"Robert Parker" Wine Advocate

I just received an offer of a few California wines (as I’m sure many of you do) that listed scores from “Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate”. I know Bob didn’t give it that score, as he’s retired, but seeing Bob’s name as the source of the review still had me thinking, perhaps as part of some form of willing suspension of disbelief, that good ole Bob did the review.

Which led me to ask, is it misleading for the ownership of this media site to continue to refer to it as “Robert Parker Wine Advocate.” In this regard, I’ll note that the name changed at some point – from the old “Robert Parker**'s** Wine Advocate” to “Robert Parker Wine Advocate.” A subtle change, and maybe one made to diminish the misleading aspect. You can see the two uses here: https://winejournal.robertparker.com/our-contributors/11?lang=en&max=10&sort=publishedDate&order=descs. But sellers haven’t picked up on the distinction and continue to use the apostrophe s. But I don’t think Bob has anything to do with the site any longer? I didn’t think he does reviews or authors articles any longer. Although his bio on the site seems to suggest that he is still doing Bordeaux and Cal and other reviews (see third paragrpah from bottom Robert Parker Wine Advocate), I think that is simply a typo or oversight.

In any event, it just feels a bit false to me to continue to see the citation of Robert Parker’s name all over this website when he is (I think) no longer involved in any meaningful way. Maybe as Ruth did with her “Chris Steak House”, it should now be called “Michellin’s Soo Hoo Khoon Peng Robert Parker Wine Advocate”. But I guess it doesn’t roll off the tongue.

That’s simply how business works. If Parker’s name still has currency then buyer beware. People have to be responsible for reading the not so fine print on their own. And where I live, Ruth Chris is still the name of the steak house.
Or maybe I am missing a joke?

For a good while now, they’ve had reviews with initials or names at the end of the review or score indicating who reviewed the wine. I believe Parker is 100% retired now.

Barry, RP’s name still has some caché with some consumers who aren’t aware that he’s retired. Posting a review or shelf talker as “RP WA” without noting which reviewer wrote it is not 100% transparent, but it’s not a big enough deal to bother me. I agree with Robert, it’s just the way business is done.

Obviously, the WA’s buyers wanted to preserve as much of the brand equity as they could for as long as possible, so Parker continued to review some wines. But the Parker name is a wasting asset, and I’m not sure at this point how much value it has seven years after he sold control. Certainly far less than it had in 2012, and it was less valuable then than it was five or ten years earlier.

It’s not so different from the Robert Mondavi Winery, now owned by Constellation. Or Kate Spade, now owned by the parent of Coach. For a while, the name carries some connotation of the founder, but with time it just becomes a name.

Yeah, you are missing the joke. The steak house used to be called Chris Steak House. Ruth Fertel bought it and eventually renamed it “Ruth’s Chris Steak House.”

Ultimately, I agree.

Lots of famous people sell their name to a company who makes a product that has nothing to do with the actual person. At least Robert Parker used to do wine reviews.

Sometimes, 90 points are higher or lower than 90 points. The OP is simply a variation of this fact. [wink.gif]

I hope that someone from TWA will jump in on this. I know they come on here from time to time, so would be good to get their perspective.

Tangent- Was having a similar discussion with someone in the industry on Saturday about ratings, and how diluted the market is. We joked that 96 is the new 90 since basically any wine on the planet you can easily find some type of 90 point rating from someone to stick on any bottle of wine. It’s a shame really, as I feel like there are some really good wine critics today, and they are all basically shouting in the same snowstorm.

Ian,

Good points - and I would have to think that ‘RMP’ scores are still ‘important’ to Zachys and others. Yep, ‘scores’ certainly have been diluted based on how many different folks are out there reviewing wines, but I believe there still is a certain ‘cache’ with RMP scores for certain categories.

There are still more folks than any of us want to think about that buy based on ratings - whether RMP, WS, Vinous, JD, Wine Enthusiast. Let’s not fool ourselves that this isn’t the case. And even here on this board, we oftentimes see folks ask about what a specific reviewer has scored certain wines - regardless of what the actual write up is.

On another note, surprised not to see any mention of the recent RMP scores for SB County - but then again, that goes to show how less ‘impactful’ these scores are to most on this board specifically.

Cheers.

All reviewers’ scores are now listed as ‘RP’ as Barry says, instead of the individual reviewer’s initials in the past - at least, they were until I stopped subscribing a few months ago. It’s a weird system, even if the logic is clear - I can’t see how hanging onto the past can be a recipe for future success.

Yeah there’s actually two problems. General grade inflation with people like Suckling leading the charge, coupled with internet search. I find it especially egregious when you get an offer and every wine has score or note from different reviewer.

The silver lining of the Internet is that we can easily go to our favourite reviewer(s) for their evaluation.

As long as the Wilfred Wong scores still come from Wilfred himself, I have no concerns about any of this.

It’s pretty unbelievable. I just saw the 2017 Felsina CC, which is a nice wine and something i drink often, got a 95 or 96 from james suckling. I know he’s the king of elevated scores but even that one got a chuckle from me.

Akin to Kosta Browne. There is nothing Kosta and nothing Browne there anymore…

That’s true for a lot of wines, though, right? How many wines are named after people who have passed away, retired, sold the winery, etc.?

He must not have liked it very much [stirthepothal.gif]

Very true…