I know it is senseless but anyway: To describe Parker as someone who gave high scores to modernists, blockbusters and overoaked plonk only is fake news and bad journalism. His favorite Bordeaux, as he said very often, is Haut Brion. Hardly a blockbuster and an over the top wine. His favorite Cru Bourgeoise were the 80th Meyney, Gloria and Poujeaux. As traditional as it gets. His favorite Northern Rhone was Chave. A traditionalist. His favorite CdP was Rayas. As traditional as it gets. His favorite Barolo producer was Giacosa. A traditionalist. I could go on and on … .
Sure – he thought modernists like Valandraud, Gaja, Magrez, Pavie etc. make fine wines too in a different style. But what is wrong with that? You don’t like these wines? That’s ok. But it has nothing to do with Parkers abilities to taste.
Another story is his behavior on the old BB. I changed private Emails with him when he wrote I am too thin skinned because I complained about his sometimes aggressive tone in discussions. In fact I thought it was completely the other way round and he was too thin skinned and could not stomach even the slightest critic expressed by me or someone else. That was his weak side.
He answered when asked what wines he likes most: Anything good. That is a smart answer for a wine critic who tries to be as objective as possible and reaching a big as possible crowd.
I think fairness is important. Everywhere. Parker was and is not judged fair in many cases. He is human with advantages and disadvantages. This is something he shares with all of us. But he was a superb and successful wine expert and critic.
Jurgen is right that Parker did like some (I emphasize some) front line traditional producers. On another board, I once argued against using the principle that if Parker gave it a good review one should stay away as condemning one to stay away from too many great wines. But once one left those front line wines, that advice could be followed more safely. As an obvious example, if one was looking for great Loire reds, Parker was less than useless. Same really for grower Beaujolais, although in that case, the problem was mostly lack of coverage. And there was, of course, his review of Edmund St. John, which seemed largely motivated by a desire to get back at the fans of those wines for criticizing him. And his taste for over the top manipulated wine would have been more a matter of taste if one could tell from his tasting notes what kind of wine he was reviewing. Others have said they can. I must say I never could. And that was a lot of ands.
That was the exact point I made above. Just because he liked a wine that you don’t like, does not mean he does not like the wines that you like. It seems the wine interwebz is too often oriented around ‘My style of wine is better than your style of wine’. Bob Parker is someone who has the ability to appreciate wine in all of the many forms it may come in.
Do you both think that was true in the later stages of his career? I do not. I followed Parker for years, say 1992-2000, then took a wine hiatus. I came back in/around 2005, joined eBob and reads his review, and either his palate was quite different, mine was, the market changed, or more likely, all of the above. Although, I think my palate from 92-99 is quite similar to where it is now. When I came back to the wine arena, I bought a lot of things blindly based on my prior perception of Parker, and many of those purchases turned out to be terrible for me.
His last vintage of Bordeaux was 2010. That was a more classic old school type vintage (as opposed to 2009). He gave the wines raving high scores but that was kind of a gimme- everyone rated them high. But go back to 2008 and look at ratings for old school Bordeaux such as Haut Bailly which he gave 96 points. That is just off the top of my head I am sure there are more examples.
But it did make him much less valuable as a wine critic to me than he was in the early to mid-1980s. I don’t really care whether a wine critic is right or wrong, whatever that means. I care whether following his recommendations helps me buy wines that I will enjoy. I stopped subscribing to the WA years ago because his reviews were not useful to me, and I really don’t care whether he was right or wrong in some metaphysical sense.
Parker gave high points to front line traditionalists for as long as I read him (through maybe 05), and to the extent that I was aware, to the end. You might not have been that aware of that because you’d hardly need to read Parker to decide what you thought of Rayas, Chave or Haut Brion, if you were in the market for that level of wine. Even at the level below that, I would guess he liked Montrose or Pichon Lalande as much as you do. The reason you may be less aware of that is that you were probably looking at Parker to find you good wines that you didn’t know about or read his view of the whole line up of bordeaux or whatever. And for that, if your tastes were AFWE, he was like a stopped clock. He could be right, but you couldn’t depend on him.
I don’t see that he had any responsibility to review for AFWE people. If his position had been this is the taste that mine, probably everybody would have accepted that. But that was never his tone.
There is some serious merit to that statement, though I still believe his palate changed significantly as he aged. I think his call on 2007 CDP and his canonization of Cambie, Rolland, et al., was symptomatic of that change. Incidentally, I experienced my father’s palate changing the exact same way, same exact time. My Dad, who introduced me to classic French wines, once he hit his 70s, which was around the release of the 2007 CDP vintage, went hard right as well. More and more he started preferring bigger, more high-octane wines and being more appreciated of oak notes. My dad calls the 2007 Clos des Papes the greatest wine he has ever had. I served it to him a few years ago.
7/5/2019 - KEITH LEVENBERG LIKES THIS WINE: 95 Points
Really glad I gave this wine another chance. A bottle I opened 2 or 3 years ago was not only entirely without fruit, it felt entirely without anything at all. This one, by contrast, not only has plenty of personality, it’s actually quite friendly, barely needing any time at all to get into gear despite the horror stories I have heard about day-long decants. The texture and evolved state are reminiscent of a Lopez de Heredia - it’s possible I’ve compared some Bordeaux to Heredia in the past, but it can’t possibly have been more apt than it is here - with an array of characterful flavors built on a base of black… fruit? nah, well, it’s blackish something… with almost Barolo-like botanicals. Most of the tannin seems to have melted away, leaving a slender figure with a slick and silky presence that’s basically weightless and ridiculously easy to drink. This is real wine. To call it a throwback doesn’t begin to capture it.
I’m very sorry to hear that. He was entertaining, informative, and (in the best sense) opinionated. I bought a mixed case or two from him over the years as well, very idiosyncratic selections.
I agree Robert. He got where he loved goopy wines. Sure, he appreciated and could identify certain high end traditional wines, but I absolutely believe his ability to taste was burned from his memory and only the most in your face wines were something that he looked for. I mean, he gave mid 90s to stuff that was almost undrinkable because it was so “hot” and goopy. This coming from someone who loved the BIG Aussies. But he burned me out on those so badly, I have not had an Aussie wine in a decade.
It’s hard to say if his palate changed since most of the monstrosities to which he gave rave reviews didn’t much exist before 95 or so. Even classic CdPs don’t look like the CdPs of the 80s. It maybe that when he found the monstrosities they were more of what he was always looking for since he always did champion depth of fruit over structure and lift.
By the way, I’m 69 and I started out on Cdp and then hit the AFWE stuff (though I still like CdP).
I got my BAMA bottles yesterday
The 1995 is simply very very good. This is my kind of Bordeaux
Taste is wonderfully Loire herbaceous and the scent is fantastic
Which vintages are the best for BAMA?
“Best” is so relative, but I really do like the 2000 a lot. The 1996 is very good, but just a notch behind 2000 and 1995. As soon as the shipping season comes, I have a mixed case on hold with additional vintages, like 1998, 2001 and 2005.
I’ve had a lot of BAMA over the last year. I don’t always post about them because it becomes overkill after a while! This summer, I’ve had three each of 95, 96 and 98, plus one 00 and one 01. None of them were in bad condition, luckily for me. I’m glad you liked the 95, Claus, it is indeed very, very good. For drinking now, it’s the best, but as Robert says, this is relative: the 96 and the 98 are also very, very good. The 00 will I think be better than any of the three, but not yet. The 01s I’ve had have been great, but just below the standards of the 95, 96 and 98.
If I was to choose a six-pack, I would take 2 x 95, 2 x 96 and 2 x 00. For 12, I would add more 00, a couple of 98 and some younger vintages.
I’m not sure I would take the 70, 71 and the 82, although I’d love to try them, simply because they are a lot more expensive: the risk of duff bottles is high with BAMA and proportionally higher with these, but each to his own on this.
Bel Air Marquis d’Aligre is not the best wine on the planet, but rediscovering it last year has been, as I think I mused at the time, a complete game-changer. It has forced me to re-assess my taste, especially for Margaux. I’m not an ante-antediluvian Luddite, but I do like a sense of place in a wine - I like a Margaux to taste like one. Tasting BAMA reminded me of what they all used to taste like back in the olden days - it’s only personal preference, not a universal “truth”, but I realized how much I missed the freshness and the elegance, without even knowing that I did. So there are rather a lot of wines in my cellar that I just can’t drink anymore - they taste tarty and uncivilized.
![[wow.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/7/7d450e9830889c8943b674446a21b7254cad657e.gif "wow"){kind=small}
