What happened to Robert Parker? State of Wine Criticism in 2018

[Robert.A.Jr]

If everyone else love a wine (critics and the unwashed masses on CT) and he gives it a 79 and blasts it, well, he is entitled to his own judgment and good for him, but it is hard to see how that view could be useful as a buying guide.

So I generally find him interesting but not terribly useful.

Some might posit, that is exactly what makes him useful. Using Pavie as an example, a wine he blasts, the normal, so-called objective reviewer gives it the same score as, say, a Lafite. The wines could not be more dramatically different. For someone with a palate more similar to Gilman, it is doubtful that the Pavie would appeal, while the Lafite would. Oftentimes it’s even hard to tell the difference in styles when you read the critics’ reviews on some wines (i.e., whether it is modern, universal or classic). The problem, of course, that it takes time and experimentation to figure out whether Gillman’s palate aligns with your palate. I have found my palate correlates fairly well with him on Loire, Riesling and Bordeaux.

[Neal.Mollen]

If everyone else love a wine (critics and the unwashed masses on CT) and he gives it a 79 and blasts it, well, he is entitled to his own judgment and good for him, but it is hard to see how that view could be useful as a buying guide.

So I generally find him interesting but not terribly useful.

Some might posit, that is exactly what makes him useful. Using Pavie as an example, a wine he blasts, the normal, so-called objective reviewer gives it the same score as, say, a Lafite. The wines could not be more dramatically different. For someone with a palate more similar to Gilman, it is doubtful that the Pavie would appeal, while the Lafite would. Oftentimes it’s even hard to tell the difference in styles when you read the critics’ reviews on some wines (i.e., whether it is modern, universal or classic). The problem, of course, that it takes time and experimentation to figure out whether Gillman’s palate aligns with your palate. I have found my palate correlates fairly well with him on Loire, Riesling and Bordeaux.

Yeah, but I can’t really say that Gillamn falls neatly into the AFWE category, and he departs from other critics who I’d put in that group on enough wines to make him inscrutable to me. Again, this is not a criticism at all, just an observation.

When I was young and carefree, and subscribing to wine periodicals, it was primarily as a buying guide for wines I might want to buy. A Gillman review that is an outlier would not really tell me much of use. I suppose if he really trashed it, it might convince me to look elsewhere, even if others were favorable, but the utility of his views, to me, was limited. When buying futures (which again was a primary reason I used to subscribe) I would typically look for consensus. If Jancis and Martin and Parker all loved a wine, and the verbiage was similar, I felt pretty safe. I never knew where to fit JG into that calculus because he could detest a wine all of the others loved.

[Robert.A.Jr]

That triangulation approach for Bordeaux worked for me as well, in addition to the history many of us have with the well-known Chateaux.

[Jorgen_Lindstrom_Carlvik]

[/quote]William is an excellent writer and taster. His depth is well beyond Burgundy, too.
[/quote]

I agree. And when his WA-scores on SQN were recently published, the Ebob community finally made a strong comeback:) Haven’t seen so much interaction in years.

Note to self; always provide SQN with a 3-digit score, if you wanna stay popular.

[Howard_Cooper]

My own (limited) experience with John Gilman is that he is both iconoclastic and difficult to pigeon-hole. That is both good and bad. It means he will not follow the crowd and will occasionally write scathing (and entertaining) reviews of otherwise highly regarded wines, which is to his credit, I think. I should also say that in a very few exchanges we have had he has been extremely forthcoming and engaging. I’d like to have a meal with him and talk about wines.

But I have a great deal of difficulty getting a bead on his palate. If everyone else love a wine (critics and the unwashed masses on CT) and he gives it a 79 and blasts it, well, he is entitled to his own judgment and good for him, but it is hard to see how that view could be useful as a buying guide.

So I generally find him interesting but not terribly useful.

As I said, I like John’s work. I disagree that John is not useful. While I might like wines he rates poorly, with some notable exceptions, I generally like wines he rates highly. So, I can buy wines he recommends confidently. Also, he differentiates between wines made in a traditional style from wines made in a more modern style so that I know what to expect from a producer. I have, for example, found this very useful in identifying California wines to try. You cannot get that from just looking at points from a reviewer who reviews wines “objectively, whatever that means. There is more to wine reviews than how many points a critic gives a wines.

Now, if you don’t like the same style of wines John likes I agree his newsletter is useless. This may be Neal’s issue with him. But if you want interesting wines made in a more traditional style John makes it easier to identify such wines.

[Gary_York]

Chris - If you read the comments here you will find that I am not the only one that looks at the WA as a joke. And they have earned their position at the bottom through a number of disastrous decisions that are too numerous to mention. I don’t know anyone that doesn’t consider Vinous superior to the WA. Not saying that they don’t exist, just that I don’t know of any. It is true that I mostly focus on Italian and no one does that better than Galloni and D’ Agata, my apologies to Klapp, but there is enough coverage to keep in touch with other areas. Tanzer offers good info on other areas in France with a bit of balance and restraint that is fairly rare in wine criticism today. And with the addition of NM, that I really don’t care for, it is a pretty formidable team at Vinous. Add in Schildknecht and Raynolds with a board full of passionate, dedicated and connected drinkers and it is a solid source on wine. Not so much at WA.

[mark_meyer]

Jim

Good to see you back in the wine board mode-Rob G had seemed to imply you had begun to find wine blasé a few yrs ago.

You still have some Ritchie Creek in your cellar-I am down to my last 6 or less.


Best to Rasha.

[John_Morris]

John love the new avatar btw. I was lucky enough to purchase an artist label from B Mascarello when I was there. They are beautiful labels by the man himself.

Glad you like it. I was given mine by Bartolo himself in 1996. His mobility was quite impaired at the time, so we spoke in his office. On his desk were felt pens and a bunch of labels he was drawing on. And it’s a real, baby grape leaf.

[John_Morris]

My own (limited) experience with John Gilman is that he is both iconoclastic and difficult to pigeon-hole. That is both good and bad. It means he will not follow the crowd and will occasionally write scathing (and entertaining) reviews of otherwise highly regarded wines, which is to his credit, I think. I should also say that in a very few exchanges we have had he has been extremely forthcoming and engaging. I’d like to have a meal with him and talk about wines.

But I have a great deal of difficulty getting a bead on his palate. If everyone else love a wine (critics and the unwashed masses on CT) and he gives it a 79 and blasts it, well, he is entitled to his own judgment and good for him, but it is hard to see how that view could be useful as a buying guide.

So I generally find him interesting but not terribly useful.

As I said, I like John’s work. I disagree that John is not useful. While I might like wines he rates poorly, with some notable exceptions, I generally like wines he rates highly. So, I can buy wines he recommends confidently. Also, he differentiates between wines made in a traditional style from wines made in a more modern style so that I know what to expect from a producer. I have, for example, found this very useful in identifying California wines to try. You cannot get that from just looking at points from a reviewer who reviews wines “objectively, whatever that means. There is more to wine reviews than how many points a critic gives a wines.

Now, if you don’t like the same style of wines John likes I agree his newsletter is useless. This may be Neal’s issue with him. But if you want interesting wines made in a more traditional style John makes it easier to identify such wines.

John is definitely out on the left wing when it comes to acid, and he’s not afraid to rate highly a wine that is hard to drink now (high tannin, high acid, closed) but which he thinks has great potential. But he’s totally uncompromised and delightfully opinionated – which is refreshing in the current environment.

[John_Morris]

There’s a big difference between professional critics and people like us. People like Tanzer or Parker or d’Igata or (insert your preferred aligned critic) taste through vast quantities of wines we can’t afford to sample, often in a setting that allows for comparisons that are impossible to make for normal enthusiasts. If they go through 40 or 50 Northern Medocs in a day, the better examples stand out.

They’re are lots of things that professionals can bring to the table, as you say – historical perspective, insights into the producers – that are hard to accumulate until you taste full time.

But tasting 40-50 wines a day is not one of those things. I noticed a sharp drop off in my correlation with Parker’s scores in the early 90s when he began routinely tasting 50-75 wines (as friends in the trade informed me). In those contexts, it’s not necessarily the better examples that stand out; it’s the most powerful. And, as someone else said, when you taste so many wines, you have no ability to gauge them over time – even half an hour or an hour – which is really important. In that context, people just sniff, taste and spit, going down a line.

Moreover, it’s impossible not to be affected by the alcohol when you taste that many wines at once, even if you’re trying to spit religiously. People in the trade will tell you that, even if they have to do it sometimes.

[Oliver_V]

I still read Decanter, but I don’t listen to anybody’s scores any more. I’ve been burned too many times (I still have a bunch of lifeless Medoc 2003s).

Cellartracker for me replaces any need I have for critics. Some people complain that the general public don’t know anything about wine, but I think for the most part to write reviews on CT you have to have at least a modicum of experience. I find it pretty easy to sort the people who know nothing about wine from the more experienced tasters, and after a while you just get a sense of which reviews to trust.

You do have to ignore the scores though, since reviewers get to see the current score before they write their review.

[J_D_o_v_e]

I was a prolific poster in the mid-90s and I know I had a lot of stupid opinions that have not stood the test of time.

Hi Jim
You’re in no way compelled to answer this, but I’m intrigued by your comment above.

Were those:

• Your tastes at the time, which have changed as you tasted more?
• Your tastes at the time, which as you’ve read more you’ve changed your perspective?
• Repeating the advice of others, which you’ve since realised you don’t agree with?
• Something else?
• Combination of the above?

For my own part, although it was useful as a confidence builder to focus on Aussie, then NZ, then Italy and so on, slowly building my confidence and experience, I relied too heavily on the Aussie critics. Their love of warm climate South Australian reds does not mirror my own preference for the wines of the cooler areas of the country (which I took a while to realise). Thankfully I built the contents of my cellar up relatively slowly, but had I raced into it, I’d have cases of McLaren Vale and Barossa Shiraz that I now realise is at best an occasional drink for me (c. 1 bottle per year).

Luckily by the time I moved onto Italy, I’d still read critical opinion, but my purchases were more strongly guided by what I’d tried and enjoyed. Hence I rarely have any Brunello di Montalcino in the cellar, but will have other Sangiovese based wines (Chianti, Sangiovese di Romagna, Vino Nobile di Montepulciano), all of which are awarded typically lower scores by critics, and also priced lower. Even if the prices were the same, I’d still be buying what I do now, as I prefer it to Brunello. to the critics, as they’ve made my preferred drinking cheaper

Regards
Ian

I got into wine at a fairly young age. I started with relatively simple, richly fruited, and very affordable California wines. I tasted in a weekly (blind tasting) group that was very tolerant of my ignorance in the mid-90s. They would be drinking 1983 Palmer in 1996 and I would be pouring 1994 Ferrari Carano Siena wondering why they didn’t see my wine as an equal or better. I remember thinking people were bringing ‘old’ wine in 1996 when they were bringing the 1982s. That’s the equivalent of the 2004 Sociando I opened last night from an age perspective – hardly old. Your perspective when you’re under 30 is just different.

I’m no less confident today in what I like and don’t like – in what’s good and not good. But, the difference is I’ve had thousands of wines since then and have read dozens of books, thousands of articles and posts, traveled to see countless producers, etc… I’d like to say that it’s my direct experience with wine that has influenced me most – but, in practice, it’s probably a mix of everything. I’m nearly 50 now. The difference today is I know what I don’t know. And, I don’t know a lot…

I agree with you RE: Brunello, btw.

[J_D_o_v_e]

Jim

Good to see you back in the wine board mode-Rob G had seemed to imply you had begun to find wine blasé a few yrs ago.

You still have some Ritchie Creek in your cellar-I am down to my last 6 or less.


Best to Rasha.

Was just with Rob and Angela Saturday night for Kathy Frye’s 60th. 1988 Haut Brion and Margaux along with a few others including the 1996 Leoville Barton, which, IMO, stole the show.

[ToddFrench]

I’m just a little bewildered with what has happened in the wine critic space over the past decade. I’ve been drinking my wine and paying no attention whatsoever to the world of wine. Who do you trust and why?

And, what happened to eBob and who is right on 2014 Barbaresco? How does one professional critic think a recent Barbaresco vintage is one of the worst in the past 30 years and another think it’s a classic vintage? Is Vinous shilling? Has Parker lost it?

I think that what has happened to wine criticism is that it has splintered. There is no longer one holy diety who gives wines a score that is considered their absolute measure of quality.

Instead, there are a number of critics some of who specialize in wine regions (like Allen Meadows with Burghound) and others of whom don’t try to be terribly objective but rate wines on their subjective views of how wines should taste (like John Gilman of A View from the Cellar). There are quite a number of wine newletters and of wine blogs.

It might help if you state the types of wines you like and your favorite wine regions (I assume that it includes Bordeaux, but more traditional Bordeaux or more modern styled wines) and people can try to better tailor their recommendations to the wines you like rather than the wines they like.

Not a wine newsletter, but if you want to get back into current wine start listening to these. http://illdrinktothatpod.com/

Hey Howard,

OK, you asked…

Over half of my cellar is Bordeaux. I favor Left Bank over Right as a general rule – but I like it all. I am anti-over-the-top as a general rule, but I break that rule all the time. For example, I like really ripe Grenache from CdP, Beausejour Duffau, and Troplong Mondot. I love wines like 1996 Leoville Barton (had one last night and it was singing). I’m increasingly into Nebbiolo and have a real soft spot for Cru Beaujolais, Valle d’Aosta, Loire Cab Franc, and sleeper Bordeaux from top vintages. Some of my favorite producers are (often for personal reasons) JL Chave, Jamet, Beaucastel, Bosquet des Papes, Bernard Baudry, Climens, anything with Leoville or Pichon on the label, Grand Puy Lacoste, Montrose, Rauzan Segla, Domaine de Chevalier, Trotanoy, VCC, Felsina, Dominus, and Philip Togni, Ritchie Creek, Chappellet PH, Mount Eden and Ridge.

And after reading this (GREAT thread, by the way - I was surprisingly rapt throughout) I will be following YOUR recommendations on the board, as we seem to have VERY similar tastes in red wines!!! Rather than choose between one of a dozen ‘professional’ reviewers, I have found that I tap into the thousands who post on WB and whose tastes seem to align well with mine. When I read one of their posts recommending a wine, I strongly consider buying.

[Ian_Sutton]

I got into wine at a fairly young age. I started with relatively simple, richly fruited, and very affordable California wines. I tasted in a weekly (blind tasting) group that was very tolerant of my ignorance in the mid-90s. They would be drinking 1983 Palmer in 1996 and I would be pouring 1994 Ferrari Carano Siena wondering why they didn’t see my wine as an equal or better. I remember thinking people were bringing ‘old’ wine in 1996 when they were bringing the 1982s. That’s the equivalent of the 2004 Sociando I opened last night from an age perspective – hardly old. Your perspective when you’re under 30 is just different.

I’m no less confident today in what I like and don’t like – in what’s good and not good. But, the difference is I’ve had thousands of wines since then and have read dozens of books, thousands of articles and posts, traveled to see countless producers, etc… I’d like to say that it’s my direct experience with wine that has influenced me most – but, in practice, it’s probably a mix of everything. I’m nearly 50 now. The difference today is I know what I don’t know. And, I don’t know a lot…

I agree with you RE: Brunello, btw.

Hi Jim
Cool. I’m a great fan of people following their own direction, in their own time. Big-fruited wines are rarely my thing either, though like many it took a little while to work that out. However on a cold winter’s evening sometimes the urge is there to have something luscious and enveloping and so the odd cellar-worthy bigger wine remains.

The wine scene is indeed impossibly huge, which does keep us all on our toes. In amongst ‘normal’ people, our geeky knowledge must seem encyclopedic, yet I’d agree that the more we learn, the more we realise how little we know. Still, it’s not a pain to carry on the studying!

Regards
Ian

[Howard_Cooper]

[ I’m nearly 50 now. The difference today is I know what I don’t know. And, I don’t know a lot…

Sometimes I think the best definition of a wine expert is someone who begins to get the sense of how little they actually know about wine. Look forward to you being more active on the board. Before you give up on Burgundy altogether, read this thread. Consolidated off-the-beaten-path Burgundy TNs - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

[Robert.A.Jr]

[ I’m nearly 50 now. The difference today is I know what I don’t know. And, I don’t know a lot…

Sometimes I think the best definition of a wine expert is someone who begins to get the sense of how little they actually know about wine. Look forward to you being more active on the board. Before you give up on Burgundy altogether, read this thread. Consolidated off-the-beaten-path Burgundy TNs - WINE TALK - WineBerserkers

.

Like law, that it takes 12-15 or so years for you to figure out that you are neither as good nor as knowledgeable as you think you are, so you practice with some healthy fear and grow exponentially.

[Howard_Cooper]

Like law, that it takes 12-15 or so years for you to figure out that you are neither as good nor as knowledgeable as you think you are, so you practice with some healthy fear and grow exponentially.

Interesting comparison. Unlike law (where I found some of the “healthy” fear to be quite stressful, I sometimes think I have an unfortunate amount of intelligence - enough to see all the issues but having a harder time finding all of the answers), I generally find the healthy fear in trying new wines more exciting. I guess the consequenses of being wrong are fewer and less important in wine than in being a tax lawyer.

[WvanGorp]

It is interesting to ponder the very nature of what happened to RMP Jr. He was a major factor then all of a sudden fell off the radar almost completely. It’s like he was there then—poof—he was (almost) gone.

Ask anyone under 30 today who he is and I bet you’ll get a blank stare.

[Jonathan_Loesberg]

It is interesting to ponder the very nature of what happened to RMP Jr. He was a major factor then all of a sudden fell off the radar almost completely. It’s like he was there then—poof—he was (almost) gone.

Ask anyone under 30 today who he is and I bet you’ll get a blank stare.

He’s retired. If you stop doing something, in this case reviewing, you cease to be a presence. Who reads yesterday’s papers?