same wines I did 30 years ago, with almost no change. Maybe drink more whites than I used to - but really nothing else has changed. Except, I do feel that my palate is half of what it used to be in my late 20s (I’m 57 now). I had a whippersnapper palate back then, and was rarely fooled blind - as it became a running game over the years when I was in retail. Today, I’m lucky If I can tell the difference between a young Grenache and a Central Coast Pinot Noir blind. And the mind goes as well, 20 years ago I could rattle off every Premier Cru in Burgundy, today I could name less than half.