ROBERT M. PARKER, JR. and OUR WINE CRITIC STANDARDS

[Ken_V]

@Randy Sloan

That’s is actually how Wine Spectator does it. They are not allowed to change their score but they can hash out details on the notes based on context.

You mean that they can’t change their 93 point score, but they can change the note from “a terrific Cabernet” to “a terrific Chardonnay”?

[Kevin_Harvey]

@steffenpelz

There’s no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there’s no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It’s like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others…Food for thought.

SP

Steffen,
I think your quote nails an interesting dichotomy. Most people like the sound of “blind tasting” but find the results of other review methods to be more consistent and useful. There are good reasons for this that I outlined above. Lack of bias is one issue in wine reviews but accuracy and consistency are more important. Lowest common denominator tasting methods minimize bias and accuracy simultaneously.

Also, no critic (that I know of) reviews wines double blind. Even those that market their “blind reviewing” methodology, typically know the vintage and region and re-taste highly regarded wines when they score low. This is all done so that the reviews do not look obviously random and to avoid embarrassment. Most experienced tasters can ID familiar producers in a blind (or more accurately semi blind) format, which is utilized to increase consistency.
That said, I don’t know any winemaker that feels they can predict the results of “blind tasting” critics. Some like the anyone-can-win, lottery-like nature of the results, but none find the results predictable. Meanwhile, I find the reviews in Tanzer, BH and the WA to be very consistent and predictable (even for new wineries) based on their historic palate preferences (not all of which I share).

Just food for thought…like all things in wine there are no absolute answers.

[Terence_T-Bone_Livingston]

@Daniel Posner

@steffenpelz

There’s no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there’s no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It’s like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others…Food for thought.

SP

Inconsistent…yes.

I questioned for years, how Suckling can review a wine from barrel 94-96 and then 91 in btl…that is what blind tasting is all about…

Witnessed this when WS reviewed SB Wine Futures in the past. But from mid- 90’s down to high 80’s for bottled wine. WTF?

[John_D_Zuccarino]

@Kevin Harvey

@Daniel Posner

Move on? We are only getting started it would appear. Front page of the WSJ section, and you think it is just on this forum?

Dan,
What would satisfy you on this topic?
I am not trying to be combative, but I would like to understand what the “unfinished business” here is.

Is the desired outcome to see Jay Miller fired?
or
All wines reviews to be blind (which would end the utility of Tanzer, Meadows and WA IMO)?
or
something else entirely?

Initially I understood that there were issues that were being brought to light, but now I wonder what is left unfinshed or unsaid here?

Daniel,

I too wonder what’s the end result you are looking for…?

It looks like the type of thing that nobody is happy until someone is fired…I am getting this vibe and J.M. is the target…am I wrong ?

if it’s to listen about more trips etc, women…hold on that would be the good part …we know that’s the past…I tend to look forward, like a fresh start…you can’t go back in time it’s over, don’t you think?

eBob has been raked over the hot coals … I am glad I did not cast the first stone, who then is pure and perfect to do so//>?>?>??? [1974_eating_popcorn.gif]

[Vincent_Fritzsche]

Hell hath frozen. I’m agreeing with Zuccs. Consider the hatchet buried.

I wrote about this whole mess on my blog élevage: The Parker Brouhaha last night. In short, I’ll be more concerned when there are bodies found. So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines. HE GIVES HIGH SCORES TO EVERYTHING! What’s new?

Meanwhile, Squires’ junket to Israel was featured on CNN last year and celebrated by many on ebob. Hard to be more conspicuous than that.

As I wrote on my site, unless there’s pay to play or something of similar magnitude uncovered, there’s smoke, no fire. Sure, I agree with Kevin, I would want more transparency if I were a subscriber. Otherwise, this isn’t the big story yet.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

@Terence T-Bone Livingston

@Daniel Posner

@steffenpelz

There’s no doubt that I prefer the tasting methodology of the Spectator to that of the WA. In part because there’s no way you can disclose the circumstances under which you tasted each wine in a publication with thousands of reviews. Way too cumbersome for the reviewers and readers. It’s like every other business. It has to be scalable. In this case, only blind works as the lowest common denominator.

A part of me now wonders if the WS reviewers seem more clueless and inconsistent because of how they taste the wines relative to Meadows, Tanzer, RP, and the others…Food for thought.

SP

Inconsistent…yes.

I questioned for years, how Suckling can review a wine from barrel 94-96 and then 91 in btl…that is what blind tasting is all about…

Witnessed this when WS reviewed SB Wine Futures in the past. But from mid- 90’s down to high 80’s for bottled wine. WTF?

Perfect example of this was the 1997 Far Niente Cab. It got 88 pts in bottle but was rated 95-100 pts in barrel. Guy what noob bought some on the barrel rating for $120 a bottle?

[John_D_Zuccarino]

@Vincent Fritzsche

Hell hath frozen. I’m agreeing with Zuccs. Consider the hatchet buried.

I wrote about this whole mess on my blog élevage: The Parker Brouhaha last night. In short, I’ll be more concerned when there are bodies found. So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines. HE GIVES HIGH SCORES TO EVERYTHING! What’s new?

Meanwhile, Squires’ junket to Israel was featured on CNN last year and celebrated by many on ebob. Hard to be more conspicuous than that.

As I wrote on my site, unless there’s pay to play or something of similar magnitude uncovered, there’s smoke, no fire. Sure, I agree with Kevin, I would want more transparency if I were a subscriber. Otherwise, this isn’t the big story yet.

Love the post , especially the first line… …

went over what you wrote, it’s staggering , yes we are in agreement and you bring up some very interesting points…

[LMD_Ermitano]

@Bill Tex Landreth

Perfect example of this was the 1997 Far Niente Cab. It got 88 pts in bottle but was rated 95-100 pts in barrel. Guy what noob bought some on the barrel rating for $120 a bottle?

I thought the '97 Far Niente nice enough for what it is. It’s been 3 years since I’ve last tried it though. Never bought any, a friend buys and opens a lot from them.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

@P. Robert

Point chaser

Baby killer.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

@LMD Ermitaño

@Bill Tex Landreth

Perfect example of this was the 1997 Far Niente Cab. It got 88 pts in bottle but was rated 95-100 pts in barrel. Guy what noob bought some on the barrel rating for $120 a bottle?

I thought the '97 Far Niente nice enough for what it is. It’s been 3 years since I’ve last tried it though. Never bought any, a friend buys and opens a lot from them.

Noel, I think it is good for $50 a bottle. Never was even close to a 95+ pointer IMHO and I learned about buying solely on points…well kinda.

FWIW, I really like the SVD cabs coming out of their sister winery Nickel & Nickel. Most are substantially cheaper than the flagship wine and actually deliver with what is in the bottle.

[Steve_M_c_C_a_l_l]

Vote with your feet. If you believe RP’s model is tainted, then don’t renew your subscription, don’t participate on the Squires board, and devote your efforts to building community and value in sites like this one.

Parker made his bones when there was no internet, when he represented the best information people had available to them. Those times are no more, and while Parker’s influence remains, it’s clearly waning, as bloggers and forums like this take his place. So who cares if his writers get comped, and who cares about his palate? He’s rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Move along, folks… nothing to see here.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

@P. Robert

Love em young…

[Daniel_Posner]

@Vincent Fritzsche

So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines.

I think we have lots more than that.

John,

Fresh starts? So have you stopped stalking that blogger?

[Mo_K_a_n_g]

@Jim Brennan

Wilfred, Kevin:

Fwiw, my preferred approach for tasting would be for the reviewer to initially taste blind, write notes, then unmask the bottle and write additional notes with the added context.

In any event, clear disclosure about the method of tasting for all tasted wines would allow each reader to make their own decision about how to weight/discount the reivew, or even to discontinue your subscription if the critic doesn’t taste in a manner that you find valuable.

I like this approach too. Best of both worlds.

[Guillaume_Deschamps]

I have no beef in this matter since I never subscribed to the WA. I had a brief look at the statement since I was interested in the update. There’s one part that made me smile, and I quote: “There are occasions where several of the independent writers have been in the rural countryside of an emerging wine region (i.e., in Israel, Greece, Portugal, Chile, Argentina) where there are no hotels, and the only way of visiting these areas and getting a night’s sleep is to stay at the producer’s guest house or residence.”

Seriously? There might not be a Hilton, Sheraton or Four Seasons at every corner, but a “rural countryside” (repetition as emphasis of the remoteness?) without any kind of accommodation? As a guy who’s been around quite a bit, I have yet to find such a “rural countryside”, and I’d venture to say I have been to more remote places than any WA critic. And the 5 countries quoted aren’t even really remote or underdeveloped in the first place. I’d be hard pressed to think of any part of Chile or Argentina with a significant wine producer who doesn’t live 20 miles from the nearest accommodation and where a driver can’t be hired for the day for $50 or so.

And the statement goes on to say: “This may also happen in the future in such emerging wine regions as Eastern Europe, China, or India. This is acceptable, but only for a first-time visit.” - so basically there would be a second visit only if appropriate accommodation has been built in the meanwhile?

Why not call a cat a cat?

[Roberto_Rogness]

Yeah, that got me giggling too…I’ve never been anywhere where their wasn’t a country inn or a pousada or a youth hostel.

[BTraub]

While I tend to agree this issue is perhaps being talked into the ground, there is still one key point that has never been addressed by Parker, and which will keep this issue alive until he does so, IMO. It is: Why are there different ethical standards for “independent contractors” than for an “employee” (Parker)? I know of no other business or profession that maintains a code of conduct or ethical bylaws that has standards that are different based upon the employment status (employee vs. independent contractor) of the individual subject to the standard. Ethical standards shouldn’t depend on whether the person required to abide by them receives a 1099 or a W-2 at the end of the year for his services.

Perhaps there is a legitimate basis for this distinction, but it’s certainly not self-evident. Until Parker explains this in a way that makes sense (or establishes a single standard for all WA reviewers including himself), this issue will persist.

[John_D_Zuccarino]

@Daniel Posner

@Vincent Fritzsche

So far all we really have is that Jay Miller is accused of giving lots of high scores to Aussie wines.

I think we have lots more than that.

John,

Fresh starts? So have you stopped stalking that blogger?

Daniel,

I even wished them all a good wine-tasting event they have planed…told them the glass could be half full this time…told the wineries that provided the free wine don’t come crying to me if you get dogged out…so we are cool…

Lenn does try his best, that much I can say…maybe we can get the team to preform a bit more open-minded like double blind tastings, etc… time will tell…

[ToddFrench]

@Steve Mc Call

Vote with your feet. If you believe RP’s model is tainted, then don’t renew your subscription, don’t participate on the Squires board, and devote your efforts to building community and value in sites like this one.

Parker made his bones when there was no internet, when he represented the best information people had available to them. Those times are no more, and while Parker’s influence remains, it’s clearly waning, as bloggers and forums like this take his place. So who cares if his writers get comped, and who cares about his palate? He’s rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Move along, folks… nothing to see here.

Thank you, Steve - you are a perfect example of putting your money where your mouth is in this regard.

[Phillip_F_r_a_n_k_s]

@Steve Mc Call

Vote with your feet. If you believe RP’s model is tainted, then don’t renew your subscription, don’t participate on the Squires board, and devote your efforts to building community and value in sites like this one.

Parker made his bones when there was no internet, when he represented the best information people had available to them. Those times are no more, and while Parker’s influence remains, it’s clearly waning, as bloggers and forums like this take his place. So who cares if his writers get comped, and who cares about his palate? He’s rapidly becoming irrelevant.

Move along, folks… nothing to see here.

Exactly!