The Auswine Forum

New Zealand is not a producer of quality wine, well at least according to Robert Parker, Jr. It’s a bold statement, even if it does come from one considered to be the dominant exponent of wine swirling, sniffing, slurping, spitting and scoring. But what is Parker’s assertion based upon? What is his experience with New Zealand wine? Only one way to really find out and that is to surf across to eRobertParker.com and explore his wine data base to see what New Zealand wines he has tasted.

Of the 20 countries listed in the database New Zealand ranks 12th, ahead of Greece (58 wines), Japan (48 wines), Ukraine (7 wines), Algeria (2 wines), Morocco (2 wines), Hungary (1 wine), Israel (1 wine), and Lebanon (1 wine). There are 191 wine reviews listed for New Zealand, but that number is deceptive because it represents the number of wines recommended; there may well have been several fold more than 191 tasted. What is a recommended wine? Usually it scores 85 or above on the 100 point scale. In the case of the 191 wines this is correct as 34 were rated between 90-95 and 155 between 80-89. However none of the wines had scores below 85; there were 2 wines where the score was not recorded.

Thirty-four wines scored 90-95 points, or outstanding. What Robert Parker, Jr describes as a “wine of exceptional complexity and character.” But no wines were rated as extraordinary, that is scored greater than 95 points. These are wines of “profound and complex character displaying all the attributes expected of a classic wine of its variety.” Does that say anything about the overall quality of New Zealand wine as assessed by The Wine Advocate? Its difficult to judge given that there is no indication of the total number of wines tasted. Parker usually recommends around 30% of Australian wines, and if that was the case for New Zealand then he may have tasted as many as 636 wines. But as he seems not to favor New Zealand wine all that much the percentage of recommended wines may be lower, let’s say its 10%. That would put the quantity of tasted wines closer to 1200. Seems like quite a sizeable number! How does it compare with the total number of wines produced in New Zealand? Michael Cooper, in his 2007 Buyer’s Guide to New Zealand Wines, notes that there are some 550 wineries producing a total of 3,000 wines, and he tasted and rated 2,740 for his annual review. But Parker’s reviews are not from a single year, nor are they from just a few vintages, they span 1990 to 2004. The greatest number of wines recommended was for the 1999 vintage with 40 wines, followed by 2002 (38 wines), 2001 (23 wines), 1998 (20 wines), 2003 (19 wines), 2000 (11 wines), 2004 (10 wines), 1991 (6 wines), 1996 (5 wines), 1997 (4 wines), 1990 (2 wines) and one wine for each vintage between 1992-1995. Do they represent an adequate sampling of the wines of New Zealand? Well, a decade ago there were 200 wineries and 1,000 wines. So finding less than 10 wines to recommend from any vintage in the early to mid-mid-1990s suggests that a small number of wines were tasted or that Parker was finding very little to recommend! Lets look at two of the years where he scored the most wines and see if there has been improvement in the scores with time. In 1999 he recommended 40 wines, 36 of which were in the 80-89 point range. In 2002 he recommended 38 wines and 26 were in the 80-89 point group. Over that short period more wines have made it into the Outstanding group and more red wines have been recommended than in 1999; 15 as opposed to 6. But these are small numbers and without knowing the actual number of wines tasted its hard to draw any firm conclusions.

Let’s look at the 191 wines a few other ways. Where have they come from? Has Parker at least found wines to recommend in the major wine growing regions? Marlborough is the big winner with 106 wines recommended, followed by Hawkes Bay (24 wines), Wairarapa (16 wines), Otago (7 wines), Nelson (6 wines), South Island (1 wine), Waiheke Island (1 wine), and then Unclassified (30 wines). These numbers are not all that inconsistent with wine production if you consider the regions in terms of the most recent percentage of national production; Marlborough (47.7%), Hawke’s Bay (20.0%), Gisborne (8.3%), Otago (5.5%), Canterbury (4.1%), Wairarapa (3.4%), Nelson, (3.2%), Auckland (incl. Waiheke Isl) (2.4%), Waikato/Bay of Plenty (0.6%). Perhaps Gisborne has missed out, but then one might argue that if you don’t make the list that may be a good thing!

What about varieties? Clearly Sauvignon Blanc, with 79 wines, is the favorite but most wineries have at least one and sometimes multiple SBs. Next comes Pinot Noir (30 wines), followed by Chardonnay (27 wines). Nothing too unexpected there, but it is interesting to note that Parker’s critique of New Zealand wine scolds these three varietals, the three that he has recommended the most. I find that just a little odd.

Next came Riesling (25 wines), over half (14 wines) coming from Marlborough. Then came Proprietary Blends (17 wines) of which three were white (Selaks Ice Wine). The other red varietals, apart from Pinot Noir, were Cabernet Sauvignon (4 wines), Syrah (3 wines), Cabernet Franc (2 wines), and Merlot (2 wines). Single examples of Pinot Gris and Viognier also made the list.

It just does not seem all that impressive an experience, does it? The numbers just don’t support an extensive experience of New Zealand wine at The Wine Advocate. And its difficult to argue otherwise because if that is the case then the last time that Ata Rangi made decent Pinot was 1995-6, Felton Road 1997, and Martinborough Vineyard and Villa Maria only got it right in 2000. And Cloudy Bay only ever made Sauvignon Blanc worth recommending in 1990? No, Parker’s recommendations hint at a lack of exposure to the wines of New Zealand.

What about other reviewers? How does the Wine Spectator see New Zealand wine? In 2006 they rated 184 wines. None of the wines received scores between 95-100, 20% scored between 90-94, 56%, between 85-89, 18% between 80-84, and 6% found their way into the 50-79 point group. By comparison 862 Australian wines were rated with 1% in the 95-100 point group and 26% received 90-94 points, 61%, between 85-89, 10% between 80-84, and 2% found their way into the 50-79 point group. Those percentages seen very similar and certainly a lot better than Argentina with 18% in the 50-79 point group.

Now somewhere at the back of the room I can hear a murmur complaining “All this is just about Parker and points. Who cares?” Well the take home message is quite simple. When you think of New Zealand wine, what comes to mind?

“Not Robert Parker!”
“Sauvignon Blanc.”
“Yes, and Pinot Noir.”

Correct, and isn’t it interesting that New Zealand wine has established an international standing, particularly for Sauvignon Blanc, without the help of the lawyer from Maryland! If they can be left alone long enough maybe we’ll get other wines that speak of New Zealand - Pinot Noir and Syrah and Riesling, and…….

Mike

Long post, forced myself to read it

There are plenty of forums where nz wine punches above its weight.

All I can say is thank the good Lord that Parker (and more importantly his tribe of nappy wearing points lemmings) stay away from NZ wine. The quantities are too small and I like being able to get hold of the ones that I like relatively easily, and relatively cheaply without having to kiss ass.

I dont need any crusty old dude telling me what I should like and what I shouldnt especially when it comes to NZ wine

As you were. At ease

C.

There seem to be 'have' and 'have not' wine countries/regions nowadays, doesn't there? If Parker - and, to a lesser extent other major critics - review a region and give big scores (e.g., Australia), the producers will be very happy, and the prices can be increased substancially. Of course, consumers who aren't flush with cash will be less happy.

While Bordeaux first growths have always been expensive, the prices are now OTT. Ditto for Burgundy. The 2005 vintage seems to be where a new, crazy bar is being set. Nouveau riche speculators and label drinkers don't seems to care what the prices are; the higher the price, the higher the status.

Those regions that aren't systematically reviewed (e.g., New Zealand, Loire, Canada, Western Oz) tend not to have the current wine paradigm (big, concentrated, rich wines, especially reds), which I guess is why they aren't reviewed as much in the first place. But no big scores, no crazy prices. Of course, there are always local exceptions - a Canadian winery sells one wine for over $125! - but usually the overall prices remain reasonable.

The Loire has to be the most 'undervalued' wine region in the world today - long may it remain so! - but NZ isn't too far behind.

Of course, the critics have have a hand in globally increasing wine quality, and that's a great gift. But I don't think Parker can call himself a 'consumer advocate' anymore. He's responsible for this recent price craziness, and one could argue that he 'hurts' consumers as much as he 'helps' them now.

Parker notes that much better wines are made now, and that's why wine scores are so high now. Fair enough. But if wine quality has increased so much, isn't it time to change the scoring system to correspond with new quality levels? That is, should a 90 now reflect a better wine than 10 years ago?

I really think it's an important point, as much of the frenzy created is by the increasing number high-90s scoring wines. It's like people can't resist when the scores are so close to 'perfection'! I wonder if somebody's written a paper on the psychology of wine scores?!? There's gottas be a thesis on all these new 100 point Spanish wines!!!

Bottom line, I think it's great for consumers if Parker avoids your favourite region! Kiwi wine lovers should rejoice Parker's lack of interest!

Interesting article Mike, but you are making the assumption that Parker has tasted all the wines in his database. The fact is that when it comes to NZ wines, Parker has usually passed the job onto someone else. In the actual Wine Advocate, it states who tasted them.

Parker himself did taste Craggy Range, Trinity Hill and some others a couple of years ago when Steve Smith MW and John Hancock were granted a personal audience with him. But remember that Pierre Rovani joined WA in 1996 and he always did the NZ reviews. Now that Rovani has left, David Schkildnecht has been assigned NZ.

I think Parker gave up on NZ wines, and formed his impression that all sauvignon blanc was 'cat's piss', when he tasted some sauvignon blanc in the 1980's.

1986 Hunter's Sauvignon Blanc has the dubious honour of receiving a whopping 50 points (Wine Advocate Issue 47, October 1986). Parker described it as "excessively vegetal and tart, horrible". I don't think Parker ever got over it.

it is quite clear that New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc doesn't need Parker points to sell. It's world class quality and the proof is in the taste. Consumers who love it speak with their wallets.

Consumers who love it speak with their wallets.

{applause and cheering}

exactly!!!

I dont need anyone to tell me what to spend my money on. Im married!

First, I think you'll find that the Wine Advocate's views (the publication) on NZ wines will likely change substantially now that Schildknecht is doing the reviews. His palate is much more in tune with cool-climate regions in the Old World--Loire, Burgundy, Germany--and there's no reaason to think that his preferences won't be transferable to the New World (see his largely positive reviews of Long Island wines).

Second, to agree with Sue, the world has spoken by making NZ wines some of the most expensive in the world in dollars-per-liter terms. The latest Nielsen sales data in the U.S. put NZ as the fastest growing wine-import country for the 52 weeks ending January 13, growing 38.4% over the previous year--admittedly off what is a small base in U.S. terms.

Third, at the risk of plugging myself and the publication I work for too much, since May 2001, I've reviewed more than 1100 NZ wines scoring 80 points or higher for Wine Enthusiast Magazine here in the U.S. and traveled to NZ to research stories in 2000 and 2005. However, I will confess that the highest I've ever rated a NZ wine is 94 points. I think when it comes to stacking up the Pinots alongside top vintages of Jayer or DRC, they're still not there. That's no snub, because I do think NZ wines offer (for the most part) very high quality.

SueNZ wrote:Interesting article Mike, but you are making the assumption that Parker has tasted all the wines in his database. The fact is that when it comes to NZ wines, Parker has usually passed the job onto someone else. In the actual Wine Advocate, it states who tasted them.

Parker himself did taste Craggy Range, Trinity Hill and some others a couple of years ago when Steve Smith MW and John Hancock were granted a personal audience with him. But remember that Pierre Rovani joined WA in 1996 and he always did the NZ reviews. Now that Rovani has left, David Schkildnecht has been assigned NZ.

I think Parker gave up on NZ wines, and formed his impression that all sauvignon blanc was 'cat's piss', when he tasted some sauvignon blanc in the 1980's.

1986 Hunter's Sauvignon Blanc has the dubious honour of receiving a whopping 50 points (Wine Advocate Issue 47, October 1986). Parker described it as "excessively vegetal and tart, horrible". I don't think Parker ever got over it.

it is quite clear that New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc doesn't need Parker points to sell. It's world class quality and the proof is in the taste. Consumers who love it speak with their wallets.

Hi Sue

I thought someone would raise the points that you have mentioned.

I put the focus on Parker because of the comment that he made in Business Week online on February 7th, 2007. For those who may not have followed the link the quote is The cool-climate wines of New Zealand have long been popular with wine critics. But to me, the pinot noirs are often too vegetal and green, the sauvignon blancs reminiscent of cat pee, and the chardonnays grotesquely over-oaked. This is a country of young wine producers where everything remains a work in progress, but for now the prices of these wines do not translate to quality in the bottle.

I didn’t break down the reviewed wines by reviewer because Parker is in essence responsible for his publication, and the consensus was that he had great regard for Pierre Rovani’s palate. The numbers of recommended wines quite clearly show that neither found much to like; Rovani did review most of the wines beginning with a couple in 1996 and doing most of the work from 1998 onwards. Whether David Schkildnecht will bring about a change, only time will tell.

Your last point is truly the bottom line. No one has had to give New Zealand Sauvignon Blanc 100 points to make wine drinkers want to buy it. It would be interesting to know if points or stars or gold medals or any accolades at all have contributed to the success of the wine style - or whether its just simple word of mouth among wine drinkers.

Mike

I think Craig's first post summed it up pretty well. My only beef with NZ wines is the price - don't know whether I should be blaming WET alone - did the NZ producers ever manage the wangle the small-production exemption granted to Australian wineries?
You'd think if the 20-something nations of the EU can trade freely amongst themselves, we'd manage to do the same - both of us....
cheers,
Graeme

Parker commenting on NZ is a bit like me commenting on basket weaving. Sure I could have a go, but I doubt any sane person would go out and buy a basket based on my opinion.

KMP - well done. An interesting analysis of WA results.

Your post in reply to Sue highlights Parker's comment. Frankly, I cannot disagree with his comment.
1. Many of our reds are vegetal - too much so, even for a cool climate. This applies equally to Hawke Bay Merlots as it does to Pinot noir. Much of this is strongly linked to price - our wines are over priced - not helped by having a sales-tax added to the excise tax, meaning that the tax on a $20 bottle is $4.00.

Then the maritime climate creates high viticulture costs - in turn high fruit costs to wineries - and high winemaking costs because of isolation.

2. Chardonnays are over oaked - yes and under-fruited. Not cool climate, but once again caused by everyone in the chain having to make some money from the product.

3. Sauvignon blanc tastes of cats pee - and it surely does; which appears to be the international preference as it sells so well in UK, Canada, USA and many other places.

That this is so (the selling), does not make it a good wine or a better than average wine it simply means that this is what the consumers like to drink. When compared to other international offerings, it is fresh, fruity, and has a real zing of acidity that few Australian or Californian wines can match. The flavours are obvious and simple, but then as most drinkers are not sophisticated or wine knowledgable, that too is an advantage.

Call it the yellowtail of the white-wine world.

And - before you all bag yellowtail - remember this wine now sells >7 MILLION cases in the US market alone. A wine designed for and marketed to a specific type of wine drinker. VERY clever marketing and winemaking. They, like the NZ Sauvignon blanc, are producing the wine that the consumer wants - and the consumeres are voting with their wallets.

Finally, I know that NZ Pinot will improve significantly over the next 15 years. Why? Currently, few makers have access to vines older than five or seven years (Ata Rangi and Neudorf apart); if we are doing so well now - just think about this - and look forward to some pretty awesome stuff from 2012 on.

Maybe it takes more than trying a couple of hundred wines from a country to work out who makes great chardonnay that isnt overoaked, ripe merlot and pinot and super sauvignon blanc?

all exist, i manage to find enough of them among the crap to blow my budget. do i need more great producers?? probably not

Craig(NZ) wrote:Maybe it takes more than trying a couple of hundred wines .................................

The Wine Advocate (Parker/Rovani) recommended a couple of hundred NZ wines. Exactly how many they tasted is probably not something we are likely to know. I’ve asked eRP Support this type of question before about Australian wines and not received a definitive answer; all I got was the percentage of wines that are recommended.

Seeing as the redesigned eRobertParker.com is being tested by subscribers I’ve looked again to see if more can be found. But all I can get is a one page regional profile from Robert Parker’s Wine Buyer's Guide, 5th Edition, 1999 titled THE WINES OF NEW ZEALAND. It begins “An enormous amount of hype is associated with New Zealand's wines. The world's media appears to be enamored with this nation and its vinous products. Having tasted countless numbers the following is clear.”

You can decide for yourselves what countless numbers means. For example, while I was in NZ during last December it seemed to me that I tasted countless numbers of Sauvignon Blancs, well at least one from every cellar door!

Mike

EDIT: I should also point out that the search mode for the online Wine Advocate only goes back to Issue #79 February 21, 1992. This is why the 50 points for the 1986 Hunter's Sauvignon Blanc (Wine Advocate Issue 47, October 1986) commented upon by SueNZ above did not make it into the 191 wines.

Craig(NZ) wrote:Maybe it takes more than trying a couple of hundred wines from a country to work out who makes great chardonnay that isnt overoaked, ripe merlot and pinot and super sauvignon blanc?

all exist, i manage to find enough of them among the crap to blow my budget. do i need more great producers?? probably not

Here you are both right and wrong. Of course there are wines that we locals can source - but Parker (and Serge) don't have that time-availability. They have to make their judgements on what they are able to source, in the time available to them.

A similar comment might be made by the French - "he concentrates on so few of our 20,000 labels ..." or the Aussies for that matter.

When KMP posted the quote - I found little to disagree with. We do produce thin, over-extracted white wines - it's called pleasing the CFOs and shareholders; many (dare I say most) of our red wines are thin and green (indeed, Hawke Bay has a monopoly on vegetal Merlots and Cabernets). Though many Marlborough Sauvignons are zingy - how many have any mid-palate and depth? I can number about six.

The vaunted Pinot noir of Central Otago - well, in 2002 I put a Pinotage into a tasting of 13 CO Pinots at a winemakers' evening. Eight CO winemakers rated it #5 of the 14 wines. Now the cheapest CO Pinot was $32 - the Pinotage was $13. They were a little upset - but they did rate it themselves. Again, there are some magnificent wines made there in some years - about 5 in the fifty I tasted - this simply is not good enough nor justification of their pricing.

Marlborough Pinots fall into two camps, cheap and cheerful ($20 mark) or purporting to be "serious" at $40. I tolerate the former - high-cropped, machine picked, clean, but often thin and green - because they don't make any pretentious claims. Many of the latter however are barely any better but double the price. Yes, Pinot is expensive to grow and to make, but this does not justify charging high prices for sub-standard wines. I agree, the standard is subjective - I do expect Pinot to be generous in the mid palate - but few are; I do expect it to have texture and to have length; few succeed.

Indeed, this is my general condemnation of NZ wines - they lack mid palate and length, the promise made on the nose is frequently failed on the palate. They are accountants' wines - the "quaility" refers not to the wine but to the dividend. Oh, and I'm not against profits in any way.

So, in general, I have to agree with Parker's comments; in specifics, there I can disagree - but who has the time to sort through 3000 labels to find the 20 or 30 that are worthy of 95 points?

Speaking from limited experience here. While I agree that there is not an over abundance of amazing wine, I'm not sure I see New Zealand as greatly different from many other wine producing countries. There is some good wine, there is certainly potential and there are clearly enthusiastic and knowledgeable people. I'm hoping I can find the time to get all my notes written up on the wines we tasted last December because we did find some excellent wines among quite a bit of ordinary stuff. But then I did ask for opinions on where to visit rather than just fronting up to any and every cellar door. It is sometimes difficult to form a confident opinion about a wine by tasting at the CD. Its probably not a coincidence that some of the better opinions I formed came when winemakers spent time with me and showed me their wines over several hours.

We don't have a large selection of NZ wine to survey here in the USA. I've tasted two this week. The first was the 2006 Lynskeys Gewurztraminer, Single Vineyard, Marlborough, NZ ($21.99USD) which has a beautiful aromatic nose (some might call it blowsy) but on the palate it is a tremendous let down – the midpalate and finish just fade to nothing. The other is the 2006 Wild Rock Cupids Arrow Pinot Noir, Central Otago, NZ. This is only $15.99USD, but I’m confused by this wine. It seems to be a mix of ripe and slightly unripe fruit – quite aromatic, with a hint of sweetness but with a hardness to the astringency. And as I was sitting back smelling it last night (with my eyes closed) I suddenly thought I had a glass of Riesling in my hand. Now THAT is about as weird a wine experience as I want.

Mike

Great thread: nicely thought out analysis and an important topic, given that it now seems that Parker and WS influence most wine buyers worldwide.

I respect many qualities in Robert Parker, but I have been observing a sad evolution in his views: he seems to think more and more that only what he knows and likes is worthy of interest. This comment on NZ, so one-sided and final, as well as others he has made recently on his the Squires forum (e.g. Chinon doesn't produce great wine, Valtellina produces uninteresting wines, etc) make me think that he has given up on one fundamental aspect in wine: discovery!

In fact, even with his old favourites (Bordeaux, Rhône, etc) his reviews have become much less accurate and, mostly, much less daring: he sticks to what he has said in previous (comparable) vintages. In some cases, the descriptions are, quite bluntly put, shallow...

A wise man would focus on what he does best and let others (yes there are many other worthy critics in the world!) do what they do well: taste and report on wines they understand well.

agree there are some quality comments in this thread. Good thoughts everyone!

but again in the one universe in which I am the centre, there is enough quality NZ wine to blow my budget, so hey what else could I ask for??

whether a writer in the US gets his rocks off on NZ wine or not really doesnt affect me, except that the wine may be cheaper as a result.

Only a fool would complain at that!