As much as I hate internet spats, what have you been smoking? There is nothing “idealogical” about those of us who favor wines made more on the IPOB end of the spectrum (and, frankly, most of the IPOB wines are still fairly mainstream, relative to many Old World wines that some of us prefer even more). This is about having alternatives - a small number of alternatives - to the vast majority of heavier, riper, lusher wines that is most of what California produces in the “fine wine” category.
I think Steve is vnyd manager at quite a few other vnyds…both in Napa and in Sonoma. He’s regarded (by those I know) as one of the
best in the business.
BTW, Jeb Dunnuck said he spent 2+ hours with the author, and only had one line. What a waste of time!
Could be that Jeb didn’t have anything particularly profound to say that merited inclusion in the article…other than further defense
of Parker’s palate. I have no idea, though.
Tom
I own some have have enjoyed the Domaine de la Côte full lineup. I am a fan more-so than the Sandhi.
My jury is still out how I feel about IPOB. I think I get it. Imagine, me getting it?
Like Alan above I really don’t see any problem with the whole movement. Actually when I went to IPOB NYC a few months ago there was a few wineries there that had high cranking ripeness that caught me a bit off-guard, so I guess membership is just about paying the fee. I also am no fan of anyone that takes the low road and claims ‘mine is better than yours’ no matter what camp they come from. There seems to ba a big dose of that with this group. Parker bashing at any level is so…2005.
This one made me laugh out loud:
He told of flying home from Bordeaux after tasting the 1982 vintage, which he would praise as the best he had encountered, knowing that he had information the world needed to hear. He was anguished. “Here I am, possessed of all this knowledge,” he recalled thinking. “What if the plane crashes?”
The wines were equally immodest, if such a thing were possible.
I am a huge fan of lean, balanced, even geeky wines, have basically zero tolerance for high octane wines, and co wider myself a card-carrying member of the AFWE. That being said. this article was a big, hagiographic turd.
Almost shameful to have such a one-sided and simplistic take on a complex and nuanced subject published in the Grey Lady. Total puff piece.
If only… ![[berserker.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/8600bbd4810d342b8fbd4ffb62b4f0026275fd37.gif "berserker"){kind=small}
Still haven’t tried Sandhi, but I know that I should.
Yes couldn’t agree more. Reduces the issue to a face off between the cool trendy Raj (perched in his Santa Barbara home, listening to Jazz and surrounded by “rarefied European wines” (six , no less) declaiming “we don’t make these (wines) in a any style at all.” (WTF “no style” is a style). Against that you have Parker characterized as the deposed king limping around on his two crutches, sold out to the Singaporese, still defined by bombastic quotes. Lazy, melodramatic reductionism.
And surely there could have been mention of the myriad other winemakers who have been working in the IPOB style for longer than Parr and Matthiasson. Much as I like Matthiasson’s wines (have only tried Parr’s gamay project with Arnot Roberts, which I dislike), it’s lazy to trot his stuff out all the time when there are so many other interesting and compelling winemakers in this style who equally deserve press.
Though to some of us it seems to capture the crystalline essence of the differences between the two. The picture and description of Parker is so vivid and real, that part rings true to this reader, who witnessed all too many of his diatribes on his own board over the years. The apparent caricature is, sadly, all too accurate.
My point was that leaning on the caricature (whether accurate or no) precludes the telling of much more interesting and nuanced story about the emergence of a new wine “movement” (or whatever you want to call it.)
I don’t think that’s a very apt characterization of the IPOB style. That group is generally not lacking in ambition/seriousness, and I’m sure most would say that the point of working at the lighter end of the CA spectrum is to gain complexity and transparency rather than quaffability. I don’t see any reason to think that less ripe should correlate with less expensive here.
as i said earlier in another thread- parr is an obnoxious windbag. he is parker’s evil brother… everything the author tries to illustrate as emblematic of parker’s flaws, parr equally represents, just on the other end of the spectrum. the article was horrible.
In addition, Scott, your attributions are wrong. That quaffable wine was a syrah from an unnamed producer served in a Napa Valley restaurant. Those prices are for Parr’s pinot noirs.
What Alan said. (Nate, your post is positively Parker-esque. Did you write that, or cut-and-paste from a RMP tweet? LOL.)
Haha. That must be what the author had in mind when he wrote the article…
Paul, other than just asserting that Parr is an “obnoxious windbag”, can you offer anything to support the view? Is it treason or something to promote an alternative aesthetic for California wines?
For mine…one of the best well constructed, researched and informative pieces I have read on wine in a long time
We all look at the same subject but through a different lens
No right or wrong… just a difference of opinion
This is why we all love and care so much for the subject of wine.
Bravo Mr. Schoenfeld, keep them coming.
MT
You know, I just finished reading it and I agree with Michael - I thought the article was well-written and I enjoyed it.
I don’t buy a lot of California wine, so to some degree I don’t have a dog in this hunt, but I’d consider searching out some Mathiasson just to check it out.
Jeb Dunnuck is dissapointed by the article after a 2+ hour interview with author.
Hosemaster’s interesting view. "Now all the fuss is about wine cults—Natural wines, orange wines, wines from obscure grapes grown in obscure regions, wines in pursuit of balance… "
I agree with him on this. A good read.
It’s been fun watching this conversation evolve (or maybe dissolve?).
Here’s an interesting tweet from the author – which often is a sign of a decently balanced story:
Hearing from both sides of my NYT “Wrath of Grapes” story that I’m clearly biased against them. Now I know how umpires feel.
As for Jeb Dunnuck complaints (I’ve only seen it mentioned here), but a two hour interview doesn’t guarantee your entire transcript from the interview gets included in a story. I’ve edited stories for my news organization where day-long interviews get left on the cutting room floor (for a million different reasons). I’m surprised as someone who runs a newsletter, he doesn’t understand that already. Writers interview many people without even quoting them. Sometimes their information is used to help further research or lead to better sources, sometimes after two hours (as Tom mentioned earlier), the source only has one coherent thing to say, or maybe he just repeated his main argument 50 different times in those two hours. Obviously we don’t know what happened, but IMHO, without knowing Jeb, it speaks more to his ego than what he probably had to say. (Happy to retract that if someone has more background as to what else he said).
One other quick comment… someone mentioned they had wished they’d seen more of the 33 winemakers included … I agree… although since Rajat co-founded the organization (which was created mostly for marketing reasons – so you can’t blame the guy for being a good marketer of himself) – and this was written for an audience that has probably never even heard of IPOB, Rajat or Parker for that matter… I’d question the reporter had he not included him.
And a quick tasting note: I’ve had the Matthiasson rosé and it’s one of my favorite wines of the summer – like drinking a dry, crisp strawberry lemonade.
I think the point of the article was well taken, that there is an alternative style to Parkerized wines. I think the article was simplistic, paints a Manichaean struggle between Parker and Parr, and makes them stand-ins for a wider sea change in the tastes of collectors and consumers, stand-ins for a sea change in the styles being thought worthy of production amongst vintners. The vocabulary of wine descriptors has changed on shelves. This is wholesale change, not the result of Raj Parr on a pulpit. The wine world does not start or end with Parker or Parr. They may be loud mouthed spokespersons for their views, but the article is superficial to such a degree that it was annoyance to read it. It was also so one- sided I’m surprised there wasn’t a description of being teabagged by Parr over a few bottles of 12.5% ABV domestic pinot.
When you have articles so simplistic and one- sided, they look like propaganda, which weakens their potential effect. I am a fan of subtlety, precision, nuance and complexity: in writing as well as wine.