Since Robert Parker passed on reviewing Bordeaux En Primeur almost a decade ago, retiring altogether in 2019, the industry of rating wines has transformed remarkably. Whatever anyone’s opinion of his methods or preferences, he single-handedly ushered in the modern era of fine wine. His rating system “Parker Points” was adopted as industry standard and his consistency was very important for the market. The void left by Robert Parker’s retirement has been filled by other wine critics, and the competitive landscape has inevitably led to the phenomenon of Ratings Inflation especially for Bordeaux En Primeur.
Consumers have always been uncomfortable with the close association between the wine producers and those that rate their wines. This is an unregulated industry. Numerous rumours have circulated over the years about doors to producers being closed, or favours not extended, to those who have rated their wines poorly. However, there are other potential conflicts of interest. Wines are sold on the basis of their ratings. For sales emails, the highest ratings with the most profuse praise by critics are often cited at the top, or exclusively. In effect, higher scores enable wine critics to increase their exposure as they are referenced by global wine merchants in communication to their client bases. Such notoriety leads to greater followers on social media and subscriptions for their bespoke rating services. Wine critics are de-incentivised to be critical.
Bordeaux En Primeur is the most important annual event of the global wine calendar. However, the scores handed out are also the most volatile ratings as the wine has only just been blended in barrel. It is not a finished product. Rating the vintage’s quality is straightforward. Growing conditions can be monitored such as “downy mildew” reported in 2023 or extreme frost in 2017. It can also be calculated from average growing season temperature and rainfall, especially at crucial times like harvest. However, winemaking is judged with the final product. The wine critic’s scores are pivotal to successful sales, largely determining the amount of income earned throughout the ecosystem. While there is a good argument for increased investment and enhanced techniques improving the quality of the wines, this doesn’t address how Ratings Inflation has jumped for vintages in the last 5-10 years. It also doesn’t explain how some older wines have retained such high ratings in recent tastings despite the “lack of investment” at the time of production. The enthusiasm at which ratings keep getting elevated annually ahead of the highly speculative En Primeur process has made consumers increasingly weary.
The logical conclusion from this phenomenon of Ratings Inflation is: If everything is special, nothing is ever special.
Well you can either conclude the ratings are inflated or the wines are better, and I think in general the wines are more consistently better than in the past.
I think the quality in “difficult” vintages and average properties is generally much improved. Less sure about the great vintages and chateaux. Otherwise logically there should be 105 or 110 point wines.
Agree with others here in that wines are far better than they were 50 years ago. Many made a big deal about the 1976 Paris tasting. Seems to me there was quite a bit of lousy wine being produced by big name Bordeaux houses in the early 1970s. The average mass market wine you get at Costco today would probably taste better than many of those 1st/2nd growths from the early 1970s in Bordeaux.
That’s because people have scored wines too high for decades. I don’t use points but if a wine was fine but not stellar I would think it should get scored in the 60-70 range,. It seems like mediocre wines get 90-93 pt scores, making the whole idea pointless.
I really started disliking the 100 point scale years ago. Not just because it’s become basically a 10-12 point scale (I think both professionals and amateurs hesitate to use scores in the 80s out of concern over perception of wines they appreciate) but because it ends up being an unintentional disservice to a large number of very good wines around the average (or really a 90 which has functionally become a baseline for what gets advertised) that people otherwise would enjoy.
That’s a bit of a head scratcher. For me Jancis Robinson and Hugh Johnson were far more impactful. And suggesting that Marvin Shanken was somehow not influential on the “modern era” of wine, or even somehow less impactful than Parker is probably incorrect. The Wine Spectator may have contained advertising and lifestyle articles as well, but circulation was massive and at least as impactful as Parker. It just didn’t have a single person’s name attached.
The 1982 Bordeaux ratings Parker gave could pretty easily be argued as the first major occurrence of score inflation, and by doing so made Parker’s career.
For me, Parker’s inflation of scores for bigger, sweeter, lower acid wines made him irrelevant to me as a critic fairly quickly, though I would never suggest he wasn’t highly influential on wine awareness, pricing, modern winemaking choices, and consumer enthusiasm. And his partnership in the Beaux Freres winery in Ribbon Ridge has been a massive impact directly on my own winemaking career (Whistling Ridge is adjacent to, was planted at the same time as the Beaux Freres vineyard, and probably would bot have been established if not for the BF planting)
Ratings inflation started far earlier than the last 5-10 years. 89 was a damn good score in the 80’s. I quit all publications following TWA’s “greatest vintage ever from anywhere” 2007 Rhône’s, which was quickly followed by a Bordeaux vintage that was so good it required an asterisk to mark wines better than 100. Both of these were Robert Parker follies btw, definitely not post-Parker.
I’d guess that at least for the American market, Robert Parker was the most influential because of his ability to move markets and influence farming and winemaking decisions. Maybe overall it was a net positive, but his overwhelming desire for ripeness affected too much of the market, and persists in at least one market to this day.
I like Jancis and her publications, and she’s an icon, but I feel her influence has been more on education (nothing wrong with that!), rather than affecting the market. Same with Hugh Johnson.
I find there are two very distinct phases of Robert Parker’s scoring. The early phase was not only useful but I found pretty good palate alignment, and made many, many discoveries thanks to him.
The other phase of course not so useful.
I have no quarrel with his 1982 scores. It was a magnificent vintage and scored accordingly. But if memory serves, early in, there was just one 100 point score , the Mouton. Others later received the 100 points, but that was probably a few years later, when he did one of his how are they evolving articles.
But if I were to take one wine that showed Parker at his best, I would pick the 1979 Chateau du Tertre. It was an 88/89 point wine, with a “sleeper” recommendation. In those days 88/78 was an excellent score. And the wine has been wonderful, and it is still going strong. Remind me to open a bottle next time I see you.
The 2000 vintage in Piedmont garnering 100 points was a similar moment for me.
That said, I feel like the current crop of reviewers might be giving higher scores but, IMO, they are very good at viewing many types of styles as worthy of good reviews and I enjoy reading them more than ever. And Oregon has better consistency of critical review than I can remember. I miss Josh Reynolds, but Eric Guido is very knowledgeable and doing an excellent job of stepping into the Vinous Oregon critic. Erin Brooks and Audrey Frick are both offering excellent coverage as well.
I’d also single out John Gilman as a reviewer who really hasn’t budged much in terms of the range of scores he assigns, and is extremely thorough in his reviews.
I understand that most critics are not publishing many negative reviews, but if you frame that within the reality that the number of producers in most wine regions is exploding, and covering all of them would be an absolutely enormous job. Does it really make sense to publish reviews of sub-par wines if it means sidelining a producer making good wines? This really is an issue, Wine Spectator has been limiting producers to 4 submissions (I don’t submit to WS, but I would guess it’s to attempt to manage the sheer number of WV wines submitted these days).
I’m with you Mark, I have no quarrel with his scores, but they were generous for the time and the vintage was truly lovely. I think his bump in scores set the table though for the idea that high scores would really drive a market.
Have not had many amazing Bdx from the 1970’s but 1980’s was a phenomenal decade for Bordeaux IMHO. I am not just talking about 1982 or 1989, 1983 is massively underrated vintage. 1986 and 1988 are drinking very well, and recently had some 1985’s that were outstanding. Lower in alcohol, very refined but still with good acidity and wonderfully long finishes. Very little of that stewed fruit tertiary palate killer like with so many 1970s
Thank you for the insightful reply, maybe i can clarify what i meant. I am not dismissing other wine critics, but I think for the greater wine market (not just the uber geek collectors like ourselves), Robert Parker brought a lot more consumers into fine wines. Do not disagree with any of your assessment of Robert Parker, but his consistency i valued massively. I do not like his style of wines he scores highest, and in a way could use his analysis on what not to buy or in the case he didn’t like it, what to buy (assuming no major flaws).
What this note was highlighting was the competitive nature of the last 10 years, where new wine critics are competiting for the highest ratings and the reason why they are doing so …