That’s just it. If you say to anyone, “Rate these wines and try to match your ratings with Parker’s. By the way, Parker rated them all 95-100 before” I bet anyone would be +/- 3 points from Parker’s prior rating. The MOST extreme one could be on any one rating from Parker, in terms of a discrepancy, would be 5 points, and by chance, most would be less than that. 3 is probably random guessing. I’m surprised Bob would cite that as an example of his consistency. I’m also surprised the writer didn’t make more of this illusion.
In fairness to Parker, if you like the kinds of wines that he likes - big, blowsy, hot, heavily-extracted, glycerine-slick reds, with sweet to sickly-sweet tannins - then he does a pretty good job of directing you to them.
And let’s face it: LOTS of people prefer those kinds of wines [like - at least statistically speaking - almost everyone who drinks wine].
Heck, I even like them on occasion, but they function better as after-dinner ports, and one glass of them will knock you out for the night, and if you drink them on a regular basis, then it won’t be long before you’ll be looking at yourself in the mirror and realizing that you’ve suddenly gained about 30 or 45 lbs.
This has nothing to do with the points being made here.
He knew the wines, knew the scores…and he still got them all wrong, but he twists it into making it seem like he did a great job at the tasting.
No, my point is not that Parker is necessarily the kind of guy who can give you a 5000 word essay on distinguishing Puligny Les Perrieres from Meursault Les Perrieres, or Brauneberger Juffer Sonnenuhr from Wehlener Sohnenuhr.
My point is that if you are looking for the full-throttle 1947 Cheval Blanc experience, complete with the copious levels of volatile acidity, then Parker is your go-to guy [and that’s exactly what the vast, overwhelming majority of people are looking for].
Besides, he’s got Schildknecht now for all that other stuff.
Well done Serge !
A little off-topic, but I would love to learn what the counterfeiters use for their juice.
I have always wondered about that.
Faking the labels and the corks and the tinfoil strikes me as a difficult although potentially surmountable problem.
But faking the wine - that I wouldn’t know how to do.
Maybe you ask Lalou to go deep in her basement and give you some old negociant Pinot-Syrah [or Syrah-Pinot] from the 1950s?
Well, love him or hate him, you gotta agree that Parker is consistent in what he likes.
BTW, it would be a really interesting exercise in forensic chemistry if you could come up with some chemical signatures that would reliably distinguish the forgeries from the real McCoy.
And that kinda gets back to the question of whether the professional tasters have the intuitive ability - or gift - to ferret out those kinds of signatures.
Is he? He gave crazy scores to Aussie wines for years, and yet never appears to drink them (based on his HG articles).
You ought to read Lettie Teague’s article when she concocted 1982 Mouton for her guests. Very entertaining.
I know we have several retailers (and lawyers) on here, what are the odds of a critic-aggregator shelf talker being a viable tool from both a practical and legal standpoint? I’m thing that it would state the various critics and give their average or median score for the wine. I would think you need someone to do the aggregation for you, if you want to use the median or mean or whatever, from the retailer’s point-of-view. Is that an insurmountable stumbling block?
I guess another set of questions would go into how you are given permission as a retailer to use the scores in the first place, do you have to sign an agreement or pay a license or anything similar? Are the talkers pre-printed for you by the distributor/importer? Sorry for the ignorance, but if the answers are No and No, then it is feasible, but time-consuming since you’d need to enter all the scores into a spreadsheet or do some fancy footwork with existing sheets.
I thought that Mr. Parker affirmed (in the post mortem of the EWS 2005 Bordeaux tasting) that his scores and his preferences are not one and the same.
So it’s not really clear to me what he likes at this point.
Maybe he’s a closet drinker of Loire reds?
Todd, I don’t think it is unreasonable to make a first “cut” based upon the opinion of a respected reviewer. Some of these tastings are so large, it can be hard to figure out where to prioritize. I freely admit to having used points for tasting/purchase decisions, especially early in my wine experience. I still rely on points/tasting notes to make purchase decisions on wines/producers that I do not know. For me (and many other lemmings) it seems reasonable to assume that I am more likely to enjoy a high scoring wine than a low scoring one. On average. If there are 10 wines, I could care less what the ratings were, but if there are 500 wines and I know I can only taste 50, what is wrong with prioritizing based on scores?
The author of this article is a friend and neighbor, and we are in a wine tasting group together–he’s a really good cook, too.
I’ll forward the link to the thread and maybe he’ll jump in. I think that his interest in numerical ratings arises primarily from his study of randomness. He wrote a book on it. http://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Vintage/dp/0307275175/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258437051&sr=8-1
I am not a fan of scores - they simplify a complicated decision for a consumer.
I have learned that I disagree more often with the critic on flavor and taste descriptors than with the expression of the structure (balance, depth, length, etc…) of the wine.
IMO, high scores raise prices, while I suspect outstanding, effusive tasting notes without scores will not.
Heres a great test: start with Bordeaux futures - Why not release the wine reviews without the scores for the first week and then release the scores…this way everyone can scramble around in an evenhanded manner without going straight to the ratings in a descending manner…it would actually force everybody to read the reviews about their favorite or most sought after wines…lets see what would happen to prices…
\
- Scott
The eBobbers seem less pleased with his essay: http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=213653" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
RT
It’s actually kind of amusing - this seemingly perpetual conversation about critics’ scores and their subjectivity. Here we have yet another smoking gun, but our behavior never changes.
As has been brought up many times here in this thread and elsewhere, we are not the largest segment of the buying public. That larger population will often depend upon shelf-tagged scores to make a drinking decision, rather than a trophy decision. Although the work of critics may have started out that way, I would submit that we are now not the logical beneficiary of their pronouncements. It’s an unfortunate outcome that these arguably useful tools have evolved to the point of misuse. But, I guess when you’re a hammer…
As to the UGC event, I was far more interested in tasting affordable Bdx, than in comparing my own experiences with those of Parker. That’s not to say I didn’t enjoy the Troplong Mondot. But realistically, it was priced out of my comfort zone; I only wanted to take it for a test drive.
Since the 100 point scale is the standard (WA, WS, IWC, BH, etc.), do most critics use it because they believe in it? At this point, wouldn’t signs of dissent backfire a la “don’t ask, don’t tell”?
RT
Very “entertaining” article, just confirms what we all knew.
What I am looking for in a TN:
a) a clue to how the wine is drinking right now
b) be aware of producers whose work I need to investigate further
Answers:
a) CellarTracker
b) Wine boards
I don’t see any of my needs that critics can meet. Writers like Neal Martin are a different story altogether, unfortunately they should stick to books because I do not intend to pay $100 a year to read their prose.
Schocker. Wine tasting/reviewing is not a science. Any wine critic, and especially Mr. Parker, is not influential because he’s scientific or infallible in his methods and results. He is influential because ALL OF US have put him in that position and elevated him to a leader status. Us followers are just happy to follow his teachings and criticize his biased, personal, faulty, emotion-based, opinions when they in fact don’t agree with ours. There is nothing new and or enlightening in this article, as there is not a consistent or scientific, foolproof way to pass along a tasting note, unless one wants to simply look at a chemical analysis which in the end tells us very little about how a wine tastes. It’s not the rating system that’s flawed but our intent on wanting to find someone we can put on a pedestal to tell us what is right and wrong when in fact any review should be considered a general guidance and not indisputable gospel.