That’s precisely the point of the article. It almost entirely absolves Parker, and well it should. It wasn’t his fault at all. He just said what he liked as is the right of anyone to do. Robert Parker was the Anna Wintour of wine, with the difference that consumers can’t see pictures of wine and form their own opinion. Is there a solution to that other than, as we have done, getting more critics and editors?
I don’t find the article formulaic as William does. And I think it has much of the necessary nuance, except maybe it fails to mention that palate changes with age (and probably even weight), and that outlier wines will tend to stand out in marathon tastings more than balanced ones.
Sorry to disappoint anyone but, I like scores. Given the sheer number of wines that exist, the notion that one should simply taste far and wide to figure out what one likes is ludicrous. You could have a different wine every day from the day you’re allowed to until the day you die and still not try all the wines out there. Nobody wants to do that. And there are some we’re supposed to age before we try them. We want the right wine for the right food and the right occasion. And there are sourcing concerns. How much is trying one bottle of Larry’s wines going to cost me if it’s not available at retail where I live? Do I have to buy a case to bring the cost per bottle down? That’s a lot of money. Consumers need a way to narrow down the choices. And scores help.
But I do agree with Greg that the whole Alice thing was unnecessary.