It’s important to note the popularity of wine in relation to alternative beverages. That big, ripe reds may bring drinkers to wine that would otherwise drink a cocktail - the same way White Zin appeals to people who might otherwise drink something else. (Thus the term “He-Man White Zin”) The decade of the '70s in California saw all these new producers striving to make serious wine, which turned out to be just that. But, by the '80s they were already changing style. Up through that era, fortified wines were huge, as were other sweet wines. The market didn’t give a lot of weight to great wines in the '70s, so maybe that was a moment where there was more ambition than the market would reward. Yes, it had an effect, brought more people to serious wine. We saw styles fade away, generic blends fade, varietal wines surge - new generations refuse to adopt the fuddy-duddy wine their parents drank. But, when fortified wines died, White Zin surged, wine coolers became a huge hit.
I’m sure everything that you recount is true. I just don’t think that’s anywhere near to most people.
I wasn’t there but I’m fairly certain it was a relatively small group. Just like WB is a relatively small group (even if there are thousands of lurkers). Most people buy wine to drink the day or week they buy it. And if they kept buying the wine with his shelf talker or after glancing at the magazine at Borders or Barnes & Noble (right next to the Cigar Aficionado and the Robb Report) then they drank it and kept buying the same wine moving forward.
My extended family have been into wine since before I was born. They never followed any points from anyone. They had wine fridges but they were small. Very few bottles got aged. The first time I brought a Côte-Rôtie to dinner, they were curious. They liked it a lot. And then they kept buying what they always did: mostly Jordan Cabs, Pesqueras and different Saint-Émilions. In my dad’s case: Piper-Heidsieck Champagne. My BIL BV Rutherford. My hang-out pals 15 years ago: Dibon Cava or Gloria Ferrer BdN. My ex: Duckhorn (or Decoy) or Trefethen. Why those? They liked them (and in my friends’ case they were also inexpensive — Gloria or Schramsberg were the splurge). No other reason. And the point is most people stick to producers (that’s even the first advice in Burgundy threads here).
The RP or WS points would open the door. They might take a flyer. And then stick with it if they loved it or back to what they liked before. (Especially with Champagne where tons of people treat you as an alien if you drink anything other than Veuve, Dom or Cristal.)
Most people are not buying wine by the case. Scores from critics are powerful to the extent they get hundreds of thousands of people to buy one or two bottles (and maybe repeat next year and so on), not a couple of hundred people to buy multiple cases. What you recount, true as it certainly is, is the experience of the latter. And it sucks for them. It really does.
I do agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence. The correction will and must include the ripe wines crowd. And us too!
We should publish a book: How Berserkers saved the world from natty wines, volatile A[lice] and brett. Maybe that’ll get us quoted in the followup PUNCH article.
While it is true that by far the vast majority of wine bought is drunk within a year, most of that wine is also not meant for aging. I would guess that Parker readers who bought cru Bordeaux, cru Burgundy and other wines meant for aging, did buy it on his say so for how they would age. It has been my limited experience, though, that modernist wines do age, it’s just that they still taste like modernist wines, only older. So, if all these people had tasted the wine on release, they would done better. I started giving up on Parker when I tasted new Bordeaux that were all oak and overripe fruit or, more to the point in my case, Rhones that were all polished and smooth as glass. I really couldn’t see how those wines would age into something I would like. And the few bottles I kept to try affirmed that. They did not break up and die. But they didn’t taste anymore like the CdPs I had learned to love than they did when they were young. I’ve seen plenty of comments on this board praising older bottles that I would have no interest in. But the praise isn’t incorrect. It just doesn’t share my taste in wine. If my taste were different, I would have continued to follow Parker faithfully, I guess. And that’s what I’m saying about his success surely having been connected to many people liking what he was selling. So, yes, if those people who bought cases to age without tasting it bought wine that wasn’t to their taste, that was a case (so to speak) of following a reputation only. And, of course, to the extent that one bought futures and pre-arrivals on his say so, that was what one was doing. And there would be a lag time before one had realized what one had done. Still, to his last days as a reviewer, and still now, there are plenty of people who defend his taste, and they have had plenty of time to taste those 00 Pavies and 03 Clos St. Jeans and know what they are drinking.
Jonathan is venturing into new territory, one that has puzzled me. What happens to these new age wines? Do they age like wines of yore?? Is there a point to ageing them?? They are already smooth enough. Half the reason we aged wines was to make them smoother. But have we lost all those tertiary characteristics we loved??
Parker’s popularity reminds me of the Sherry question. A friend who graded MW exams told me there was a member who repped a big Sherry company in the UK. He would try to slip in a question that ran along these lines: you are the brand mgr for a large Sherry company. Every year your market share shrinks…what should you do??
So my question is this: if parker had been writing articles about Manzanilla Pasada etc three times a year, would he have solved Mr Brand mgr’s problem. or would people have looked in vain for the article about Rhone wines??
A super post Jonathan.
If Parker had scribbled 100 points next to one of them, it would have flown off the shelves, even as shops were doubling the price. It’s just how it was.
Over time, as people tasted the wines, the high point effect might well have worn off. The wines would be to much fewer people’s tastes (than the big reds), and there was also no need to bury them in the cellar, trusting the critic was as great as they claimed to be.
i.e. it might have temporarily solved that problem, and probably partially mitigated over a longer period. FWIW I think the right answer is where I believe they ended up, taking whatever opportunity they can to make it trendy again (even if briefly), but alongside that focusing on making less, but upscaling the product with smaller run specialist / more artisanal sherries.
I think the brickbats WB’s casually throw at Alice Feiring demonstrate the persecution People of (Red) Color must endure in every human society. As someone who has also suffered under the cruel lash of Squires (many of you remember that he excommunicated my beloved avatar) I can empathize with her.
Ok, I’ll bite. What’s with the thick rim on those wine glasses and why does she have two, and of different sizes?
Most be a Wine Spectator Grand Award winning restaurant. Yes not sure why two different glasses but we can’t criticize James Suckling with stemware as he only uses the 100 point Lalique.
You know why people have not nice thing to say about her? She insults people for what they choose to drink, and for those that drink something she objects to, you are beneath her. Not sorry.
Oh, and her fight is self inflicted. Otherwise no one would be paying attention to her.
High level professional critics have the capability to use both hands to compare two glasses of wine at the same time. Like juggling and unicycle riding, these Feats of Strength amaze me.
And if they drop those thick glasses off the unicycle they won’t break.
Honestly had to go to Wikipedia to see who she is. The first thing that came up was she was a wine columnist for Time so know I realize why I don’t have a clue who she is.
She may just be using the one glass in her hand, the most sensible conclusion. The other may belong to the photographer or someone who moved out of the way. I assume the stems belong to the wine bar, I would use them if the wines are interesting.
-Al
Honestly would never use a glass that thick to review a wine. Almost left the Grand Tasting at the Walla Walla Syrah Festival as they had stemless thick glasses but then I was able to find a proper stem.
Again what wines are Parker style in Washington? Yes Quilceda but who else you got?
I prefer thinner stems too…but in a big trade show / open table type of tasting a lot of glasses are going to get broken if they don’t calibrate for the conditions (drunk crowd, carrying of glasses and so on)
Last night I had actually shifted from a fine oversize bowl to a coarser and smaller stem … since I was going to have a glass or two or three.
Ms Feiring isn’t a wine reviewer, she’s a wine writer.
-Al
You seem like someone fun to be around.
Often an interesting distinction. The former mostly focused on scoring wines as if producing a buying guide for those that feel they need such guidance, the latter with more freedom to go into depth, be it on a region, a style of wine, history / change etc. Still often offering opinions or suggestions, but also aiming to be either educational or thought provoking.
I don’t appreciate every wine writer, but those I do find interesting are far more appealing to read than a set of TNs from wine reviewers / critics