Parker not in the Vinters Hall of Fame

Rick_Gregory · January 31, 2011, 5:23pm

Aside from the ‘sells tickets’ point, why would Parker or any person who’s been influential in wine generally be inducted? I’ve not read their site, but I wonder if they’re looking for people who’ve had a) a focus on California wine and b) been influential over time. I don’t perceive RP to have ever focused on California specifically - it’s a major area so he covers it and people freak out over his scores and flood mailing lists like lemmings, but that seems to be it as far as his impact on California.

Peter_Kleban · January 31, 2011, 5:39pm

Wilfred, are you from California ?

Peter_Kleban · January 31, 2011, 5:43pm

It’s certainly true that Parker has influenced the making of wine by changing the style of lots of vintners. But if you look further back, ie when he began, my sense (go ahead, correct me!) is that the overall standard of wine has gone up considerably, and that he played a large role in that happening. In the “old days” it was very difficult to know which wines were good, and the market was flooded with many pretty awful wines. His ratings played a big role in straightening that out, by setting some standards, even if what he rates highly is one-dimensional.

Rick_Gregory · January 31, 2011, 5:57pm

Peter - that’s why I was wondering above about focus. You could make that same argument about Parker’s influence in Bordeaux and if the VHoF is looking for people who focused on Cali, I don’t see him focusing more there than, say the Rhone or Bordeaux.

John_Morris · January 31, 2011, 6:23pm

** WARNING: THREAD DRIFT DANGER! **

If you like overripe, overoaked spoofified wine, then the world has indeed improved.

** COMMENT INTERRUPTED DUE TO SEVERE RISK OF THREAD DRIFT **

Bill_Klapp_deactivated · January 31, 2011, 7:21pm

John, fair enough, because you and I don’t have New World palates. Yes, there are some Cali Cabs from the deadball era that are fantastic and appeal to a broader range of palates than many or most of today’s California wines do. And yes, you can point to the boatloads of Parkerized wines produced by the Turleynator and her progeny, and cry foul. One can be cynical and say fine, Bill Harlan sells a wine light years better than Gallo Hearty Burgundy and Almaden Chablis, suggesting that the better-quality bar is not all that high to begin with. And relative quality is irrelevant to spoofed wines, of which there are far too many. All that said, I still believe that the overall quality of wines coming out of California is higher now than it was pre-Parker, whether you like the wines or not, but it is not clear to me how much credit Parker should get for that. If you listen to him, he was a one-man sanitation department, cleaning up all the cellars of all the world. Nah. (He missed Heitz for a while!) Growing inability to market funky wines no doubt played a role. A kind of peer-group pressure emerged as younger generations of producers opened up and the once secretive, solitary business of making wine was imbued with a new sense of cooperation. Not Parker’s doing, I think…

David_Bu3ker · January 31, 2011, 7:36pm

Most avalanches are ignorant to the snowflake that started them.

I don’t think Parker should get nearly all the credit (and I honestly don’t think he feels that way either), but he was an extremely important part of the movement.

And as for spoofy wines - lots of geeks don’t like them (including me for the most part), but there is a much wider population out there, and they are buying. That’s what matters to the industry.

Peter_Kleban · January 31, 2011, 7:38pm

OK, John, admit it. I set you up. (Partly on purpose ) Yes thread drift threatens. Imminently. But this interests me. Sure he’s pushed the high-end wines in a certain direction, which many people (including me) don’t like. But how much influence did he have on overall wine quality, including the medium and low-end juice? I had the impression that his influence was large, but thinking about it I’m not sure how much of that impression came from or through him. Bill is arguing that there were other important factors, and he didn’t play such a big role. David seems to agree.

David_Bu3ker · January 31, 2011, 7:54pm

I believe there were many factors, and that he played an important role. Those who dismiss his influence (for good or ill as one sees it) do so out of bias/spite/ignorance/anger over a cellar full of wine they don’t want to drink/etc.

Bob_Wood · January 31, 2011, 8:23pm

Bill Klapp:

John, fair enough, because you and I don’t have New World palates. Yes, there are some Cali Cabs from the deadball era that are fantastic and appeal to a broader range of palates than many or most of today’s California wines do. And yes, you can point to the boatloads of Parkerized wines produced by the Turleynator and her progeny, and cry foul. One can be cynical and say fine, Bill Harlan sells a wine light years better than Gallo Hearty Burgundy and Almaden Chablis, suggesting that the better-quality bar is not all that high to begin with. And relative quality is irrelevant to spoofed wines, of which there are far too many. All that said, I still believe that the overall quality of wines coming out of California is higher now than it was pre-Parker, whether you like the wines or not, but it is not clear to me how much credit Parker should get for that. If you listen to him, he was a one-man sanitation department, cleaning up all the cellars of all the world. Nah. (He missed Heitz for a while!) Growing inability to market funky wines no doubt played a role. A kind of peer-group pressure emerged as younger generations of producers opened up and the once secretive, solitary business of making wine was imbued with a new sense of cooperation. Not Parker’s doing, I think…

My thoughts exactly, though you probably articulated it better than I would have. One additional though, though. Parker has become enough of a force that he literally can manipulate the market for a wine. No, I don’t believe he does it intentionally, but Parker is the one and only reason I can think of that Sine Qua Non wines bring the prices they do. Manfred charges what he does because there’s enough demand that he can.

M_A_T_T_H_A_R_T_L_E_Y · January 31, 2011, 9:10pm

Well, even though I am not a huge Parker fan, I am pretty sure he is a man whose vision, determination, and hard work has contributed to the growth and worldwide prestige of the California wine industry.

You’d be hard pressed to argue otherwise…

Larry_P · January 31, 2011, 9:34pm

M A T T H A R T L E Y:

Robert.Fleming:

M A T T H A R T L E Y:

He should be included - for him not to be hurts the “Vintners Hall of Fame” more than it hurts Parker…

Matt, I would love to hear you expound on that proposition, cause I just don’t get it. How is the VHF - created by the Culinary Institute of America to “celebrate the men and women whose collective vision, determination, and hard work have been responsible for the growth and worldwide prestige of the California wine industry” - hurt at all by not inducting Parker?

Well, even though I am not a huge Parker fan, I am pretty sure he is a man whose vision, determination, and hard work has contributed to the growth and worldwide prestige of the California wine industry.

You’d be hard pressed to argue otherwise…

Ok I’ll bite…

Looking at the list of names of the current inductees, there are a lot of names I don’t know, but the ones I recognize were part of a group of people looking at Napa & Sonoma valley farmlands, having the audacious vision that world-class wines could be made there, and then fought the battles to make it happen. That was predominantly pre-Parker, and it seems to me, this is predominantly what this HoF is trying to celebrate.

Regarding Parker’s positive contributions, I see him really help bring wine to the masses and make it easier to understand, thereby increasing the market for wine in general (although it could be argued the market for wine was ready to balloon and Parker was the right person at the right time). I see him helping to improve standards for shipping and storing wine at retail, and improving cleanliness and modernization of wineries. None of that is specific to CA. Indeed, much of the modernizations seen in French wineriess (haha, like Gravity) were being invented in CA before Parker’s time of influence.

What he did to promote California wines is largely what he also did to promote Aussie wines, and Rhône wines, etc. Nothing here is specific to CA, although I guess it could be argued if he didn’t cover CA it wouldn’t be where it is today. I’m not sure I buy that. Someone else e.g. Laube would have filled that need.

Bob_Wood · January 31, 2011, 9:52pm

The boom in California wine began to gain traction in the late 60s and early 70s, and the man who’s responsible almost single-handedly for that is already an inductee. His name is Robert all right, but his last name is Mondavi.

M_A_T_T_H_A_R_T_L_E_Y · January 31, 2011, 9:54pm

Larry P:

M A T T H A R T L E Y:

Robert.Fleming:

Matt, I would love to hear you expound on that proposition, cause I just don’t get it. How is the VHF - created by the Culinary Institute of America to “celebrate the men and women whose collective vision, determination, and hard work have been responsible for the growth and worldwide prestige of the California wine industry” - hurt at all by not inducting Parker?

Well, even though I am not a huge Parker fan, I am pretty sure he is a man whose vision, determination, and hard work has contributed to the growth and worldwide prestige of the California wine industry.

You’d be hard pressed to argue otherwise…

Ok I’ll bite…

Looking at the list of names of the current inductees, there are a lot of names I don’t know, but the ones I recognize were part of a group of people looking at Napa & Sonoma valley farmlands, having the audacious vision that world-class wines could be made there, and then fought the battles to make it happen. That was predominantly pre-Parker, and it seems to me, this is predominantly what this HoF is trying to celebrate.

Regarding Parker’s positive contributions, I see him really help bring wine to the masses and make it easier to understand, thereby increasing the market for wine in general (although it could be argued the market for wine was ready to balloon and Parker was the right person at the right time). I see him helping to improve standards for shipping and storing wine at retail, and improving cleanliness and modernization of wineries. None of that is specific to CA. Indeed, much of the modernizations seen in French wineriess (haha, like Gravity) were being invented in CA before Parker’s time of influence.

What he did to promote California wines is largely what he also did to promote Aussie wines, and Rhône wines, etc. Nothing here is specific to CA, although I guess it could be argued if he didn’t cover CA it wouldn’t be where it is today. I’m not sure I buy that. Someone else e.g. Laube would have filled that need.

Fair enough - but who gets into the HOF after those who had the “audacious vision” have all gotten in?

So he promoted CA wines as much as those from Bordeaux, Rhone, Australia etc. etc. - that doesn’t mean his contribution to the CA wine industry is any less important…

Bob_Wood · January 31, 2011, 10:04pm

I’ll say what I said in post #16 of this thread because it bears repeating.

“I’m no Parker detractor, but if you think he belongs in the same company with Andre Tchelistcheff and Gustave Niebaum. . . well, I want some of what you’re smoking.”

John_Morris · February 1, 2011, 12:09am

Bill Klapp:

John, fair enough, because you and I don’t have New World palates. Yes, there are some Cali Cabs from the deadball era that are fantastic and appeal to a broader range of palates than many or most of today’s California wines do. And yes, you can point to the boatloads of Parkerized wines produced by the Turleynator and her progeny, and cry foul. One can be cynical and say fine, Bill Harlan sells a wine light years better than Gallo Hearty Burgundy and Almaden Chablis, suggesting that the better-quality bar is not all that high to begin with. And relative quality is irrelevant to spoofed wines, of which there are far too many. All that said, I still believe that the overall quality of wines coming out of California is higher now than it was pre-Parker, whether you like the wines or not, but it is not clear to me how much credit Parker should get for that. If you listen to him, he was a one-man sanitation department, cleaning up all the cellars of all the world. Nah. (He missed Heitz for a while!) Growing inability to market funky wines no doubt played a role. A kind of peer-group pressure emerged as younger generations of producers opened up and the once secretive, solitary business of making wine was imbued with a new sense of cooperation. Not Parker’s doing, I think…

Replying to David B. and Peter, as well…

Although Parker plainly has had an influence on style (bigger) in recent decades, I don’t think by any stretch can he get credit for raising quality in California. Sanitation was never the issue there, as it was in some Old World regions. Hell, Hearty Burgundy would never go bad. Nor was dilute, thin wine an issue, as it was sometimes in France.

There was lots of high quality wine coming out of California in the 70s before Parker began WA. The credit belongs to André Tchelistcheff, Bob Mondavi, Joe Heitz, Chuck Wagner, etc., who were setting the standards when Parker was still working for the Home Loan Bank.

I think his impact was felt much more strongly in Bordeaux, where he rightly pointed out that a lot of classified growths were resting on their laurels (or worse) and highlighted good cru bourgeois that weren’t getting a lot of attention.

I don’t see that Californian winemakers owe him much.

John_Morris · February 1, 2011, 12:11am

Larry P:

Looking at the list of names of the current inductees, there are a lot of names I don’t know, but the ones I recognize were part of a group of people looking at Napa & Sonoma valley farmlands, having the audacious vision that world-class wines could be made there, and then fought the battles to make it happen. That was predominantly pre-Parker, and it seems to me, this is predominantly what this HoF is trying to celebrate.

Regarding Parker’s positive contributions, I see him really help bring wine to the masses and make it easier to understand, thereby increasing the market for wine in general (although it could be argued the market for wine was ready to balloon and Parker was the right person at the right time). I see him helping to improve standards for shipping and storing wine at retail, and improving cleanliness and modernization of wineries. None of that is specific to CA. Indeed, much of the modernizations seen in French wineriess (haha, like Gravity) were being invented in CA before Parker’s time of influence.

What he did to promote California wines is largely what he also did to promote Aussie wines, and Rhône wines, etc. Nothing here is specific to CA, although I guess it could be argued if he didn’t cover CA it wouldn’t be where it is today. I’m not sure I buy that. Someone else e.g. Laube would have filled that need.

+1

Peter_Kleban · February 1, 2011, 12:14am

John Morris:

Bill Klapp:

John, fair enough, because you and I don’t have New World palates. Yes, there are some Cali Cabs from the deadball era that are fantastic and appeal to a broader range of palates than many or most of today’s California wines do. And yes, you can point to the boatloads of Parkerized wines produced by the Turleynator and her progeny, and cry foul. One can be cynical and say fine, Bill Harlan sells a wine light years better than Gallo Hearty Burgundy and Almaden Chablis, suggesting that the better-quality bar is not all that high to begin with. And relative quality is irrelevant to spoofed wines, of which there are far too many. All that said, I still believe that the overall quality of wines coming out of California is higher now than it was pre-Parker, whether you like the wines or not, but it is not clear to me how much credit Parker should get for that. If you listen to him, he was a one-man sanitation department, cleaning up all the cellars of all the world. Nah. (He missed Heitz for a while!) Growing inability to market funky wines no doubt played a role. A kind of peer-group pressure emerged as younger generations of producers opened up and the once secretive, solitary business of making wine was imbued with a new sense of cooperation. Not Parker’s doing, I think…

Replying to David B. and Peter, as well…

Although Parker plainly has had an influence on style (bigger) in recent decades, I don’t think by any stretch can he get credit for raising quality in California. Sanitation was never the issue there, as it was in some Old World regions. Hell, Hearty Burgundy would never go bad. Nor was dilute, thin wine an issue, as it was sometimes in France.

There was lots of high quality wine coming out of California in the 70s before Parker began WA. The credit belongs to André Tchelistcheff, Bob Mondavi, Joe Heitz, Chuck Wagner, etc., who were setting the standards when Parker was still working for the Home Loan Bank.

I think his impact was felt much more strongly in Bordeaux, where he rightly pointed out that a lot of classified growths were resting on their laurels (or worse) and highlighted good cru bourgeois that weren’t getting a lot of attention.

I don’t see that Californian winemakers owe him much.

Thanks John, that’s very interesting.

David_Bu3ker · February 1, 2011, 1:51am

Let’s put Parker aside for a moment - the amount of high quality wine coming out of California now makes the '70s (rightfully) look like the stone age.

And as for sanitation in California not being an issue - ever tried a wine from Coturri?

Bob_Wood · February 1, 2011, 2:12am

No shit? Really? That’s some really deep, insightful stuff. I don’t guess that a little increase in acreage under vine and a coincident increase in the number of wineries (from 240 in 1970 to 2900 in 2009) and quantity of all wine being made - good, bad or otherwise - has anything to do with that?