The Big Parkerization Lie

[Ian_Dorin]

I agree that it was too boring to slog through, but her overall point is absolutely absurd. They are taking a stand against a point that has by and large been wildly helpful for them? Or was this a sad attempt to reattach Parker to the brand in some odd way given that he is no longer writing on a regular basis, and people are taking note of that? As Wine Berserkers was brought about by the closing of the Squires board (well, before that, but was thankfully there for all of us after that happened), Vinous is CLEARLY kicking their a$$ now, and they are feeling it in their Singapore wallets.

[Lonnie_F]

@Jonathan Loesberg

I’d be more interested in a debate over whether Thucydides’ theory that the Peloponnesian war was inevitable was correct. It at least raises pertinent issues of historical interpretration, which is one more pertinent issue than this debate would raise.

Was it inevitable? Two seemingly different ways of seeing the world, both with aspirations and living so close together…

[Jayson_Cohen]

@Jonathan Loesberg

I thought you were offering those wines.

Not likely.

@Jonathan Loesberg

So let’s just pretend we did that tasting and move on to the next one.

Sounds like a plan.

[PeterH]

I think of Parker’s role in warping the wine drinkers palate as an analog to Starbucks warping coffee drinking habits. Both picked up on trends that were well underway, but through effective promotion made themselves synonymous in the public’s mind with the new paradigm. I don’t blame either Parker or Starbucks for shift.

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

@Lonnie F.

@Jonathan Loesberg

I’d be more interested in a debate over whether Thucydides’ theory that the Peloponnesian war was inevitable was correct. It at least raises pertinent issues of historical interpretration, which is one more pertinent issue than this debate would raise.

Was it inevitable? Two seemingly different ways of seeing the world, both with aspirations and living so close together…

Have you read Thucydides? The theme of his opening chapters is that the war was not really caused by the proximate events that people at that time thought had caused it but had bases going back to developments over the last seventy or so years (inevitable may be the wrong word). Whether one believes him or not, for the development of this concept alone, Thucydides belongs among the first rank of historians. Think of the contrast between a history that attributes the cause of WWI to the assassination in Sarajevo and Barbara Tuchman’s The Gun’s of August. And if this concept causes thread drift, all the better. Profitable directions might be controverting Tuchman’s thesis with Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers, which took that assassination much more seriously or for that matter Donald Kagan’s four volume history of the Peloponnesian war, which contests Thucydides’ view.

[John_Morris]

@Jim Hartten

Nothing like a revisionist pov from WA to confirm the general decline of the publication.

I’d say this is the party line, not revisionist!

[Marshall_Gelb]

She certainly admits her personal bias but the level of her bias is staggering. I gave up after reading about her earlier diet of junk food and trying to explain that everyone ate that way. Her arguments simply do not hold water and she probably realizes that the WA is sinking into obscurity and irrelevance.
In a way, it is kind of sad because I was an avid follower of Parker in the “beginning.”

Cheers!
Marshall

[Greg_K]

@Jonathan Loesberg

@Lonnie F.

@Jonathan Loesberg

I’d be more interested in a debate over whether Thucydides’ theory that the Peloponnesian war was inevitable was correct. It at least raises pertinent issues of historical interpretration, which is one more pertinent issue than this debate would raise.

Was it inevitable? Two seemingly different ways of seeing the world, both with aspirations and living so close together…

Have you read Thucydides? The theme of his opening chapters is that the war was not really caused by the proximate events that people at that time thought had caused it but had bases going back to developments over the last seventy or so years (inevitable may be the wrong word). Whether one believes him or not, for the development of this concept alone, Thucydides belongs among the first rank of historians. Think of the contrast between a history that attributes the cause of WWI to the assassination in Sarajevo and Barbara Tuchman’s The Gun’s of August. And if this concept causes thread drift, all the better. Profitable directions might be controverting Tuchman’s thesis with Christopher Clark’s The Sleepwalkers, which took that assassination much more seriously or for that matter Donald Kagan’s four volume history of the Peloponnesian war, which contests Thucydides’ view.

Tuchman was a great writer but not necessarily a great historian; I find Clark’s thesis far more convincing (and more convincing than the oddly Anglo-centric The War That Ended Peace by MacMillan). I also don’t think Clark suggests that the war was a sua sponte event caused solely by the assassination - he spends quite a bit of time on all the preceding crises that nearly caused the war a bit earlier (including the Algerian issues). Finally, I find Clark’s laying a lot of implied blame on Russia most convincing given their support (or sometimes their ambassador’s entrepreneurial action) in favor of Serbia and their action to mobilize first. It’s also interesting to add Dominic Lieven’s perspective on Russian interests in the Balkans from his book on the end of Tsarist Russia (even if his writing is super dry.)

[Steve_Crawford]

@SteveG

@PeterH

@Mel Knox

The article was too boring to finish.

I launched in, and quickly came to that conclusion. Does anyone who waded through want to point out any illuminating or controversial statements?

I believe I read it pretty closely, best I can tell she is not denying that Perkerization is a historical fact, only claiming that it occurred because of Parker’s excellent reflection of wine consumers’ preferences, rather than some evil plot. Personally I don’t see these two as mutually exclusive.

i like your point. lisa is right that parker wasn’t steering the ship by himself, but she is wrong when she fails to acknowledge that he had a role. to what degree is debatable.

[Anton_D]

OK, this may become the greatest thread of all time!

Please keep the history flowing!

Regarding Parkerization, I think there is an iota of validity, as others have mentioned, that Parker was simply the face of the unfortunate ruination (Vandal-ization… …) of what is regarded as fine wine by the proletariat.

One could argue that the ‘fruit wave’ carried the day, and no way could Parker have been a significant enough social influence to bring the Rombauer/Kendall Jackson/Meomi/Caymus-ization of the marketplace.

It very well could be that Parker led the charge much as Boris Grushenko led the Russians to victory over the French and Parker has been erroneously credited for his inferior palate’s effect on the industry.

[Mel_Knox]

I’ve been selling barrels to wineries since 1980 and so have hung out with a lot of winemakers. Parker has influenced my business in a very positive way. First, he gave a talk on his favorite pinots at the IPNC. Two thirds of the wines were made in Francois barrels…a line formed by my table when he finished. Then he wrote that Helen Turley, whom he acclaimed the goddess of wine, used Taransaud barrels for her cabernets…Those barrels were allocated for about six years until production could keep up. Of course, many people picked riper than they liked, but nobody will admit to chasing Parker points…too toady.



It seems to me the author met Parker about 14 years ago but still considers herself an insider. I cannot figure out if she brought up Churchill–always a favorite tactic with writers-- to say that she is capable of writing the history or to compare herself to Clement Atlee. Since I have been an insider for 38 years,…

To say that Churchill won the war is a bit of an overstatement. They held on until Hitler attacked Russia and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US. Stalingrad anyone??
Did Hitler lose the war with his tactics in Russia?? I thought the Allies won the war.

And what about the far fewer number of historians, dictated to a a handful of powerful men? Who were these men?? Freemasons?? Book publishers?? The people at the Book of the Month Club?? The very same people who published Barbara Tuchman?? This comment of hers reminds me of somebody’s populist rant but what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

Anyway, that s about as far as I got.

[Bill_Tex_Landreth]

@Mel Knox

I’ve been selling barrels to wineries since 1980 and so have hung out with a lot of winemakers. Parker has influenced my business in a very positive way. First, he gave a talk on his favorite pinots at the IPNC. Two thirds of the wines were made in Francois barrels…a line formed by my table when he finished. Then he wrote that Helen Turley, whom he acclaimed the goddess of wine, used Taransaud barrels for her cabernets…Those barrels were allocated for about six years until production could keep up. Of course, many people picked riper than they liked, but nobody will admit to chasing Parker points…too toady.



It seems to me the author met Parker about 14 years ago but still considers herself an insider. I cannot figure out if she brought up Churchill–always a favorite tactic with writers-- to say that she is capable of writing the history or to compare herself to Clement Atlee. Since I have been an insider for 38 years,…

To say that Churchill won the war is a bit of an overstatement. They held on until Hitler attacked Russia and Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the US. Stalingrad anyone??
Did Hitler lose the war with his tactics in Russia?? I thought the Allies won the war.

And what about the far fewer number of historians, dictated to a a handful of powerful men? Who were these men?? Freemasons?? Book publishers?? The people at the Book of the Month Club?? The very same people who published Barbara Tuchman?? This comment of hers reminds me of somebody’s populist rant but what does it have to do with the subject at hand?

Anyway, that s about as far as I got.

The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[Neal.Mollen]

I gave up when she said she no longer consumes or wants milkshakes

[Jayson_Cohen]

How do I insert a Yawn emoji?

[Robert.A.Jr]

Yea major yawn, not even sure what possessed her to write this dribble with all its poor punctuation. We are so past it and them.

[NoahR]

Cheers to the democratization of taste, to which Parker, populist demagogue, championed, gave a face, a voice and an identity… And shame on those effete, Ivory Towered snobs whose predilection for thin, reedy, green, flawed wines was, at the core, elitist and meant to perpetuate upper class domination of the increasingly bourgeois wine market…

Oh, and she didn’t mention how well he nailed the ageworthiness of those Aussie shirazzes!

[Robert.A.Jr]

@NoahR

shirazzes!

I’m pretty sure that the plural form for these Parker wines is, “shirasses”.

[Anton_D]

@NoahR

Cheers to the democratization of taste, to which Parker, populist demagogue, championed, gave a face, a voice and an identity… And shame on those effete, Ivory Towered snobs whose predilection for thin, reedy, green, flawed wines was, at the core, elitist and meant to perpetuate upper class domination of the increasingly bourgeois wine market…

Oh, and she didn’t mention how well he nailed the ageworthiness of those Aussie shirazzes!

That was great!

[Mark_Cochard]

Mel, Well said,I thought about a lot of this without posting. Her whole Churchill analogies are straw men waiting to be torn down.

[Mel_Knox]

With her knowledge of history I am sure there is a job at Fox News in her future