Independence and integrity separates WA from most of the rest.
Parker was the the leader in this area.
Also his calculations in awarding points is unique.
This is a great combination that I for one will respect.
3 Stars = 97 -100 points
2 Stars = 94 -96 points
1 Star = 90 - 93 points
Troisgros 98 points
Dal Pescatore 99 points
Funny but not beyond possibility.
Ironically David S. used to score wines on the three star scale.
Global Finance is devouring everything in its path.
A retired lawyer, living on his parents’ old cow farm, out in the middle of nowhere, sampling wines in the peace & quiet of the garage, can’t hope to compete with Global Finance.
You either figure out a way to get your IV Drip laced with Fake Money, or you go to the morgue.
And all of the economic statistics are now reflecting this horrible reality.
PS: As you’re pointing out above, I’m not even sure that Michelin can compete with the Fake Money which has been lavished upon the likes of Priceline [or Trip Advisor].
PPS: I just glanced at the Monetizations of Expedia - my God, they’ve got Fake Money bleeding out of their ears.
Nobody in a Cottage Industry can compete with Fake Money like that - not Robert Parker, not Stephen Tanzer, not James Suckling, not Antonio Galloni, not Allen Meadows, not any of them - not even the ghost of Auberon Waugh himself.
Any idea how much they paid? Didn’t Parker sell it for 15 million? I always thought he would have gotten more. If Michelin paid six million to prostitute the WA name then that was a super smart move. They can go the way of LVMH and pair high cuisine/fine wine with urban chic and blow it up.
I have never understand what is so special about a 100 pt system vs a 20 p-t system…unless you want to go to 1000 pts!!
Hasn t Parker said that scores just come to him in his head??
It isn t just in Europe where nobody can afford to live. There was a story in the paper here about a school teacher who was homeless. I just saw an ad for what we used to call a townhouse ( a two story duplex) in what used to be ghetto for 1.8 million.
Airlines miles?? What a joke…impossible to use in a meaningful way, unless you are one of those guys who really flies a lot.
By the way, there is/was a three star restaurant in London called Bibendum…who is also the icon of Michelin
Well since this thread has taken that turn -
There was, or still is, a guy at Google who decided rents were too high so he bought a truck and lives out of that. Said the bed was the only part of an apartment he needed and the box truck held his mattress so he was good.
Apparently there are a number of high-tech employees who live in their cars and trucks. Housing prices are high in the Bay area.
Then there’s Detroit. My mother’s neighbor just outside the City had his house on the market for several years before it sold. The city is begging people to move in. And Tesla is more valuable than Ford.
And don’t tell me about Priceline. I owned that stock when it was thirty bucks. Clearly I’m working with a substandard IQ because I sold it many years ago, figuring that they didn’t really have anything someone else could do just as well. Then one day I’m driving from work and I hear on the radio that the stock had just cleared $1000 a share. I almost ran off the road.
But I think wine reviewing is different. Anyone can do it, everyone does, and there’s no money in it for investors or owners.
Still there but don’t think it has any stars.
We bought the Singapore app last month for our recent trip and I thought at the time WTF?
Fair to say it was (as an app) pretty disappointing, still a long way to go to get it to where it should be…
I think you’ve hit on the key to this deal. They want the guy who designed My Wines to run their software development program! Genius!
That was once a tire shop!
Are you saying you feel like you’re on a tread-mill? That the experience has gone flat?
Could you give me a link, Ken, on how he goes about his calculations??
Tom
About people living in vans, etc: I noticed a sign on a street here that said no vehicles taller than six feet could park there. That’s to prevent overnight parking by people living in their mobile homes.
Palo Alto just passed an ordinance about this. The problem there is that nobody who works for the city, firemen, cops, teachers, can afford to live anywhere near the place.
Tom, when you get that link, be sure to pass it along.
Will do, Mel, when I get it from Ken.
Having done a few calculations in my lifetime, I can’t recall any that I would consider unique. Anybody can do them.
Tom
Parker’s base is 50 points
General color and appearance can get up to 5 points
Aroma and bouquet can get up to 15 points
Flavor and finish up to 20 points…intensity,flavor,balance,cleanliness and depth and length
Finally overall quality level or potential for further evolution and improvement…aging… up to 10 points.
Yes anyone can use this as a guide. I think many reviewers just pick a #.
I didnt look for a link. I just repeated what Parker says in the beginning of his book I bought many years ago.
Thanks for that info, Ken.
I guess that that doesn’t make the Parker 100-pt system unique. As distinguished from the WineSpec 100-pt system.
As distinguished from the Connoisseur’sGuide 100-pt system. For example, the Davis 20-pt system has 10 different
categories by which it awards points (http://finias.com/wine/ucd_scoring.htm). The Davis system is, in fact,
a scientific scoring system of wine quality and you have to be trained in its use. OTOH, all the 100-pt systems are hedonic
scoring systems…point systems on how much you like the wine. They would be of zero use in analyzing, say, the
effectiveness of millipore filteration on the quality of a wine, as the Davis system would be (and has been).
I really doubt that Parker (given the number of wines he scores) actually does the computation in awarding his scores.
So that doesn’t give his scoring system some sort of a scientific basis. It really his experience that makes his scores
have far more validity than any other’s 100-pt scores. Which is why I, and most other wine geeks, give Parker’s point
scores much more credence than anybody else’s. It’s not the scoring system, but the person, that makes the score.
My take on the whole issue, anyway.
Tom
Yeah, I hate to be the one to break the news that there is no Santa Claus, but he doesn’t actually do any of that math. He just picks a number. We know that because there were some magazine articles that had snapshots of his notebooks and there were no “50+5+15+20+10” calculations there. Just the scores.
I guess after thousands of wines he can do the math in his head. General color is easy he said with modern wine making techniques most wines are 4 or 5. Now you are down to 3 categories.
In any event it definitely is not scientific.
You have to trust the person and the nose.
When I 1st started collecting I bought many a wine based on his reviews and was never disappointed.
As he brought new critics on board I am sure he taught them his logic and methods.
I have read that Parker has said that a number just comes to him…maybe he was just pulling somebody’s leg…
That assumes that everyone perceives things in the same way and has the same style preferences.
Moreover, the 10-point overall category is a huge fudge factor. That’s the difference between flying off the shelves and being pretty much unmarketable.