Jürgen, did you ever taste the 1947 Cheval Blanc?
Two of the more sensible posts in the thread come from Terry Theise and Bruce Gutlove.
Terry suggests (in his unique way) that Parker encourage and bring along callow “young wine people”, instead of shaming, flaming, and accusing them. Bruce cites the difficulty in understanding Parkers basic positions due to the “the bombast, the meaningless dichotomies, the citations about extremist positions espoused by anonymous producers and supporters”. Pretty much sums it up.
RT
Jim, I like opening all threads. I like discussing wine, the wine market, wine critics etc.
Why should I have to ignore a thread or not put forth what I think? I am certainly not jumping into a thread on a wine that I know I dislike or will never try just to hate on it. Perhaps there is some worthwhile discussion within the Parker thread, or any thread. You said something interesting about rhone as an example. It was worthy of discussion to me and I was about to post. Perhaps to discuss whether criticizing a particular vintage, say 94 Bordeaux vs 2000 for being “light” while touting the 2000 which prodcuced larger wines is necessarily a contradiction of what Parker posted. The winemake in 94 probably took what nature gave them and did what they could. IIRC that included torrential rain late in the growing season. Adverse conditions that a producer did not have in 2000. So the wines of 94 are typically lesser wines by many (not all) people’s standard. So to me there is nothing strange about criticising them for being thin in comparison to 2000, and on face doing so is not necessarily a contradiction to the belief in making what nature gives.
Bill posted a specific text attributed to Parker. He made a bunch of claims about what it meant. I think that in regard to his assertions regarding what the text he posted means, it’s fair for me for me to say that he is off-base. Just as it is fair for you to agree. Are you suggesting that people who disagree with any point or claim made should stay out of a thread? That Bill or anyone else should be able to criticise Parker, or you, or a wine without someone questioning logic? Sorry, but that’s not how the board should work. Especially as we all know that we all have an interest in keeping down the vitriol having a friendly board and encourage all manner of people to join and post. If you feel that doing things like referring to people in wine sales as “whores” is fine, good for you. If you feel that Parker’s influence on the wine market now and in the past has been overestimated as Bill does, good or you. You feel like correcting people’s spelling is of significance, good for you. But everyone should expect to get response when they post things, whether it be in response to their substance or their manner, and whether people disagree or not.
In regard to Parker I’m not interested in interpreting a text worth discussion by convoluting it with preconceptions. You and Bill are free to do so all you want. Even you seem to be admitting that take as it is written and posted by Bill it has different possible interpretations. To me some sort of new take or subject matter (eg the text) might be interesting. The same old hating, not so much. But also, your point about the Rhones was interesting to me. Lot’s of times there are points within a thread, differnet than the title, that provoke discussion. But even in the original post, Bill was engaging in logic that can be questioned. It strikes me that David and I are not the only ones that disagree with Bill’s conclusions, or the amount that he seeks to bill us for the enlightenment.
But you seem to want the Parker bash to be one-sided and discourage people from debating. I’ll do the favor of exiting the topic.
Btw, last night I googled you and found the “How to use scores” article. But what was funny was that in the issue there was also an article about a high-school buddy of mine Rex Hudler who does broadcasting for the Royals now. It was a fun read that I would not have otherwise found.
Jurgen, you see 14% and close to 15% alcohol mentioned for the 1947 Cheval Blanc, and I am not sure that anyone actually knows its alcohol level (which would be higher if Belgians dosed it with port in VDM bottlings), but making any argument based upon the 1947 Cheval Blanc is foolish. It is a freak even within the 1947 vintage. Petrus, Lafleur and perhaps others are equally good in 1947, and yes, they are rich and the alcohol levels were high for that time, but they were not “port-like”, which is generally an undesirable characteristic in a wine like Bordeaux.
There are two problems at work here. The first is (and I agree with Parker and many others on this) that we do not know if the alcohol numbers that we see on wine bottles are even reliable. I am a Bruno Giacosa collector, and far more of his bottles claim 13.5% alcohol than could possibly be true, given vintage variation. I suspect that he printed the labels that way and may not have even made an effort to accurately test alcohol for years, maybe decades early on. You see many old privately bottled wines with “13-15%” on them. The second problem is whether it is really true that a wine can achieve balance at any alcohol level. I say not, at least for me. Tannins soften and dissipate, oak can disappear over time, fruit can evolve and ultimately fade and disappear, but alcohol goes nowhere, and when the other elements can no longer support and mask the alcohol, it becomes a serious flaw. There is no magic line, but the odds of a 15.5-16% wine that is not effectively fortified maintaining balance over time is small unless the fruit masks it for a very long time. Riper vintages will generally achieve higher alcohol levels, but neither the ripeness nor the alcohol level guarantees greatness. One may merely end up with a pleasurable wine for early drinking rather than a 1947 Cheval Blanc. Conversely, less ripe vintages will generally produce lower alcohol levels, and may even result in those dreadful wines that Parker hates so much, but the truth is that there are 12.5-13% wines that are also among the best ever made. (Some 7% alcohol German Rieslings, too.) Neither extreme makes great wine, which is no doubt why most of the greatest wines ever made will fall within the 12.5-14.5% range, with the overwhelming majority in the 13-14% range. If you save old wine bottles, do the math on your best and see if that is not true…
(Personal attack removed by Admin)
“And I am going to tell you point blank that you have consistently demonstrated that you lack the ability to effectively debate with me.”
If you play the game, you don’t get to umpire it. If you are in the debate, you don’t get to judge who wins, until we think batters ought to call their own balls and strikes. You don’t even get to judge the judgments of others–which will be your next claim about what this sentence does.
Love it - Klapp asking people to stop the “negative drag.” Thanks for the lauigh Bill.
I see posts like this, and usually stay away from them, but curiosity got the best of me -
- This is starting to look like a high school romance where the girl broke up with the boy, and the boy starts telling every other boy in town that the girl is a whore…
Obsession can be a dangerous thing…and it’s a shame that someone with the obvious knowledge on wines that you do Bill will go down in wine blog history as being strangely obsessed with Robert Parker.
AND - it’s not like you live in Anchorage Alaska with nothing better to do…
John,
Within the wider framework of what RMP has posted in that thread, as well as his historic tendency to lavish praise on years that tend to give big, ripe wines, it did seem insincere. Most, if not all of the winemakers he trashes would be surprised to learn that they are not making “what nature gives them,” yet they are raked over the coals for their allegedly fascist-style dogmatic ideals about winemaking.
The comment Bill quotes above doesn’t exist in a vacuum. I can’t pretend that RMP saying something non-derogatory about “lighter” wines is anything like Adam Lee (I just left a trade tasting where Dianna was pouring, so he is on my mind) saying the same thing. Adam has proved, time and again to be a relentless questioner of dogma, while RMP has done a lot to promote himself as the correctest guy in the room at all times. I can’t equate the two in my mind - the same words could be said, I suppose, but two different contexts are provided.
Hope you enjoyed my side-project article - I like to think it would be a good guide for a newer wine buyer. The Rex Hudler story is a great sideline to all this!
An interesting link
http://www.decanter.com/wine/reports/529610/wine-legends-of-2011-chateau-cheval-blanc-1947
Ignorance is far more dangerous than obsession, it seems to me. I’m just having fun pointing out the obvious, Thomas, because my experience has been that the more a given person worships a blowhard like Parker, the harder it is for them to see the obvious. No obsession at all, just a bunch of posts on a related topic, and an important one. Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that you know the first damn thing about my life, by the way. I can keep up with everything that goes on around here during my daily coffee breaks. The pace of activity on wine boards theses days is …leisurely…
Well, I had a few bottles with Rudy Kurniawan; couple of 750s, a magnum, and a jeroboam, as I recall, and they were all wonderfully balanced, fresh and fantastic. Could have been made yesterday. Nothing unbalanced about them.
Graeme
Bill thanks for yet another comment about what tools I possess, or lack. I’d expect nothing more of you and await more of your vitriol. Next thing you’ll want to compare SAT scores. Or if you prefer, penis length. The biggest tool in debating what you write is the substance of what you write. I am not debating you, but what you say. At least up to the point where you get abusive.
You made a comment about Parker not moving as much wine as people believe in another thread, and disagreed with Andy when he asserted that the WS and WA move much more than anyone else. I debated that, and have a pretty good idea that Andy is not novice in his knowldege of the port market. I’m not sure what tools I’d need, but I’m willing to guess that I’ve been a wine enthusiast almost as long as you have, have bought close to as much wine as you have, understand the wine market/pricing as well as you do, and have more familairity with the way wine is sold (certainly in the US). But I have no interest in qualifying the tools of other posters. We all bring our set of wine knowledge and experience.
I don’t keep track of how many people agree with this or that, and whether I’ve convinced anyone of anything. Few of us really convince others of anything. You’ve actually given me some information on food and Italian wines, but haven’t convinced me about one thing regarding Parker. Again this very thread is evidence enough that people do not always agree with your logic, and find you obsession odd. You speak of the “topic as presented” as if I said nothing about it. What was the topic? You attached a text by Parker with your assessment of it. I think you were off base, and said why. Part of your criticism about Parker was some inference about Parker’s spelling. First off the spelling is understandable. Secondly who cares about spelling errors. Your own post isn’t even clean and I know most of mine aren’t.
I don’t need to construct some absolute defense of Parker as you request. That’s not even close to the point of my reply or most people’s purpose for joining the community. I am not clouded by some intense love or hatred of Parker. I don’t belong to the Parker board, have never conversed with Parker, and have never even subscribed to the Wine Advocate. Jeff Leve and I do not meet up for midnight encounters. I don’t “worship” Parker. I probably wouldn’t even like Parker. But don’t mistake a lack of hatred for worship. I don’t thrill myself by winning debates on the wine board, putting Parker in his place, or getting “yay John” from anyone. So you keep score so much more than I do. Your scoreboard is broken, and as someone else said it’s laughable that you think your are umpire or judge.
You can accuse me of whining and negative drag all you want Bill. I’m not stooping to your level of interpersonal dealings. Your obsession with constant Parker bashing and the way it then leads to deriding other’s palates, opinions, professions, or anything that does not align with Bill, is the worst thing about this board. The with me or against me attitude is strange for a social setting. Your manner of discussion regarding Parker should be in the Psych 101 case study of narcisstic traits. And I am not calling you a name or saying that you are necessarily a narcissist. We all exhibit traits. It’s just that your style of discussion is extreme and fits the bill. Again, you are a smart guy with wine knowledge. Those are admirable tools on a wine discussion board but aren’t the end all.
I can say unequivocally that while you have that clear intellect and knowledge of wine, posts of a given nature or style discourage other people from joining or posting. Yes it’s anecdotal evidence, but people here, and people that chose to lurk or ignore this board say so. Fyi, I let my wife read your “whore” comment and her reaction was: “Why do you talk to these people?” That type of impression of this board is too bad considering how many really good and accepting people I’ve befriended here.
You don’t get criticized because people chose to not bother getting into it with you? But as I said in another thread don’t be so they’re cheering you on. I’ve aske myself why I bother? It certainly opens me up to criticism for rocking the boat. The answer is that I don’t think some of what I respond to is in the spirit of the board or encourages it to thrive. We’d all be better with more posters, more goodwill, and diverse points of view. So call me PC till the cows come home. Still, I know it isn’t my board and that others enjoy you. I’m not telling you not to post and have agreed that you have a right to an opinion. But don’t expect to push the envelope and go unchallenged as far as wine discussion or that special flair displayed. IMO, you need more people to give you the push-back that you’re seeing. Maybe then you might consider dialing it down. I’d consider it a win to get the benefit of your intelligence and gift in writing, with a little less arrogance.
I will listen to someone like Jim, who seems like a nice guy, regardless of our differences on Mollydooker, Parker, or the Superbowl teams. See, I actually consider the opinion of the other members. So in that respect, while I think your wine-based conclusion is off, and believe it isn’t fair to expect one person to ignore something they disagree with, I offered to beg out. I apologize to anyone else for the rant but sometimes things need to be said. You came back at me Bill. I’ve said my piece. I promise to stay out of the next five Parker bashing threads, so you’re clear till Tuesday. You now have a completely free shot at me as I’m not replying. But make no mistake; my exit has zero to do with my tools, the veracity of your postings, or the fact that you think I’m a negative drag.
Well, I’ll comment on the least wine-relevant part of this post. I suspect Parker was referring to his brother-in-law, Michael Etzel, the winemaker. His beau frere, singular. Not the winery, which is presumably named for the two of them: Beaux Freres, plural. But he shouldn’t have capitalized it. Oh well…
Thanks, I feel much better now… 
There are two votes for that now, and it seems right to me as well. He is off the hook on the misspelling…
+1 If you read the text I don’t see how you can arrive at any other conclusion. However, being the French are typically very anal about grammar, the accent grave is missing on frère (alt 138 on an English keyboard) and you need a hyphen between the words…beau-frère and beaux-frères ![[snort.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/b/bdc3944606213c4dca6c1169cf0a166c8bc4f8c9.gif "snort.gif"){kind=small}
Hey, this is the Internet…no rules, just right! If you keep pace, you can be prosecutor, defense attorney, defendant, judge, jury, warden AND executioner, all at the same time…
We need to cut the poor guy some slack…after all, his wife is the French teacher!
I am only asking them to stop the negative drag on my negative drag, David. Well, that is not exactly right…I like to think that my negativity soars with the eagles. Screaming Eagles.
Doesn’t a double negative make a positive? 