Robert M. Parker, Jr., started his influential wine newsletter, The Wine Advocate, in 1978, the same year F&W debuted. Parker has contributed to F&W for decades, filing reports on his beloved Bordeaux and Napa Valley and expounding on new producers, up-and-coming regions, wine trends, prices and much more. Here, he checks in with F&W’s Ray Isle about his past predictions and pronouncements and tells where he got things right—and wrong.
In 2003 you wrote, “Burgundy is, well, Burgundy. A minefield of potential disappointments beloved by > elitists and pseudo-intellectuals >
who like to discuss ad nauseam growers and terroirs—> not quality.> ”
Love the quote of his statement in 2003. He is guardedly optimistic that some of the younger vignerons might turn that
around, as to quality, but doesn’t address what to do about the damned elitists and pseudo-intellectuals that abound.
Tom
Interesting article filled with contradictions. His 1987 comments are somewhat comical. He argued that wines were too homogenous. I think many wine geeks would agree that as Parker’s influence grew, so did homogeneity among wines competing for critical acclaim. Producers began using more new oak in Italy, California, Bordeaux (with the garagiste movement) and even Burgundy when producing chardonnay, pinot noir, cabernet sauv, syrah, etc. The move to natural or biodynamic wines has been stressed more recently, as Parker’s influence over certain regions has waned. That said, Parker is also actively for biodynamism, so the move by many producers in the 2000s could also be seen as more of an effort to satisfy Parker’s demands. Or perhaps we all over-estimate Parker’s influence over the last decade.
Interesting article. I wish Ray Isles had more stones and asked some serious questions about Parkerization, homogeneity in wine from regions like Barossa and Rioja, backlash against big wines such as Raj Par’s IPOB, and whether Parker has noticed his preferences in wine change dramatically over the last two decades. Oh well.
Of the rising stars I selected in 1990, only Kistler, which continues to be one of the benchmarks for high-quality Chardonnay and Pinot Noir from anywhere in the world, would make the list today. But I’m thrilled by the number of California wineries that have emerged over the last 20 years, fulfilling my expectations that California could produce many world-class wines.
The Prediction
In 1990 Parker named six wineries from around the state of California as rising stars.
The Reality
Of his original picks, Kistler alone still makes the cut.
So does anyone know who the other 5 wineries from 1990 were?
But what of the elitists and true intellectuals who have forgotten more about Burgundy (and the avoidance of its “minefields”) than Bob Parker will ever know? Shame on F&W for not publishing adequate old quotes and bringing the relevant facts to bear. Parker has made shit up for three decades now, and has been famously bigoted and wrong about more things than he has nailed. More than anything else, he does not have the intellectual capacity to keep score of his own scorekeeping, so to speak, and he steadfastly refuses to admit that he has ever been wrong or ill-informed. This article is a good example. When too-gently confronted with his past error or inadequacy, he simply ducks the subject at hand and pontificates anew. Whatever he once was or perhaps might have become with deeper intellectual curiosity, more transparency and better judgment, he goes out as the Sean Hannity of the wine world. You go, Blusterin’ Bob!
Whew, I’m glad you finally got here, Mr. Klapp, with the obligatory dose of Parker nastiness. I was worried as the thread had been up like forever without your usual contribution. I feel better now. And I’m sure you do as well.
Tex is right, Lewis. You and Dyer need to read your own endless repetitions, Dyer’s an unoriginal cut-and-paste job. If you are not defending Parker, then why are you even here? Your whining obviously has not changed my behavior. I fail to see where the truth about Parker, however phrased, does not deserve outing. And if he were not such an arrogant prick, I would no doubt moderate my tone accordingly. I have had my say on this thread. You and Dyer can now go back to lurking and waiting to pounce on my posts instead of posting anything original of value and substance on your own. And the waits will be longer and longer, but it is gratifying to see how much you guys have missed me!
What is the truth? Please share - I’ve been reading and following Robert Parker’s writings for almost 30 years, and certainly think he has profoundly changed the way the world looks at wine. But no man is perfect. Take California in particular, a region in it’s infancy in the 1970s that saw huge changes by the end of the 1980s - and we have probably seen the same amount of changes over the last 20 years - no one could have predicted where things were going (who in the hell thought California could make a great Pinot Noir 30 years ago?)
His obvious disdain for Burgundy is for the obvious reasons that anyone who has ever followed Burgundy knows - it IS an incredibly inconsistent region - and a total mindfield to enter - and I don’t care if you have been following Burgundy for 50+ years, or just started yesterday.
Your post Bill did seem mean spirited and self serving, having nothing to do with Todd’s post. Now I can understand the anger, putting an idiot like Mark Squires in charge of his internet board was a major mistake and cost him plenty - I cancelled my subscription to Parker’s newsletter specifically because of Squires - and won’t read or follow it again - but that doesn’t make Parker a bad critic - he is still one of the top 2-3 wine writers in the world.
I guess I would argue your choice of words here, Thomas. If you substitute “wine critic” for “wine writer”, I would agree totally.
To me, reading Parker’s works is not nearly as informative and entertaining as the works from the likes of DavidDarlington/
BobThompson/GeraldAsher/KermitLynch/NeilRosenthal and many/many others.
Tom
Let me settle this for Thomas and Tom: Parker is one of the two or three WORST wine writers on earth. He is trite, repetitive and dull, and most of his books are nothing but recycled material from the Wine Advocate for which his lemmings paid twice or three times over (their problem, not Parker’s, to be sure). As to wine criticism, he is one of the two or three most INFLUENTIAL wine critics, but it is but a condemnation of wine criticism in general that somebody with no background in wine who made it up as he went along could ever wield such influence. Burgundy is not a minefield to its serious students. Parker flunked that course, along with Brunello, Sauternes, Port and Champagne…
It was Burgundy fans, or at least some among them, who first had problems with Parker as a critic and it wasn’t because the region is complex and difficult to deal with but because the things he sought in a wine were not those that many fans sought. It was the first and clearest case of his taste being at war with a taste associated with a terroir.
This has nothing, of course to do with Bill’s post, which says what Bill’s posts do. It also has nothing to do with Parker’s predictive accuracy. If one doesn’t assent to the evaluative bases on which the predictions are based, as I do not, they, of course, have no interest an determining the adequacy of the predictions. I can certainly understand that there is an audience who is interested. I leave this article to them.
I totally agree Jonathan - But it’s not a secret that Robert Parker doesn’t understand Burgundy - as many European writers do not understand California wines - yes, I went through the 80s and 90s cussing the hell out of Parker’s affinity for “fruit-bomb” wines and how he would rip all the producers I loved (or ignored them completely) - That’s the reason he moved those responsibilities to other writers years ago - And I am far from a Parker apologist - just don’t understand the hatred -
AND TOM HILL - I also agree, I do consider Parker a wine critic more than a wine writer (bad choice of words) - lots of great writers out there - Matt Kramer is another - I grew up on Michael Broadbent and Hugh Johnson - but I don’t think people understand how hard it is to write and critique 500 different wines at a time - much, much harder than a Kermit Lynch writing about some of his best friends who also happen to make wine - The commercialization of Parker did piss off a certain breed of wino - but I was a wine retailer for many years, and those books of his were more reference points than learning opportunities - you get a pricelist of older Bordeaux - it’s easier to just pick up his Bordeaux book looking for a score rather than go through newsletters (and please - Parker scores are what sold Bordeaux back then and frankly still does) -
He’s a wine critic - and just like movie critics - some you agree with - some you don’t - some rave over a Tarantino movie - others find them total trash - Does that make the critic who trashed Tarantino a bad critic just because you liked Tarantino’s movies?
Yup…I would definitely include Kramer as well, Thomas. When I set down and read a wine article or a wine book, I want to learn something
from it and when I close up the book, I want to think: “Damn…that was a good read”. That’s something I get less & less these days.
Parker’s books are good (enough) references to have on the shelf…but to sit down and read one cover-to-cover is excruciatingly
painful. His writing is just too “long/boring”…if you get my drift.
Tom
![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}