The Auswine Forum

The stated procedure is When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner.

The reality is this (LINK)

I guess Parker could argue that the text refers to how he tastes and does apply to his independent contractors like Dr. Jay Miller. But why then do the good Doctor's reviews appear in The Wine Advocate?

Mike

KMP wrote:The stated procedure is When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner.

The reality is this (LINK)

I guess Parker could argue that the text refers to how he tastes and does apply to his independent contractors like Dr. Jay Miller. But why then do the good Doctor's reviews appear in The Wine Advocate?

Mike

I don't believe a word that comes out of that mans (parkers) mouth. He's satan, or stalin. Maybe both.

Back in the days when I was exporting to th US, our agents had Robert Parker for a day for him to taste the wines they handled. We were asked to provide up to date information about our wines and our operation.

The agent asked for the information to be as informative as we could so when our wines were tasted, the agent would be able to tell Mr Parker all he could about us. I was told that there is only a few minutes of opportunity for each winery to impress Mr. Parker. He knew what the wines were while he was tasting.

KMP wrote:The stated procedure is When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner.

That quote is completely misleading, to say the least.

It gives a completely dishonest impression about the way the wines are tasted. Credibility? None!

TORB wrote:

KMP wrote:The stated procedure is When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner.

That quote is completely misleading, to say the least.

It gives a completely dishonest impression about the way the wines are tasted. Credibility? None!

Concurred!

Rawshack wrote:

TORB wrote:

KMP wrote:The stated procedure is When possible all of my tastings are done in peer-group, single-blind conditions, (meaning that the same types of wines are tasted against each other and the producers' names are not known). The ratings reflect an independent, critical look at the wines. Neither price nor the reputation of the producer/grower affect the rating in any manner.

That quote is completely misleading, to say the least.

It gives a completely dishonest impression about the way the wines are tasted. Credibility? None!

Concurred!

I can't question his ideals but can only comment on how his procedures affected me. I guess his let-out is ""whenever possible" but the inference in how he does his job is plain.

I look for what’s good. Winemakers tend to look for flaws, and wine competitions favor clean, pristine wines rather than wines with personality. I’m looking for pleasure. I’m looking for the Wow factor, for something extraordinary. A 100-point wine is an experience, a Zen concept—words only diminish it—but when it happens, you know it.

Couldnt agree more. Great philosophy

Well, this:

KMP wrote: When possible..

is clearly the 'out.' Obviously it's not possible with regard to Chilean wines.
I don't think it really matters, as long as people don't think otherwise. Or even then. Heck, it doesn't take long to work out whether a reviewer's full of ... er, it, or not.
Although, part of that is writing a bad review from time to time. Whatever you think of Jeremy Oliver, or his preferences, his early review of the 98 Mt Edelstone certainly proved his ability to think for himself.

I don't think a lot of this "we only publish reviews of wines we think are worth drinking". Or, to qualify that, if a wine is regularly reviewed/praised, but then a reviewer fails to note a weak vintage but holds a review until a better one comes along, then he's doing his readers a disservice.
cheers,
Graeme

GraemeG wrote:Well, this:

KMP wrote: When possible..

is clearly the 'out.' I don't think it really matters, as long as people don't think otherwise.

Graeme,

I am willing to bet the majority of subscribers of TWA would take the claim on face value. Its only a very small percent that would read the Forums and know the real situation.

Why make the claim when it is such a tiny percentage of the reviews in TWA? Because it sounds good! IMO that means Parker (at least in this regard) is more interested in spin and his image than the truth.

ohhhhhhhhh noooooooooo. not the dreaded Parker thread. This is like a virus that infects respectable wine forums.

Agreed. Although it's a relief we're not existing in the midst of Parkermania, as we were some years back. Now he seems to be more of a polarising curio to me... although I'm not an old vine winemaker with distribution deals to the US.

rooman wrote:ohhhhhhhhh noooooooooo. not the dreaded Parker thread. This is like a virus that infects respectable wine forums.

Wayno wrote:Agreed. Although it's a relief we're not existing in the midst of Parkermania, as we were some years back. Now he seems to be more of a polarising curio to me... although I'm not an old vine winemaker with distribution deals to the US.

I understand your comments but one of the reasons for all the kerfuffle on wine forums and blogs everywhere is the concern about the procedure Jay Miller uses to taste wines and whether he has serious conflicts of interest with his socializing with winemakers and others. Much of the current to-and-fro concerns his visit to Chile but even before that there was comment about his interactions with certain Aussie winemakers and one exporter/distributor in particular; some of that is on TORB’s site. There have been rumors for some time that even Parker does not follow his own written procedures when tasting, but as Graeme says the “When possible….” has always been an out for him. He has been staunch in defending his rules that he takes no dinners, gifts etc from winemakers, etc. But he does defend his socializing (and those of his “independent contractors”) with such individuals as long as he pays his way, which some of us might see as bending your rules to suit your own purposes. (With things like “when possible” and “independent contractors” being thrown about it is worth noting that both Parker and Squires (who moderates the eBob forum) were lawyers in former lives.)

Now Parker may seem to be a “polarising curio” unless you are “an old vine winemaker with distribution deals to the US” but in truth the reviews in The Wine Advocate are read and used to sell wine worldwide and without question influence the wine buying public. The publication does have the power to make or break wines, winemakers and, I would contend, wine making countries. That has become quite evident on the eBob forum with the backlash against Australian wines which were once a Parker favorite but have now been shuffled off to someone who is increasingly seen as having some ethical issues. Neither of which can be good for Australian wine, irrespective of whether its in The Wine Advocate or not. The perception that Australian wine has been discarded by, arguably, the world’s premier wine critic carries far beyond the readers of The Wine Advocate, and far beyond the wines that are reviewed by that publication.

Unfortunately the status quo is such that the voices that cry into the wilderness of wine forums and blogs are likely to have little impact on Parker’s influence.

Mike

KMP wrote:Unfortunately the status quo is such that the voices that cry into the wilderness of wine forums and blogs are likely to have little impact on Parker’s influence.

Mike

True. But who here puts any store in RPJ's influence locally? I've always thought his main influence was in France - but he was influential in deconstructing some Australian producers, seduced by the lure of fame and fortune, who succumbed, produced wines to appeal to just one palate. Then when those products can no longer find a market in the US or the UK, especially in the GFC, they get flogged off by local discounters as being at bargain (?) prices.

daz

yawn, I'm becoming incoherent

Mike,

The fact is that even when RMP was tasting the Australian wines, he tasted nonblind, with the importers present:

http://www.rolfbinder.com/index_alt.php?cmi=1064

As a critic myself, I am not one to throw stones at Mr Parker. I just find the recent furor among the blogosphere mildly amusing and want to point out that--possibly aside from the trips Miller has taken--the tasting process is essentially unchanged from when Parker was doing the reviewing. Miller just makes for an easier target.

Daryl Douglas wrote:True. But who here puts any store in RPJ's influence locally? I've always thought his main influence was in France - but he was influential in deconstructing some Australian producers, seduced by the lure of fame and fortune, who succumbed, produced wines to appeal to just one palate. Then when those products can no longer find a market in the US or the UK, especially in the GFC, they get flogged off by local discounters as being at bargain (?) prices.

daz

yawn, I'm becoming incoherent

As I said above - The perception that Australian wine has been discarded by, arguably, the world’s premier wine critic carries far beyond the readers of The Wine Advocate, and far beyond the wines that are reviewed by that publication. and the effects of that are likely to be felt in Oz as well as outside. Don't underestimate his influence.

Mike

Joe Cz wrote:Mike,

The fact is that even when RMP was tasting the Australian wines, he tasted nonblind, with the importers present:

http://www.rolfbinder.com/index_alt.php?cmi=1064

As a critic myself, I am not one to throw stones at Mr Parker. I just find the recent furor among the blogosphere mildly amusing and want to point out that--possibly aside from the trips Miller has taken--the tasting process is essentially unchanged from when Parker was doing the reviewing. Miller just makes for an easier target.

Hi Joe,

Yep, this is some of the stuff that I alluded to in my post above. But as Graeme noted Parker has always had the “When possible….” rider to explain any change in his tasting routine. For example its impossible to taste the way he says in The Wine Advocate when he is doing barrel tasting in Bordeaux.

Miller seems to be a different fish. He seems to like the publicity and exposure (which he would not get if he wasn’t linked to The Wine Advocate) and that has certainly been how he came to the attention of bloggers etc. Being a psychiatrist in his past life he is perhaps not as careful as Parker, the ex-lawyer.

However my real concern is that none of the recent publicity concerning policies at The Wine Advocate is good for Australian wine. How it eventually plays out will be interesting. The Australian wine industry needs international sales for growth; the local market simply cannot support all the growth that has occurred over the last few decades. But one thing is for sure Australia can no longer rely on Parker as their champion, and I don’t see anyone on the horizon with the same influence.

Mike
.

KMP wrote:But one thing is for sure Australia can no longer rely on Parker as their champion, and I don’t see anyone on the horizon with the same influence.
Mike
.

Parker's influence was always a double-edged sword. His near-total fixation on one style of rather-exaggerated if unique wine was really only ever going to benefit a few folks. There was a bit of a initial general benefit, until a lot of people began to realise that they were buying extreme, polarising, not especially-well-balanced wines on the back of one man's palate preference. I don't think anything Parker's ever said or written has made a jot of difference to any Australian winery outside South Australia; or Barossa & McLaren Vale to be more precise. (OK - one exception - he's pushed the price of top Rutherglen fortifieds to dizzying levels. Thanks for that.)

What Parker did for a few wineries around Adelaide should have been seen as the icing on the cake, not the recipe itself....
cheers,
Graeme

Good to great wines, regardless and irrespective will find a market.

Paul

Joe,

What about the fact that Jay Miller can't even be bothered posting tasting notes for over half the wines he rates in AUstralia (there is an earlier thread where this is reported)?

IS that defensible?

Joe Cz wrote:Mike,

The fact is that even when RMP was tasting the Australian wines, he tasted nonblind, with the importers present:

http://www.rolfbinder.com/index_alt.php?cmi=1064

As a critic myself, I am not one to throw stones at Mr Parker. I just find the recent furor among the blogosphere mildly amusing and want to point out that--possibly aside from the trips Miller has taken--the tasting process is essentially unchanged from when Parker was doing the reviewing. Miller just makes for an easier target.

Orpheus wrote:

Joe,

What about the fact that Jay Miller can't even be bothered posting tasting notes for over half the wines he rates in AUstralia (there is an earlier thread where this is reported)?

IS that defensible?

To me, that is something that subscribers--and likely submitters of wines--to WA need to determine for themselves. The alternative is probably him tasting fewer wines.

I know I've been caught in that dilemma myself, and there are a small number of wines I've scored that I've not gotten around to inputting reviews of. There are also more wines that I've received for review that I've not reviewed. Which is the greater fault?

Good on you Joe, for sticking up for Jay Miller. I mean it, too, after all, it would be easy enough to just join the general throng, and he is an easy target, as you say.

However, you set up a false dichotomy. My view is that if you can be bothered tasting a wine and rating it, you should be prepared to think about how it tastes and smells and try to describe it, rather than just think of a number.

If having to actually tell someone about the wine slows you down, so be it.

Joe Cz wrote:Orpheus wrote:

Joe,

What about the fact that Jay Miller can't even be bothered posting tasting notes for over half the wines he rates in AUstralia (there is an earlier thread where this is reported)?

IS that defensible?

To me, that is something that subscribers--and likely submitters of wines--to WA need to determine for themselves. The alternative is probably him tasting fewer wines.

I know I've been caught in that dilemma myself, and there are a small number of wines I've scored that I've not gotten around to inputting reviews of. There are also more wines that I've received for review that I've not reviewed. Which is the greater fault?

Orpheus,

I don't know that I am expressively sticking up for him, I just think I have a different perspective from most people because I am also a professional critic.

I don't agree that there is a "false dichotomy" as you say. It takes time to properly assess a wine and rate it, along with jotting down notes of its characteristics. It takes more time to then formulate a properly written review and input that information into a database.

For every person like yourself, who would prefer a critic to review fewer wines but write top-flight notes on all of them, there is at least another person wondering how come their favorite wine wasn't reviewed, who would be willing to sacrifice some of the completeness of the reviews for greater breadth of coverage. It's something reviewers struggle with every day, and ultimately the readers decide which approach most appeals to them.

orpheus wrote:Good on you Joe, for sticking up for Jay Miller. I mean it, too, after all, it would be easy enough to just join the general throng, and he is an easy target, as you say.

However, you set up a false dichotomy. My view is that if you can be bothered tasting a wine and rating it, you should be prepared to think about how it tastes and smells and try to describe it, rather than just think of a number.

If having to actually tell someone about the wine slows you down, so be it.

Joe Cz wrote:Orpheus wrote:

Joe,

What about the fact that Jay Miller can't even be bothered posting tasting notes for over half the wines he rates in AUstralia (there is an earlier thread where this is reported)?

IS that defensible?

To me, that is something that subscribers--and likely submitters of wines--to WA need to determine for themselves. The alternative is probably him tasting fewer wines.

I know I've been caught in that dilemma myself, and there are a small number of wines I've scored that I've not gotten around to inputting reviews of. There are also more wines that I've received for review that I've not reviewed. Which is the greater fault?

My understanding of a false dichotomy is when there are actually more options than the two options suggested. I think Joe Cz has well defined the dilemma or two options available and not sure you have presented a valid third option here?

A third option perhaps would be to employ more reviewers under the same banner. Parallel processing would allow more wines reviewed and more detailed tasting notes. This obviously has been done by Parker but still hasn't been enough. More authors needed maybe? Tanzer and Jancis have others helping now as well. Has also recently been done locally with Winefront (with author's name attached to the tasting note) and Halliday (with no author attribution unfortunately).

cheers

Carl

Edit: I am having a poor spelling day

Carl,

As you say, a publication can employ an ever-expanding universe of tasters in order to provide more breadth of coverage without sacrificing depth.

In my experience, this comes with plenty of its own challenges, including:

Managing multiple reviewers
Maintaining some semblance of interreviewer consistency
Dividing up the reviewing territories
Maintaining reviewer interest/preventing burnout
Balancing reviewers' compensation with publications' economic interests and intellectual property rights

As a result, you typically see a limited stable of reviewers at each of the major publications in an attempt to find the proper balance between breadth and depth (and practicality), and why you see specialist publications with single reviewers finding a niche in the market where a premium is placed on depth (e.g., Burghound).

My point is that it is not a question of;

Either;

1.) Reviewing lots of wine but without any content, giving over half of them nothing more than a score

Or

2.) Reviewing only a few wines with copious notes.

If a wine simply comes down to a score, from my point of view it is not really a "review" of the wine at all, and the time spent tasting it was wasted.

Perhaps "false dichotomy" was not the best criticism.

Orpheus,

Accept for the purposes of this discussion that there are more wines to review than time/finances allows (pretty much a given in real life). Would you rather:

a) Get full reviews of a subset of these wines, with others not even tasted

b) Get full reviews of a slightly smaller subset, scores only for another group and a smaller group of others not tasted

I would suggest that even if a critic does not provide full reviews, there is value in having tasted the additional wines that are only scored--maybe only to some consumers and wineries, but also to the development of the critic, which will hopefully benefit consumers and producers down the road.

Joe Cz wrote:Carl,

As you say, a publication can employ an ever-expanding universe of tasters in order to provide more breadth of coverage without sacrificing depth.

In my experience, this comes with plenty of its own challenges, including:

Managing multiple reviewers
Maintaining some semblance of interreviewer consistency
Dividing up the reviewing territories
Maintaining reviewer interest/preventing burnout
Balancing reviewers' compensation with publications' economic interests and intellectual property rights

As a result, you typically see a limited stable of reviewers at each of the major publications in an attempt to find the proper balance between breadth and depth (and practicality), and why you see specialist publications with single reviewers finding a niche in the market where a premium is placed on depth (e.g., Burghound).

Certainly agree employing multiple reviewers is fraught with difficulty and you present a good summary of those. It is interesting that so many reviewers have gone down this option over that last few years.

cheers

Carl