Ok, I’ll say it. Imagine, a wine critic SO important and can move markets certain markets, say Bordeaux or Rhone wines.
Now, this “gal” goes to France and does “her” thing. Is anyone really going to tell me that this “gal”, knowing that she is going to score certain wines 100 pts, and knowing that the price will SKYROCKET in price, is not buying extra of these wines, at the very least.
Now, does one actually believe the friends of this “gal” do not really know, or get a hint that these wines are wines that you should seek out NOW, before these secret scores are published? Give me a fucking break!
Um…has anyone ever thought about how much money this would involve??
Where there is money, there is corruption. Where there is BIG money, there is big corruption. Pulleeeeze! [rolleyes.gif]
Now, IF only there were someone that powerful.
I can’t for the life of me begin to think of someone that powerful. So, I guess this is all just an exercise in futility.
The only bias I fear with Miller, et al, is their bias TO MAKE THEIR BOSS HAPPY. This is the only thing I worry about. If Miller went in and scored at least a few of Parker’s scared cow Aussies 10 points lower than him, it would have impressed me. But the scores seem at first glance to be predictable in their correlation to Parker’s old scores. None of them seem really independent.
This is indeed a fact of which most subscribers will remain blissfully unaware. There is a positioning game that goes on that rivals that of big league sports. Many winemakers, of course, just want to make their wines in their own style and accept what critical regard comes their way as a bonus. But there are many more, especially recently, who jockey themselves into the limelight by choosing pedigreed facilities, winemakers, grapes and techniques. The ultimate goal is a seat at the captain’s table when a critic arrives for a onsite tasting. Unlike the mass tastings, these wines are personally presented by the winemakers, in the context of their craftsmanship, and have been decanted. Which is not to say that they are not fine wines deserving of their scores and praise, but they are seldom–if ever–tasted in open competition before the scores are handed out.
Some time ago, a new producer mentoring under a friend of ours (whose wines are tasted privately every year by Parker) brought his first releases to me for tasting on the eve of Parker’s visit. He had double-decanted them, and wanted to know if he should present them, as he had been offered the opportunity but didn’t know if the wines were ready. I loved them, and recognized them as a style Parker would also praise. I posted my personal impressions on eBob, and tried to let members know that this is a producer Parker would doubtlessly favor. Of course, no one paid any attention to me. Six months later, the WA reviews came out, and the new producer had scores in the mid-90’s. When the scores were published, the producer’s phone and fax rang off the hook. These wines, however, had been double-decanted the night before Parker’s visit and tasted in the presence of the fledgling winemaker and his mentor.
I think Parker does an admirable job, really, of making it clear in his writeups when he is visiting a winery and talking to the wine producers. But the truth is, due to the sheer volume of wine out there, he does rely on presentations by acknowledged producers and trusted distributors to bring new producers to his attention. Loyal followers of the WA, however, miscontrue his focused attention on some producers as a prescient act, instead of what it really is–focused PR on the part of the winery, and regional habit on the part of the critic.
So it all comes back to what others have said … anyone who relies solely on critical scores is just shortchanging themselves. A point that Parker himself has made many times.
Do you know what annoys me? It’s not the recognized critics, or their practices and protocols. It’s the score vampires! They have no brains. It’s … eerie.
Hi all. New to the board. Finally joined after getting fed up by Squires (I was particularly annoyed by the Cellar Tracker thread) and then followed the chaos at Dr. Vino.
This is quite an interesting topic. One of the most frustrating things from my consumer perspective is that it has become so difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff – or to separate those critics who are truly independent and those critics who have been in the industry too long (or have too much invested in it) and, as a result, can no longer be truly independent. So, with that in mind, one of my favorite critics is Allen Meadows. Maybe I’m being naive, but I believe in him and believe in his independence. I copied and pasted his “mantra” and post it below. He is one person and operates in one geographic area. Maybe I’m wrong but it seems to me that as a result, he is better able to manage his affairs and ensure his independence. The buck begins and ends with him – as opposed to Parker, where there are several chefs in the kitchen and I do not believe the buck stops with Parker anymore.
My Promise to You:
In addition to unmatched breadth and depth of coverage, what follows is of special importance to me, and to you, too:
• I have no conflicts of interest
• I accept no subsidies of any kind, including airfare, hotels, gifts and effectively all meals
• I am completely unaffiliated and have no interests, financial or otherwise, in any winery, importer, distributor or retailer
• I guarantee that every wine reviewed on the pages of Burghound.com has been personally tasted by me
• The opinions expressed herein are mine and mine alone
Well, you might expect that Parker will try to pick people whose “palate align with his”. So I’m not too surprised. Its not like that there is anything objective in the process of wine-tasting.
You and I see eye to eye on this one. Which is one of the reasons why I have decided to no longer subscribe to wine publications in general. Just a waste of money at this point IMO.
i actually liked that film. i forgot who said “It is hard to have a bad day in a cowboy hat” but i have always agreed. plus i have very little hair so sun protection is necessary.
i like the signature here on this board about the nature of written criticism. when i first read this i immediately thought about wine critics and then thought Amen.
What are folks thoughts about Tanzer/Raynolds? I’ve been subscribing to them for about 2 years now. Seems to me they are pretty solid and above the board.
I know Josh Raynolds pretty well. He attends many wholesaler tastings in New York. He wears no name tag, walks around the room and tastes wine, and takes notes. As I know him, we will occasionally compare notes during a tasting (make sure you taste this one, etc). Many wineries do not know who he is and he prefers it that way. Picture Jay Miller or Mark Squires carrying on in such a private fashion…
I’ve followed this with interest on the blogs; it seems things are a bit of a mess, in no small part inadvertently encouraged by Jay Miller’s refusal to say whether he paid for his meal and expenses. It just fueled suspicion.
On the one hand, I’ve always felt Bob’s intent was pure and he set out very high standards for himself and his publication. On the other hand, what about the following issues, which arise in my own mind as a consumer and former subscriber to TWA:
Blind tasting “whenever possible.” Mark Squires has denigrated blind tastings on the board there, and advocated for open label tasting. Does this mean Bob tastes one way and the others (or at least Mark) practice a different approach? Others have said Bob rarely tastes the wines blind. There should be some clear principle and then folks should follow it. I once asked Mark about this discrepancy on the board (between his comments and TWA’s statement) but he never replied.
Purchase of wines. Someone emailed me a NYT article from 2006 in which the author interviewed Bob’s secretary, who said that the wines tasted by Bob in the office were almost always wines sent by the producers or importers and only rarely did Bob actually purchase a bottle for tasting. Bob denied this on the board, stating that she didn’t know what he bought, and that he buys 70% of the wine he tastes in his office. Though laudable, is this financially practical? (It seems a bit odd that his secretary would be so mistaken on such a point–its not as if its a huge office with 15 or 20 people running around). That would seem to be extraordinarily expensive–how many wines does RMP taste in a week? And to purchase 70% of these each year? I take him at his word, but it boggles the mind to try to price it out. Before seeing that article and the resulting thread, I just assumed the wines tasted, for the most part, were submissions sent to the office for Bob to taste, and I had no problem with that. Why SHOULD he buy the wines, anyway? After all, book reviewers usually review books (I’m thinking of expensive scientific books reviewed by professional journals) provided gratis by the publisher. Why should Bob have to buy the wines? But he has set a standard that he purchases almost all (70%).
Fraternization with the trade. On the one hand, no one expects a wine critic such as Bob or his colleagues to behave like cloistered monks; of course they would be friendly with people ITB such as producers, consultants like Rolland, etc. But Bob, in his writings, has proposed a higher standard, stating that the critic should be aloof and free of these relationships. A producer once told me she/he was surprised to be included in The World’s Greatest Wine Estates, then said “I think I’m in there because we’re friends.” Now…I presume this is not true–that it is my friend’s modesty, and that Bob put them in there because he thought they deserved it; and they no doubt did. But the mere fact that the person either thought it or said it says something. Perhaps just a touch too much fraternization. On the other hand, can you imagine a 30 year career in which you had to be poker faced with the people you interact with, almost daily, for 30 years? It isn’t practical; but Bob did set up a standard in which he advocates being aloof from those in the business.
No perks. Bob has made it clear he pays his own way for meals, hotel, air, etc., and this is a great policy. But does that mean not accepting formats for wines, for instance, that Bob paid for, but are not available to anyone else such as a magnum of wine never released to the public in magnum format? Does Bob have wines in his cellar in certain formats that are not available to the general public? They may have been bought quite innocently, but this type of perk would seem to go against TWA principles.
Personally, I’ve always believed that Bob was sincere and that his motives were right; I still believe that. But some of the issues may arise because of almost unattainable standards originally set up (and still stated) that just haven’t played out that way now as things have evolved over a 30 year career. This leads to people having some question in the backs of their minds that really boils over when people like MrBigJ write up about over the top dinners with importers. Seems to me we’re seeing that kind of thing now, perhaps. Plus, the antics of people Bob has hired–his friend MrBigJ and the board administrator, Mark Squires, haven’t helped to advance TWA’s gravitas. Some (including myself) have shared this with Bob, who is loyal to a fault to those around him. Even to his own detriment at times.
Thus far, we have seen nothing but bullshit for answers to this stuff. Parker and Miller both say, now, that Miller paid for his share at Berns. Like we give a crap about that.
LET’S TALK ABOUT THE FREE TRIPS, THE FREE DINNERS, THE FREE VACATIONS THAT ARE ALLEGED IN THE BLOGS.
Mike Steinberger and Tyler Colman asked Parker and Miller questions that are easy to answer. Basically just a yes or no.
Squires has admitted to getting free trips. Many already know Miller has been on the same take since he took the job.
He ate at Il Bulli in Spain with Jorge Ordonez and then had the cahones to make a hedonist gazette out of it. Il Bulli with the largest importer of Spanish wines to the US? I do not give a shit whether he paid his way at that dinner. He probably did not pay his way to Spain and he most certainly could not have been unbiased about his reviews of Jorge’s portfolio.
How else does this famous review get 92 points?
"Opaque purple, it has a superb perfume of violets, mineral, wood smoke, blueberry, and blackberry. This leads to a firm, very structured wine with questionable balance. The finish is long but tannic. This is a wine that demands cellaring but purchasing it is a gamble. "
![[emot-words.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/e/ebec068a33f9e1d70995418be41d69d9674a31ac.gif "words"){kind=small}
![[rofl.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/a/a7452fcd8e675af869f8da01174474a545b03944.gif "rofl"){kind=small}
![[cray.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/8/853b6e76c6e8406be77a6727c2a27ad1672678b3.gif "cry"){kind=small}
Six months later, the WA reviews came out, and the new producer had scores in the mid-90’s. When the scores were published, the producer’s phone and fax rang off the hook. These wines, however, had been double-decanted the night before Parker’s visit and tasted in the presence of the fledgling winemaker and his mentor.![[cheers.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/0ff9bfcdb0964982cd3240b6159868fbdf215b1a.gif "cheers"){kind=small}
