Well, the comparisons of Parker to the Pols are an interesting twist. I’d say that the trait which they have most in common is their belief that we should just eat up their sham sandwiches.
Eric, I have a slightly different take, as an aside, regarding Mike and his writing. I think journalists–and Mike is an extraordinary one in my book (pun intended)–have actually been soft on Parker. I mean, journalists are supposed to investigate things. RMP has traditionally (the Decanter list suggests this is no longer the case) been the top dog in wine, but how many truly investigative pieces have you seen about him? Compare this to the “top dogs” in other fields, such as sports, etc.
Parker has, in a sense, been lucky that no major investigative journalist (or program such as 60 Minutes) has truly taken him on.
Wilfred, interesting, I never really thought of it that way.
![[winner.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/07ec25c9fd71159fe15d7f1ba5fad64e91238d0e.gif "winner"){kind=small}
Precisely. That sentiment was at the heart of my question to Neal above. Parker is still an incredibly influential person in the wine world and when he publicly claims certain things there’s nothing at all wrong with someone critically examining those claims. His apologists and sycophants will be disturbed but no one else should be.
I’m awfully tempted to start a poll:
- Has Steinberger lost it and become obsessed with beating up on Parker unfairly?
- Does Parker deserve whatever beatings he gets?
No other options.
Can I vote for both?
No. In my poll, everyone must choose sides. Not that that should be a problem, judging by the discussion here.
Whatever the virtues of the parties as metaphors, in Mondovino, Nossiter left his camera linger at one point on a big framed photo of Reagan behind Parker in Parker’s office. I think it was the same scene where Parker’s dog kept farting. (Can you say ad hominem?)
I’m not sure what to make of this, but it seems that someone has been faking Jacob’s Creek wines.
Huh?
You read it right. Here’s a link to the story from Britain.
The tip-off was that “Australia” was misspelled on the label.
Here’s the funny part, though. It seems it takes real expertise to distinguish Jacob’s Creek from a substandard wine, according to the parent company:
After seizing the wine, Jacob’s Creek owners Pernod Ricard conducted authentication tests on the wine.
These tests showed that despite being drinkable, the wine was far from the standard of normal Jacob’s Creek wines.
Pernod Ricard senior technical officer Zara Fulmar also noted that “only a real Jacob’s Creek connoisseur could tell that it’s a sub-standard bottle of wine.”
No wonder it’s so hard for the experts to tell real from fake 19th century claret!
Here is a little aside that I found interesting-- I heard a little business news clip on the radio this morning- it seems that Scotch Whiskey exports are running plus 20% on year over year stats. A spokesman for Diageo was interviewed briefly to explain. He said that the increase is in the “lifestyle” brands, because they offer “assurance of authenticity and provenance”. Looks to me that they’ve their eyes on the ultra-premium wine market and have already set the key buzzwords into the corporate lexicon.
Eric : I feel real sad watching him fumble in the online world.
but I get so frustrated watching him fumble in the online world.
Well said. Also, Parker’s doings in the wine world are news; and I doubt he’d have it any other way. Because they are news, there’s no reason Steinberger should either walk around them, or sugar-coat his analysis. If Parker were to adopt a lower profile, wine journalists would naturally have less to say about him.