A bit of fun - Parker 100 pointers
SueNZ wrote:An emailer from Glengarry's arrived with a Neal Martin review and score credited to Robert Parker. The have put the review in quotes and Robert Parker's name at the end of it - not Neal Martin's name.
Sounds like Parker's name has a lot of cachet in NZ as well. His fame truly knoweth no boundaries
cheers
Carl
Bartenders are supposed to have people skills. Or was it people are supposed to have bartending skills?
More Parker Reviews
More of Neal Martin's reviews attributed to Mr Parker....
From the Fine Wine Delivery Email today, promoting Millton Opou Vineyard 2005 Chardonnay
They add "2006 has just been awarded 93/100 Robert Parker".
Also from the Wine Deli in Queenstown, received today
"Robert Parker reviews April 2008:
RIPPON PINOT NOIR 2004: 95/100 SOLD OUT
RIPPON PINOT NOIR 2006: 95/100 JUST RELEASED AVAILABLE NOW"
From the Fine Wine Delivery Email today, promoting Millton Opou Vineyard 2005 Chardonnay
They add "2006 has just been awarded 93/100 Robert Parker".
Also from the Wine Deli in Queenstown, received today
"Robert Parker reviews April 2008:
RIPPON PINOT NOIR 2004: 95/100 SOLD OUT
RIPPON PINOT NOIR 2006: 95/100 JUST RELEASED AVAILABLE NOW"
SueNZ wrote:An emailer from Glengarry's arrived with a Neal Martin review and score credited to Robert Parker. The have put the review in quotes and Robert Parker's name at the end of it - not Neal Martin's name.
Response to my email to Glengarry
"Thanks for your email, yes correct Neil Martin for Robert Parkers Wine
Advocate. We have made some changes to our site to reflect this. "
But I still notice the quote for the Grasshopper Rock is attributed to RP
www.glengarry.co.nz
Edit Fri 23rd. Glengarry website is now attributing NM - and the name is spelt correctly too after I replied to above email pointing out it was Neal, not Neil.
Last edited by SueNZ on Fri May 23, 2008 4:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
KMP
- Posts: 1246
- Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 4:02 am
- Location: Expat, now in San Diego, California
- Contact:
The correct identification of the reviewers for The Wine Advocate was always going to be a problem with the recent increase in reviewers. When it was just Rovani it seemed like it was not a significant problem probably because it was not that hard to remember who was doing what. But now that there are at least half a dozen reviewers (and that's just for wine - there is also food/restaurant reviews now) and it has become pretty difficult to remember who reviews what. With Martin its even more complicated because it seems he reviews whatever he wants. His Wine Journal on EBob is now up to its 6th article on New Zealand - in addition to the reviews that recently came out in print and online for NZ in general.
Parker himself has written "Neal Martin's reviews are his opinions and do not reflect the views of Robert M. Parker or other Wine Advocate writers.", so it might be interesting to ask the NZ wineries/retailers/etc who use either RP or TWA as a selling point if they actually know this! After all Parker wrote of New Zealand wine in 1999 "However, the majority of this nation's wines are overly-processed and too expensive for the quality they deliver. " Now in 2008 we have Martin writing "New Zealand wines can be outstanding value" - the underline is his emphasis
Mike
Parker himself has written "Neal Martin's reviews are his opinions and do not reflect the views of Robert M. Parker or other Wine Advocate writers.", so it might be interesting to ask the NZ wineries/retailers/etc who use either RP or TWA as a selling point if they actually know this! After all Parker wrote of New Zealand wine in 1999 "However, the majority of this nation's wines are overly-processed and too expensive for the quality they deliver. " Now in 2008 we have Martin writing "New Zealand wines can be outstanding value" - the underline is his emphasis
Mike
Wycroft wrote:I've had a quick email dialogue with Neal. He says it's disappointing and will probably ask NZ Winegrowers to monitor it and request proper clarification in cases where people are using Parker's name incorrectly.
At ease people.
That would be good. In the meantime I will still highlight the stuff that comes through to me with incorrect attribution.
BTW, the first correctly attributed and well-explained Press Release about Neal Martin, the Wine Advocate, the scoring system, etc, that I have seen is from Rockburn. Well done, Rockburn.
KMP wrote: After all Parker wrote of New Zealand wine in 1999 [i]"However, the majority of this nation's wines are overly-processed and too expensive for the quality they deliver. "
Mike
Sound like Bordeaux 2006 and 2007 then ...
I saw that Robert Parker on an Oddbins whiteboard here in the UK as writing for the Wine Spectator. I popped in to mention that it might be wrong ... they looked at me like I was mad. I should just have a sign round my neck "Winegeek - beware".
Jay
“There are no standards of taste in wine. Each mans own taste is the standard, and a majority vote cannot decide for him or in any slightest degree affect the supremacy of his own standard". Mark Twain.
KMP wrote:The correct identification of the reviewers for The Wine Advocate was always going to be a problem with the recent increase in reviewers. When it was just Rovani it seemed like it was not a significant problem probably because it was not that hard to remember who was doing what....
Even so, here in NZ I would still see so many ratings for NZ wines attributed to Robert Parker, when it was usually Rovani that reviewed them. The only time, in recent years, that Parker himself saw the wines was when Steve Smith MW and John Hancock were granted a personal audience with him and showed him some of their own and other producers Hawkes Bay wines. And Parker did indeed write these up in the Wine Advocate himself, with some glowing reviews for some of the Craggy Range and Esk Valley wines in particular.
I also have copies of his early reviews of New Zealand wines from the 1980's. They were not highly scored and that is, I believe, when Robert Parker formed his ongoing opinion of NZ wines. But times have changed and the quality, most definitely.
SueNZ wrote:I also have copies of his early reviews of New Zealand wines from the 1980's. They were not highly scored and that is, I believe, when Robert Parker formed his ongoing opinion of NZ wines. But times have changed and the quality, most definitely.
Even in the 96 Buyers Guide (a book I picked up 4 years ago for $5 - any more and I wouldn't have bought it), the NZ page (one out of 800-odd) savaged Kiwi wines.
If retailers are desperate to flog wine using the lowest-common-denominator approach, they could simply say "Robert Parker's editor-at-large Neal Martin" - that, after all was his original brief, as I recall; his remit was not region-specific.
cheers,
Graeme
Wycroft wrote:Indeed Sue, please do keep citing examples if you see them.
Cheers,
Nick
Lovrich Wines www.lovrich.co.nz
Mt Difficulty Pinot Noir 2006 92-100 Robert Parker
Crossings Awatere Sauvingon Blanc (no vintage mentioned) 89/100 Robert Parker
There are others too, wines with no vintages and 'Robert Parker' scores.
Wooing Tree Wines www.wooingtree.co.nz
Wooing Tree Pinot Noir 2006 Robert Parker 92/100, "Great Pinot"
www.caros.co.nz
Of the New Zealand 90+ wines at least two reviews are attributed to "Robert Parker Wine Advocate". Others are attributed to "Robert Parkers Wine Advocate" (no apostrophe) or "R Parker Wine Advocate tasting". The reviewer is often referred to as "they".
Yet at least one overseas wine is attributed to Neal Martin, Wine Advocate.
http://www.martinus.co.nz/reviews.php?vintage=2006
Martinus Estate Pinot Noir 2006
Robert Parker 90-95
"An outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and Character. I consider these terrific wines. "
Fine Wine Delivery Company www.finewineonline.co.nz
Hawkshead Pinot Noir 2006 93 Robert Parker.
And so the list goes on
From the Fine Wine Delivery Co email yesterday
In the subject line: 95 Robert Parker NZ Sauvignon
In the email body: Pegasus Bay Sauvignon Semillon
Rated 95/100 by Robert Parker
Then further down the email: 95 Robert Parker - Highest Score Ever for NZ Sauvignon. Pegasus Bay Sauvignon Semillon 2007
Flicked an email back. Will update if I get a reply.
In the subject line: 95 Robert Parker NZ Sauvignon
In the email body: Pegasus Bay Sauvignon Semillon
Rated 95/100 by Robert Parker
Then further down the email: 95 Robert Parker - Highest Score Ever for NZ Sauvignon. Pegasus Bay Sauvignon Semillon 2007
Flicked an email back. Will update if I get a reply.
Hi Sue,
yeah, I saw that, and on the same day the following column was published in the Independent:
Mr Parker, we presume?
In case recent advertising had you thinking otherwise, Robert Parker has not tasted or rated any local wines recently
Nick Bryant
I wrote late last year of how pleased I was that an able lieutenant of the world’s most influential wine writer, Robert Parker, was soon to visit New Zealand.
Neal Martin toured the country in January and unlike Parker, who last visited in 1999, he found much to like in our fair isles. There was great encouragement right from his headline: “More than a ‘savalanche,’†where he eluded to the country providing interest in much more than sauvignon blanc. Where Parker said “New Zealand's attempts with cabernet sauvignon, merlot, and pinot noir continue to be annoyingly herbaceous and/or atrociously vegetal, with few exceptions,†and that the majority of our wines were “overly-processed and too expensive for the quality they deliver,†Martin came to some very different and largely complimentary conclusions, which I can’t adequately summarise here. I will say that he took his task so seriously that he rated over 1000 wines and to date has published over 80,000 words, a service for which the local wine community should be extremely grateful.
But have we responded with gratitude? If so, I’m sad to say numerous retailers and one or two wine producers have shown a pretty odd way of showing it.
Martin is not as famous as Parker. But then once upon a time Parker wasn’t famous either. Martin isn’t far off becoming pretty famous, thanks in large part to Parker’s belief that his talents warrant being publicly aligned with him as an official correspondent on his website and in his quarterly publication, The Wine Advocate, in which Martin’s New Zealand opus appeared last month.
However, local retailers don’t seem too interested in the fact that Martin’s 15 minutes of fame is just beginning. They’d rather squeeze hard on the last remnants of Parker’s. (I don’t say this because Parker is losing his touch – far from it; I’m just noting that he’s achieved practically everything he could hope to in his chosen career and is no spring chicken, hence the recruitment of Martin and some others).
Since Martin’s report was published my inbox has been besieged by email offers from retailers telling me that Robert Parker has rated this wine 94 out of 100, and that wine 93, such is the cachet of Parker’s name. Shamefully, none have so much as mentioned the name of the man who reviewed the wine. Yet every one of these retailers knows full well that Parker didn’t taste or review the wines.
I asked Neal Martin how he feels about this.
He responded that he was concerned, and would probably ask his hosts, New Zealand Winegrowers, to monitor the practice on his behalf.
“It's always a shame when you work so hard for weeks on a report and then it is credited to someone else – even if it is Robert Parker!â€Â
Aside from the questionable ethics at play, another issue frustrates me. Parker knows that he and Martin have very different palates, yet he respects Martin for his talents. How different are their palates? Parker is American and Martin is British. Given a choice of biscuits I’m sure Parker would choose a mallow-puff; Martin would probably opt for a gingernut. I’m not going to make such a sweeping and subjective suggestion as Martin having a more sophisticated palate than Parker. But without doubt there are cases of big, intense, showy wines which Parker has rated highly but Martin has marked down for, in his opinion, lacking elegance, balance and refinement. Each of those latter descriptors are strived for by most local winemakers. So, shouldn’t we be talking up the guy whose palate better matches the wines we make?
yeah, I saw that, and on the same day the following column was published in the Independent:
Mr Parker, we presume?
In case recent advertising had you thinking otherwise, Robert Parker has not tasted or rated any local wines recently
Nick Bryant
I wrote late last year of how pleased I was that an able lieutenant of the world’s most influential wine writer, Robert Parker, was soon to visit New Zealand.
Neal Martin toured the country in January and unlike Parker, who last visited in 1999, he found much to like in our fair isles. There was great encouragement right from his headline: “More than a ‘savalanche,’†where he eluded to the country providing interest in much more than sauvignon blanc. Where Parker said “New Zealand's attempts with cabernet sauvignon, merlot, and pinot noir continue to be annoyingly herbaceous and/or atrociously vegetal, with few exceptions,†and that the majority of our wines were “overly-processed and too expensive for the quality they deliver,†Martin came to some very different and largely complimentary conclusions, which I can’t adequately summarise here. I will say that he took his task so seriously that he rated over 1000 wines and to date has published over 80,000 words, a service for which the local wine community should be extremely grateful.
But have we responded with gratitude? If so, I’m sad to say numerous retailers and one or two wine producers have shown a pretty odd way of showing it.
Martin is not as famous as Parker. But then once upon a time Parker wasn’t famous either. Martin isn’t far off becoming pretty famous, thanks in large part to Parker’s belief that his talents warrant being publicly aligned with him as an official correspondent on his website and in his quarterly publication, The Wine Advocate, in which Martin’s New Zealand opus appeared last month.
However, local retailers don’t seem too interested in the fact that Martin’s 15 minutes of fame is just beginning. They’d rather squeeze hard on the last remnants of Parker’s. (I don’t say this because Parker is losing his touch – far from it; I’m just noting that he’s achieved practically everything he could hope to in his chosen career and is no spring chicken, hence the recruitment of Martin and some others).
Since Martin’s report was published my inbox has been besieged by email offers from retailers telling me that Robert Parker has rated this wine 94 out of 100, and that wine 93, such is the cachet of Parker’s name. Shamefully, none have so much as mentioned the name of the man who reviewed the wine. Yet every one of these retailers knows full well that Parker didn’t taste or review the wines.
I asked Neal Martin how he feels about this.
He responded that he was concerned, and would probably ask his hosts, New Zealand Winegrowers, to monitor the practice on his behalf.
“It's always a shame when you work so hard for weeks on a report and then it is credited to someone else – even if it is Robert Parker!â€Â
Aside from the questionable ethics at play, another issue frustrates me. Parker knows that he and Martin have very different palates, yet he respects Martin for his talents. How different are their palates? Parker is American and Martin is British. Given a choice of biscuits I’m sure Parker would choose a mallow-puff; Martin would probably opt for a gingernut. I’m not going to make such a sweeping and subjective suggestion as Martin having a more sophisticated palate than Parker. But without doubt there are cases of big, intense, showy wines which Parker has rated highly but Martin has marked down for, in his opinion, lacking elegance, balance and refinement. Each of those latter descriptors are strived for by most local winemakers. So, shouldn’t we be talking up the guy whose palate better matches the wines we make?
The one that really annoyed me was John Hawkesby in the Saturday Herald magazine, where he started with Robert Parker's (the man himself) criticism of NZ wines as 'annoyingly herbacious and atrociously vegetal' and finishes with 'Parker and his tasting team' 'extolling the virtues of NZ wine - Hawkes Bay reds in particular' and ends with the awful line "thank you Mr Parker , we knew [they were good] already - glad you've caught up' which is just bollocks. AFAIK Parker hasn't changed his opinions on NZ wine and not to even mention that it was Neal Martin's notes is seriously poor form or very sloppy writing.
Rob
Rob