|By Tomjoad on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 03:52 pm: Edit|
This is very similar to what Harry Knowles has done to the movie industry with his aintitcoolnews.com site.
|By Artemis on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 07:19 am: Edit|
"the problem is not Parker, ... but rather the way the trade has elevated his opinion to that of ultimate authority" ... "the trade manipulate the market by hiking up the price of anything that gets within spitting distance of a 'perfect 100'."
Price is dictated by demand. They cannot hike the price above what people are willing to pay (in my case, nothing). Therefore I really can't find any fault with "the trade" either. I can only repeat, the only possible solution seems to be for Parker to shut up, and that's not tenable. But I should stay out of it, because as I said, I don't even drink wine. I just thought the Atlantic did a super job of delivering the story.
|By Absinthedrinker on Wednesday, May 02, 2001 - 02:25 am: Edit|
I think the problem is not Parker, who is of course entitled to express his opinion in any way he chooses, but rather the way the trade has elevated his opinion to that of ultimate authority. As in 'I haven't tasted it but Parker gave it 100 points so it must be good'. The danger is people stop forming their own opinions and the trade manipulate the market by hiking up the price of anything that gets within spitting distance of a 'perfect 100'.
|By Melinelly on Tuesday, May 01, 2001 - 06:27 pm: Edit|
if you can afford to buy Opus One and are willing to, the '97 released last year is THE one to buy. can't remember exactly what Parker gave it (98-100 i'm sure), but i know Wilfred Wong and Wine Spectator both gave it 100.
i haven't tasted it, but my mom was lucky to recently and was completely blown away.
|By Artemis on Tuesday, May 01, 2001 - 09:22 am: Edit|
"I respect Parker for being so independent"
I know nothing about Parker other than what I read in that article, and even less about wine, but no man deserves to be dog-bit for expressing his opinion of a beverage.
If the man talks, people listen, and things change, so what? Is that his fault? Is he supposed to shut up? I find it ironic that American absinthe is appreciated in France. And that an American is hoisting, on their own petard so to speak, some of the same French families that got absinthe banned in the first place.
|By Petermarc on Tuesday, May 01, 2001 - 09:14 am: Edit|
depends on what 'reasonable' is...but it is hard to go wrong with that wine, if only that it might think a little too much of itself...;-)
|By Mattb on Tuesday, May 01, 2001 - 08:19 am: Edit|
That is an interesting article. I respect Parker for being so independent, even if he is changing things in the wine world in what may not necessarily be a good way. I can see some good and bad, and I have to say I agree with his palate and I also enjoy a big up front red in the Californian or Australian style probably more than any other style.
I like wine, but I'm by no means an expert. I'd like to consider my smattering of ignorance enough to have a pretty good idea about a lot of wines, but I'm no authority. That being said, I just happened to stumble across an opportunity to pick up a few bottles of 1996 Opus One at a very reasonable price. I once enjoyed a 1992 very much, and I see our friend Parker rated the 1996 a 96. Has anyone here had the 1996? What did you think? How would it compare to other years, particularly 1992, if you been able to compare? Just thought I'd take the outside shot and see if any of you have opinions on this particular vintage.
|By Petermarc on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 04:18 pm: Edit|
a very good article, i have tried to dislike parker because of what he has intentionally or unintentionally created but,after reading this, find it hard not to like and respect what he does, and laugh at what others have created around him...the french have even coined a term 'parkerisé' for wines that have been influenced by parker's choices...i have to agree with tlautrec about his taste, i tend to lean toward it myself, and it is considered 'new world/californian'as ian mentioned, by the french...what is important to remember is that this type of wine usually tastes good by itself and many times is too intense to pair well with food...that is where the subtleties of local french wines with regional foods reigns supreme (they were, after all, made to wash down the food, not the other way around)an uninteresting or 'thin' wine changes and becomes somthing else altogether...but screw 'terrior' if the wine tastes good...cheese is better with white wine most of the time (except cru beaujolais ) most burgundy sucks for the price you pay and bordeaux has many more mediocre wines than great ones...australia makes more tasty reds on average than any other country, but they clobber food... most wines are drunk within 1 to 2 years of being bottled, so who really cares how long they'll age?i had a friend e-mail me about a port that parker rated 100, that i should buy it if i see it...i saw it, over $1000 a bottle (the cheaper version $270), should be ready to drink in 30-50 years-screw that!
tonight i tried to preach the merits of plastic corks to avoid 'corking'(spoilage by bad cork-wood) in short-aging wines (the more i eat out in paris, the more this happens) to my father-in-law, but he said it just wasn't 'traditional' yeah? neither is a crappy bottle of wine in france! but that doesn't stop it from happening!...sorry, i'm ranting now...just respect tradition and critics only as a guide, after that, trust your own taste...thanks for sharing the web-site artemis...
|By Tlautrec on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 11:55 am: Edit|
Last night on the Charlie Rose show on PBS, there was an hour-long interview with Robert Parker - very, very interesting. Charlie Rose is a perceptive and intelligent interviewer, and Mr. Parker came across as a charming, unpretentious, very hard working and honest individual. Whatever one may think about his particular taste in wine, it cannot be bad that he has popped the balloon of the big chateaux in Bordeaux, who have always claimed that every year of their production is a "great" or at least a "very good" year, when in fact, a bad year in Bordeaux probably means that the Margaux or the Lynch Bages is no great shakes either. To the extent that he is a strong, independent voice, who is in no way tied in to the wine "establishment" and whose taste in wine reflects that of many individual wine connoisseurs, he is, IMHO, providing a valuable service. Also, I like my wines (reds in particular) big, upfront, fruit-driven and low in acid, so if more wineries are producing cabs, merlots and syrahs in that style, you won't hear me complain.
|By Melinelly on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 10:41 am: Edit|
what absinthedrinker said.
working in liquor sales, i've met quite a few people with a thing or three to say about mr. parker... usually not nice heh.
i have to give him props though. the man has integrity... as the article says, and as we know from ted and others' commentary on the turn against absinthe, the wine industry is a tight knit circle of good ole' boys... it's not uncommon for critics to be paid off to boost the rating of an off year or to stay in favor of certain wineries... but unfortunately, yes, parker's tastes do not often allow for regional character and such... and perhaps he may be almost single-handedly changing the global wine market for the worse.
|By Absinthedrinker on Wednesday, April 25, 2001 - 02:58 am: Edit|
Parker is certainly a controversial figure in wine circles and he has unintentionally altered both the market for fine wines and their style. Not necessarily in a good way though. It is a fact that if a pre-release wine is given the magical 100 points its value will soar even before it reaches the market. Getting a high 'Parker score' is very important to some wineries and they may feel obliged to assemble wines in a style that Parker likes to ensure this. What it means is that one man's taste is dictating the market. Parker likes big upfront fruit driven wines which - with no disrespect intended - is seen in Europe as a Californian style. Many French wine growing areas cannot easily produce this style, their growing conditions and climate do not support it, so in trying to impress Parker they produce an artificial wine with no regional character. I think Parker has had a disproportionate influence in wine circles, just as at the other end of the scale in the UK Malcolm Gluck has.
So half of the wine makers are pissed off and the other half are trying to brown nose him, I'm not sure that this is good for individuality in wine making.
|By Grimbergen on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 10:46 pm: Edit|
Thanks. I think that is the most interesting article I've ever read on wine.
|By Artemis on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 06:36 pm: Edit|
Sometime back the Distilled Beverage Digest contained the following link. I finally got around to checking it out and found it to be interesting reading:
|Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only|
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation