Click On Me

is everyone happy,yet? I am…put this behind and move on or this BB will be known as a blathering hall…IMHO… [cheers.gif]


I am not happy yet. At all. At the core, he’s just putting in action Goebbel’s words “If you repeat something often enough, the people will believe it”. This long winded manifesto on ethical standards of the WA is TOTALLY MEANINGLESS as long as they continue to taste non-blind.

Tasting blind is the only way to give unbiased opinion, notes, and scores. Anything less than that is not up to par with his stated ethical standards.

And I don’t believe we have to cut this discussion short. If you, John, can post multiple posts on a bad wine blogger, then we can certainly discuss in many more facets the issues of the most important wine critic in the world ever.


[notworthy.gif] All the way around SP.

Look at the endless self-aggrandizing economic posts JZ throws out there - and he of ALL people has nothing to complain about regarding ponderous discussions.

I think this point was also made in the movie Mondovino. IIRC the French fraud ministry was worried about adulteration of wine as well in order to get higher scores.

He should have summed it up in one paragraph.

I think there is a bigger issue here that nobody brought up. We the comsumers are spending thousands of dollars on wines based on reviews. A lot of people are subscribers to Parker to read the reviews that are written in his newsletter. Those people are paying good money and should expect 100% honesty in those reviews. There should be no hint of taint…Would you drink a wine that is tainted? No. And the fact that Parker lets his reviewers take perks, taints every review we depend on.

So until Parker sets a standard that is beyond approach, I really don’t see how, or why the public should let him off the hook.

John - I’m not at all not satisfied. It seems ridiculous to have one set of standards for himself, and another for his “independent contractors.”

PS - I’m not dogmatic about whether wine is tasted blind or non-blind, but I do want disclosure on how each particular wine was tasted (blind / non-blind).

everyone ready to fall down… I agree all wine tastings should be done blind…this is a different issue for me , than pay to play…so I am not too far out…posting this , what I thought was that , hey I miss some of the real good old wine talk… that’s all, maybe it’s just me… [beee.gif]

If all publications blind then I would start to submit my wine for review…thought I would never say that, but blind…I am all in and giving you a run for the money, so yes :::::

Tasting blind is the only way to give unbiased opinion, notes, and scores. Anything less than that is not up to par with his stated ethical standards.

on this issue what say the collective? [shrug.gif]

Nor am I. While transparency is critical, I have no use for blind tasting reviews. I find the results just a random reflection of a moment in time and highly affected by the context of the other wines in the flight. Does anyone have good blind tasting reviewers to recommend? (Wilfred, I admire the GJE but found the Burg results were typical of the method employed)
When I pay for reviews, I want to tap the experience of critic as he looks at the wine in multiple phases (barrel, bottle and later) and factors in the past history of the wine as it ages. Sniff and spit snapshots in the perception-altering context of other wines are not worth paying for IMO.
But to be clear, I think transparency is critical (mainly because then I know how to use the reviews).


Nice post you have a very good point…

As long as the reviewer could give me the option of either or then once I have that option …I would still be ok with it… [berserker.gif]

I agree with Kevin. I also think blind tastings, especially in flights, have their own built in faults. The whole thing is subjective anyway.


I urge you to pickup the Wall Street Journal from yesterday, look at the Wine Spectator forums, the Parker forums (which SHUT DOWN a thread yesterday on this subject).

Move on? We are only getting started it would appear. Front page of the WSJ section, and you think it is just on this forum?

I am not sure of the motive here, but this is hardly a blathering hall. If you do not care for the content, then move along. I mean no disrespect, but telling people what they should believe and what they should talk about is why people are here. Mao has done that for years. It does not work.

Wilfred, Kevin:

Fwiw, my preferred approach for tasting would be for the reviewer to initially taste blind, write notes, then unmask the bottle and write additional notes with the added context.

In any event, clear disclosure about the method of tasting for all tasted wines would allow each reader to make their own decision about how to weight/discount the reivew, or even to discontinue your subscription if the critic doesn’t taste in a manner that you find valuable.

I’m allowing these threads about the WSJ article and the ‘standards’ that people are requesting because it appears there is no possible way for them to be discussed on RMP’s forum.

I hope not to have them turn into bashing threads, and so far, they have not. These are important topics to discuss for many of you, so I’d like to be sure we can allow for it here.

What would satisfy you on this topic?
I am not trying to be combative, but I would like to understand what the “unfinished business” here is.

Is the desired outcome to see Jay Miller fired?
All wines reviews to be blind (which would end the utility of Tanzer, Meadows and WA IMO)?
something else entirely?

Initially I understood that there were issues that were being brought to light, but now I wonder what is left unfinshed or unsaid here?

That’s is actually how Wine Spectator does it. They are not allowed to change their score but they can hash out details on the notes based on context.


Each discussion brings new things to light.

For example: $25k trip to Australia is new info
For example: Parker’s new standards on reviewing wines.

This second one is a doozy. He offered up a whole new method of how his critics are tasting wines and reaffirmed many old methods (much of which was partly criticized previously).

Should we just accept this new piece of information as fact and not question it?

How many more trips, meals, vacations, etc have we not heard about it?

How come Jay Miller is soooooooo silent?

Where are the explanations, the apologies?

Where is the truth? Parker once again attacked yesterday, saying much of what is being said are lies. Which lies does he speak of? If most of it is lies, then defend the actions of your men.

There’s no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there’s no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It’s like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others…Food for thought.



I questioned for years, how Suckling can review a wine from barrel 94-96 and then 91 in btl…that is what blind tasting is all about…