Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

Sorry Dale, feel free to post the content.

WOW, first of all I am glad we ALL decided that this was a topic worthy of discussion
I honestly did not mean to begin to open this can of worms, but hell, looks like its open now, and I am happy to see it.
I thought I read earlier a post on EBob, where the great Bob himself addressed the tasting issues, however that was a bit earlier today and POOF, tonight it's gone. You might think that Mr. Parker has some authority on his own site, to leave his comments and thought posted and not tossed in the cyber trash as it appears has happened over there.
In my humble opinion regarding, trips, non-blind tastings and mingling with those your job requires you to evaluate - I just don't see them working well together. In fact, I find it impossible to be impartial to a brand/winemaker when the labels are showing. It does a few things when you see the label
a: creates an image of the brand
b: tells you the stylistic characteristics you should expect
c: gives you an idea of price point
d: reminds you of the history / relationship you have of the producer ( Did they pay your way to taste ? Take you to dinner ? Open thier cellar ? Buy the Stripper ? Marry your sister ? You get my idea here)
e: and tells you if you think your readership may have any interest

Even in the cellar lab trials we are working on, we ALWAYS go blind, to not interfere or sway our results with what we think we should expect. It is simply just impossible to be unbiased with a product that is so subjective as wine.

A perfect example of the blind gig is something we did in response to an earlier post, regarding Oregon and price point and mainly 2007. I have been remiss in posting our results (yes, I will get them soon), but we tasted blind over 30 Oregon Pinot Noirs, with a varied panel over a few days. Had this not been blind I know the results would have been different, as one of the worst wines was the most expensive, very well recognized while one of the best was from a large scale producer and less than $15. That will have to wait for another day... However, when we looked at the labels along with our thoughts, folks were amazed and actually wanting to take a second taste to make sure what they thought in the blind was actual... how easy it is for us humans to second guess ourselves !

Anyway, I have read alot lately about the EBob situation on several sites over the last few days, and this is my feeling.. just mine. I think Squires is a pompous ass and it would serve Mr Parker to pull his plug and move on, no more explaination needed. I also think Mr. Miller is a putz and proud of it. Another one that Mr. Parker might re-think his status as an Independent Contractor and representative of his image. Ultimatley if one of my employees represents our company in a manner that is not in compliance with who and what we are, I am responsible, regardless of the circumstances, it is MY brand, MY name, and up to me who I allow to use it.

Regarding Mr. Miller who does indeed rate Oregon at of course, Mr Parker's winery - He participated in a thread about a year ago where it was about "cherry pickers' and I remember it ticked me off so much, that I called and cancelled my subscription to WA. The gist as I recall was that those in the "know" or "elite" or knowledgable" were not cherry pickers, only the lowly scum that were not educated or within the "cool" group. We (our industry) do not need anyone telling the newer folks they don't count, or they are less than worthy to get the good stuff. These comments just encourage the snobbiness that some can try to combine with wine,,, when in fact, it's grape juice, and quite simply, wine drinking is not a snob sport - I don't care if the bottle you like is $5 or $500, it's all about the experience and memories YOU associate with the bottle.

My gut on this topic, it's timely and about damn time the truth comes out... both for the consumer that relies on the information, and the producers that choose to play some of the games. Personally, I prefer to let my wines stand on thier own, something for all to share and enjoy ( I dont need to pay to play )

Cheers !
L

Linda,

Having opened a can of worms, now you've gone and thrown them all around the room! ))))))))))))

Robin HAD asked us to lay off Squires, but you felt he deserved further lambasting. That's certainly no skin off my nose, but Robin may not see it that way...

I *mostly* agree with you about blind tasting, but can see the other side as well. For instance, while double blind tastings are fun and instructive, I believe they are not good professionally because people in such instances benefit greatly from knowing at least what broad category a wine fits into.
Also, if you are blending, blind tasting is probably a bad thing IMHO.

Furthermore, a lot of people who don't like the Parker scores (and who have a cold shiver whenever they see ads in the newspaper with points alongside the price...) object to seeing wine as something "disembodied," to be treated analytically outside of any context whatsoever. This is all the more true with fine wines.

You know as well as I that there are prima donna wines that stand out at tastings that are not made for the long haul and are more impressive than they are good. Such wines often come out on top, but are not necessarily any better.

The en primeur barrel tastings in Bordeaux offer journalists 2 options: blind or not blind. It would be interesting to know how many prefer the former option. It would be even more interesting to know how many tweak their notes and comments afterward when they find out what the wines are, and find there is a big discrepancy between their place in the hierarchy and how they rated them...

In fact, the whole ratings game needs to be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. Have you never tasted a wine in a line-up and criticized it heavily, or praised it mightily, only to have an entirely different impression a few months later? You may think that is due to bottle variation or the way the wine ages, but I am somewhat dubious...

In fact, the whole idea of competitive tastings (not just blind tastings) is open to question. Far too many journalists and even people in the wine industry lose sight of the fact that fine wine is to be enjoyed at meals. And that some wines shine at table whereas others seem clunky - as opposed to their "performance" in horse race tastings.
There is a paradox here because there is such a thing as a quality scale, but this is also necessarily subjective - which is why pinpointing percentages seems ludicrous to me. The compromise solution I lke best is something on the order of no good, mediocre, good, very good, excellent, orgasmic.
And even there, a whole lot of provisos need to be made .

Best regards,
Alex R.

Alex, Hi....

Furthermore, a lot of people who don't like the Parker scores (and who have a cold shiver whenever they see ads in the newspaper with points alongside the price...) object to seeing wine as something "disembodied," to be treated analytically outside of any context whatsoever. This is all the more true with fine wines.

As many might object to the use of scores (Parker's or those of anyone else), far more people actually demand scores. Many print and internet journals would love to do without scores but readers write in and castigate us when we try that.

You know as well as I that there are prima donna wines that stand out at tastings that are not made for the long haul and are more impressive than they are good. Such wines often come out on top, but are not necessarily any better.

But such wines should not "come out on top" and determining that is one of the functions of the critic.

The en primeur barrel tastings in Bordeaux offer journalists 2 options: blind or not blind. It would be interesting to know how many prefer the former option. It would be even more interesting to know how many tweak their notes and comments afterward when they find out what the wines are, and find there is a big discrepancy between their place in the hierarchy and how they rated them...

Woody Allen informs us correctly that "he who lies with chickens is weird". Equally true – those who tweak their scores are cheating both their readers the their own integrity.

In fact, the whole ratings game needs to be taken with a fairly large grain of salt. Have you never tasted a wine in a line-up and criticized it heavily, or praised it mightily, only to have an entirely different impression a few months later? You may think that is due to bottle variation or the way the wine ages, but I am somewhat dubious...

That certainly does happen and when it does the critic writing a follow-up tasting note should indicate that this may be do to bottle variation, unforeseen changes in development or palate variation.

There is a paradox here because there is such a thing as a quality scale, but this is also necessarily subjective - which is why pinpointing percentages seems ludicrous to me. The compromise solution I like best is something on the order of no good, mediocre, good, very good, excellent, orgasmic.

Great scale but in truth roughly equivalent to but lacking the in-between nuances of:

No good = 50-60
Mediocre = 61-70
Good = 71-80
Very Good = 81-90
Excellent = 91-95
Orgasmic = 96-100

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Linda - the thread where Parker addressed the tasting issues is on Page 2. It was locked down, but basically the issue has been covered 9 or 10 other times on the site. Use the search function. It was also addressed (though not as directly) in the original thread that sparked this who broohaha, so yet another person starting yet another thread seeking more clarification for their personal benefit (or axe grinding depending on how you view it) was adding no value. Mark does have a habit of merging and or closing redundant threads. If it was about the latest California mailer nobody would bat an eye, but since it's about slamming Parker it has to be sinister.

I'm not one to worship at the altar of the sanctity of blind tastings myself. So....supposed you're given a glass of wine totally blind and asked to evaluate it. It has a slightly brownish cast to it...not a good sign. It smells to high heaven of quinine and other stuff, much like that putrid Buckley's Cough Medicine your Mother forced down your throat when you had a cold when you were little. It has a slightly sweet taste to it and a distinct bitterness...things a red wine is not supposed to have. So you score it a 61.396, and feel you're being generous at that.
Congratulations...you've just trashed one of the world's greatest Barolo Chinatos.

Many other such examples can be made up demonstrating the fallacy of blind tastings. More such thoughts later.
Tom

I promised not to enter this thread but....

Tom H, back when I subrscibed to the WA I thought RMP said that all wines were tasted blind but he tasted wines from a peer group together. That is, he'd taste 1985 California Cabs, then the next day 1985 Red Bordeaux, then on the third day 1983 Vintage Port, then on day 4 1986 California Chardonnay, etc.

So, in your example, he would be tasting a group of Barolos so the fact that it was Barolo wasn't "blind" to him.

That said, I haven't subscribed in years. I probably stopped subscribing ten years ago.

Tom T.

[Jenise]

A perfect example of the blind gig is something we did in response to an earlier post, regarding Oregon and price point and mainly 2007. I have been remiss in posting our results (yes, I will get them soon), but we tasted blind over 30 Oregon Pinot Noirs, with a varied panel over a few days. Had this not been blind I know the results would have been different, as one of the worst wines was the most expensive, very well recognized while one of the best was from a large scale producer and less than $15. That will have to wait for another day... However, when we looked at the labels along with our thoughts, folks were amazed and actually wanting to take a second taste to make sure what they thought in the blind was actual... how easy it is for us humans to second guess ourselves !

Linda, "buy the stripper" made me spray coffee all over my screen. Great line.

Re the blind tasting, I'm looking forward to your tasting report. Will be down in Oregon this summer or by October at the latest--a friend bought a great big house up in Gaston and she needs company. Would love to meet you then. And I'll add, appropos of absolutely nothing, that the most successful Oregon pinot in my cellar--I can pour it for anyone, geeks and newbies alike LOVE it--it the Cottonwood Marina Piper at $22. Started with the 04 and found the 05 to be just about identical. I have wines that cost more and much more, but none are crowdpleasers of the magnitude this little wine has turned out to be.

When I taste either in my store or at a trade tasting pretty much is never blind. My main way of assessing the wines is to taste without knowing what the prices are. For me then, I first figure out how much I like the wine and then ask what do I think the price should be relative to other wines. I don't think that knowing what varietals your tasting is bad. Also when I taste like this I realize that it is only a "snapshot' of the wine at that point in time. There are lots of times I will taste red wines over a few days to get a better idea, whether it is one that I buy or is given as a sample.

...suppose you're given a glass of wine totally blind and asked to evaluate it. It has a slightly brownish cast to it...not a good sign. It smells to high heaven of quinine and other stuff, much like that putrid Buckley's Cough Medicine your Mother forced down your throat when you had a cold when you were little. It has a slightly sweet taste to it and a distinct bitterness...things a red wine is not supposed to have. So you score it a 61.396, and feel you're being generous at that. Congratulations...you've just trashed one of the world's greatest Barolo Chinatos.

Tom, Hi.....

Consider the possibility that if one has tasted a wine such as that you describe ... and assuming that the wine has at least several other descriptors as well (e.g. balance, fruits, acidity, etc) ... and did not know that he/she was tasting a Barolo that person should not be writing tasting notes.

Best
Rogov

[Jenise]

When I taste either in my store or at a trade tasting pretty much is never blind.

You're also evaluating wine for retail sales. Tasting wines personally to evaluate their qualities for your own palate and knowledge and tasting wines for possible shelf space is a whole different thing, isn't it? After all, you have a variety of clients to please and certain labels will sell and certain names will sell for a variety of reasons, no matter what. You can't ignore that marketing opportunity.

[David M. Bueker]

I want to comment on Linda's second guessing statement:

I am in two blind tasting groups. We taste and rate/rank the wines blind (no theme given, no nothing) & then unveli after the scoring/ranking is tallied. Of course we go back & re-taste. What happens 99% of the time though is "gee, that really is disappointing" or "wow, I would have expected more from that wine" once the bags are off.

This whole debate now has the ring of "the Yankees just buy a championship" whining to me. The have-nots and the fans of the have-nots are desperate to tear down the haves.

Sorry Dale, feel free to post the content.

OK, so below is Daniel's email from yesterday, with the story of Telmo Rodriguez and WA. You can't say he's not opinionated, and that includes questioning the 98 point score of a wine he's trying to sell:

In keeping with our tradition (of the last couple of days), we are featuring another wine that clearly exceeded expectations, in my mind, last Thursday evening. The 2007 Telmo Rodriguez Al Muvedre is a stud! Telmo was a "star on the rise" a few years ago...the world was his oyster. He was imported by Jorge Ordonez.

When Jorge Ordonez is bringing in your wines, you are guaranteed success in the United States. Jorge gets the opportunity to sit down with Dr. Jay Miller, The Wine Advocate critic for Spain, show him his portfolio of wines, not BLIND, and watch as Jay chalks up some ludicrously high scores. Then, after a hard day's work, Jay and Jorge probably head out to dinner at a place like Il Bulli, or some other restaurant most of us cannot get into. That is what friends do, go out to dinner together, right?

Well, a weird thing happened to Telmo on his way to the top of the "celebrity winemaker ladder." Telmo switched importers! He opted to go with an Vintus Imports in 2006. Since that time, Dr. Jay Miller has never published reviews of Telmo's wines. It has been nearly three years since the Wine Advocate scored one of Telmo's bottles. Dr. Jay has received samples, so I am told, just no reviews. The new issue of the Wine Advocate arrives on your doorsteps this week. It will be chock full of Jay Miller's Spanish wine picks, and there is an ugly rumor, after much pushing and shoving, that Telmo's wines may make a reappearance. I sure hope so, because, as one client said upon leaving Thursday night, "That Telmo wine kicks the **** out of Juan Gil!"

As for a reason as to why Jay Miller has elected to skip many wines of Spain...you need to look no further than what the good doctor said this past weekend...

"In my sit-down tastings with importers, quality level is generally excellent. These people have already screened out lesser wines so what I see is generally good. It's when I open unsolicited samples from importers that I don't see face-to-face that a different picture emerges. In many cases, they have gotten into the game later and the top producers have already been signed up the Solomons, Matas, and Ordonezs of the importing world. The quality level here is not nearly as high."

So, Jay Miller prefers his tasting method as his friends popping btls for him and spoon feeding him the information needed to write a review. Apparently, the samples that others send him are just not up to snuff.

When Robert Parker was asked about the tasting methods of the wine critics that work for him, he had this to say..."I don't hold the independent contactors such as Jay and Mark to the same stingent standards as I adhere to."

It is interesting that Robert Parker has built a solid foundation for the Wine Advocate and then he hires new critics and does not sak them to adhere to the same set of standards he has lived by?

The Wine Spectator, for one, makes all of their critics sign a code of ethics, which includes that all of their reviews will be done in a blind fashion (barrel samples being one notable exception). Robert Parker has a policy that he "tastes blind whenever possible." It is very lawyerly phrase to add "whenever possible" as I, for one, would think that there would be many possiblilities to do so. The wine critics, I mean independent contractors, that are employed by Robert Parker clearly feel otherwise.

Fortunately for the owners of Aalto, it is imported by Eric Solomon (one of Miller's picks in his quote above), so Dr. Jay Miller gets to taste the wines in an environment that he is comfortable in, with the importer standing over his shoulder, watching him draw the "9" and then the "8."

For further clarification of the policies of the Wine Advocate and Robert Parker, I recommend you sending him an email...info@erobertparker.com.

It is good to have friends...unfortunately I may lose a couple after this gets published...

Enjoy! These Aalto wines are very heavily discounted!

2007 Telmo Rodriguez Al Muvedre
120 btls available
Grapes Sale Price: $63/6 pack
Robert Parker scored the 2005 an 88 and said it was a terrific value. No review from the Wine Advocate for Telmo's wines has appeared since. This wine was a clear fan favorite at our tasting on Thursday, and as one customer put it, "That Telmo wine kicks the **** out of Juan Gil!"

2004 Aalto PS
7 magnums available
Regular Price: $399/magnum
Grapes Sale Price: $249/magnum (SAVE 38%!)
WA 98
"The 2004 Aalto PS is expressive aromatically, on the palate this voluptuous wine reveals elegance combined with power. Large in scale but light on its feet, it has beautiful balance, density, and concentration. It can be enjoyed now but should evolve for 12-15 years and drink well through 2050."

2005 Aalto Ribero del Duero
30 btls available
Regular Price: $69.99/btl
Grapes Sale Price: $44/btl (SAVE 37%!)
WA 95
"The 2005 Aalto, made from 100% Tinto Fino, is a deep purple color with an enticing nose of wood smoke, bacon, floral notes, spice box, and blackberry. This leads to a powerful, layered, intense wine already beginning to show complex flavors. Structured for 5-7 years of further evolution, this strong effort will be at its best from 2015 to 2030."

2005 Aalto PS
30 btls available
Regular Price: $165/btl
Grapes Sale Price: $99/btl (SAVE 40%!)
WA 98
"The 2005 Aalto PS is 100% Tinto Fino from vineyards over 60 years of age. It was aged for 32 months in 70% new French oak. Saturated in appearance, the wine offers up notes of pain grille, balsamic, crushed stone, floral notes, and wild black fruits. Exceptionally powerful, focused, and beautifully proportioned, this full-bodied wine is dense, rich, and structured for the long haul. Give this super-long, impressive effort a decade in the cellar and drink it from 2018 to 2040. Patient purchasers will be well rewarded."

Wine is offered subject remaining and to final confirmation.
Aalto is in stock, Telmo arrives next week.
Please note new contact details:
Daniel Posner
Grapes The Wine Company
731 North Broadway
White Plains, NY 10603
Tele: 914-397-WINE (9463)
Fax: 914-397-9455
http://www.grapesthewineco.com
Cancelled orders are subject to a 20% cancellation fee.

P Before printing this email, assess if it is really needed.

[David M. Bueker]

Very nice of Herr Posner to take quotes from different posts, used in different contexts to build a single argument. Classy stuff.

Jenise,

I would certainly agree with it being different for shelf placement versus just what I like. I have many wines that are certainly not my favorites but that sell or people want. That then takes my opinion of the wine mostly out of the picture. When someone asks me what I think of a particular wine I give them my honest opinion. People have differentt likes and dislikes. The trick is to be as many things to as many people. Right now I have an issue with all sorts of line extentions of big brands and wines that are just made to hit a particular price point. I also have about 650 wines that I must carry as per corporate policy. That still gives me about 700 that I get to pick. The wine business is a constantly changing world. The economy has thrown us a curve ball so you just keep readjusting. It is never boring in this business.

As to blind tasting, I am part of a regular tasting group which generally does double blind. No clues as to region or grape. It's a good way to train your analytic abilities (and in my case to be humbled regularly ).

A couple other group often taste blind, but in peer groups. We might drink 98 Right Bankers, or 93 red Burgundies. It's a very good way to lose label bias. Every once in a while you might find someone who backpedals once a label is revealed, but since we comment while blind they are usually greeted with derision.

As Chinato is not typically considered wine but a digestif, as it has herbs & bark in it, I don't think one's view of it as wine is very relevant.

I think questioning the policies of a publication that touts its ethics as above others is quite fine. I still personally feel questioning the moderation of another forum is best left to that forum.

Very nice of Herr Posner to take quotes from different posts, used in different contexts to build a single argument. Classy stuff.

What do you think is out of context?

[David M. Bueker]

The Parker comment about "standards" was in the original conflict of interest post regarding sharing meals/trips/etc.

The comments from the Dr. Vino post are about setting up tastings.

Also note that nobody ever said that they do not taste wines that don't come from the rock star importers. Jay said that the wines from them are generally better since they have picked through the litter. does that mean some wines get missed due to flying under the radar? I'm sure. Is it sinister? Not objectively.

Barolo Chinato (and indeed the soft drink Chinotto) are excellent, if extreme examples. Both grew on me after being unsure after the first couple of tastes.

Tasted blind, Barolo Chinato would be easy to pick and assess if you have tasted it before. Tasting blind (without prior experience), I could see many not even bothering with a second taste - another extreme example of the perils of speed tasting.

Re: Blind tasting, at home it doesn't interest me. There are old favourite wines whose opening I look forward to as one might look forward to one's offspring playing competitive baseball. You want them to do well and whe they've finished, you'll celebrate their successes. I'm not a critic though and not even a 'scorer' of wines. I also don't want to get too hung up on finding the 'best' wines or even the 'best value'. A nice mix interspersed with stuff I know and love is cool.

Critics can do blind or not, but it's better for us and them if they let us know which, either in the TN or by adhering to the same standards. FWIW I would favour a single blind initially, with TN written up, then allowing for a follow-up comment once the label is revealed (say in italics) e.g. Ch Cissac There is a tightness to this wine, with interesting fruit in the background, but struggling to get past the tannins, drink 2020-2030 90-92 points Ahh Cissac, well past performance suggest this may be too tough a battle for the fruit, the drinking window stays as it is, but I'm dropping a couple of points off as I think there's less chance the fruit will emerge from the tannic core 88-90 points

The reader can take the original TN or the pre/post TN combined. Their choice.

Such a system offers the honesty Rogov rightly suggests is vital, whilst utilising the palate memory of the taster. Whilst it's true that they could manipulate the original TN, they would then know they were a charlatan.

regards

Ian

Very nice of Herr Posner to take quotes from different posts, used in different contexts to build a single argument. Classy stuff.

David
Why the use of 'Herr'?
regards
Ian

Very nice of Herr Posner to take quotes from different posts, used in different contexts to build a single argument. Classy stuff.

David
Why the use of 'Herr'?
regards
Ian

Well, Tovarich Sutton, I'd guess it's a way of introducing prejudices into the discussion...

If this is the second post in a few minutes, forgive me, My technical skills suck
To reiterate what I just typed and probably threw away, is this :
I didn't really mean to bash, just state how I feel on a few things regarding tastings - and toss in a little humor along the way.
I still stand by blind is better, it's just too hard to be non-biased when you know. While the example above talks about a double blind, where you don't know a thing, I am referring to single blind. If I recall the last call for tasting in Oregon by the WA they were seeking 2006 Pinot Noir, in this instance the critic/taster would know that the flights were comprised of 2006 Oregon Pinot Noir, so no reason not to be blind.
Again, just my thoughts
L

[David M. Bueker]

Ian - no reason. I sometimes call my house a schloss. Probably too much Riesling.

The Parker comment about "standards" was in the original conflict of interest post regarding sharing meals/trips/etc.

The comments from the Dr. Vino post are about setting up tastings.

Also note that nobody ever said that they do not taste wines that don't come from the rock star importers. Jay said that the wines from them are generally better since they have picked through the litter. does that mean some wines get missed due to flying under the radar? I'm sure. Is it sinister? Not objectively.

David,
I just don't read the quotes as out of context. The quote from MrBigJ about "In my sit-down tastings with importers" is not from Dr Vino, but a thread on Spanish wines recently on EBob. Certainly it doesn't say that they do not taste from smaller importers, but it certainly indicates a predisposition to believe the wines aren't as good. No one has argued that the Telmo R wines suddenly went downhill, yet all of the sudden they don't warrant space (even for a rating with no TN, like a huge number of wines got). I don't think there is corruption or chicanery, but I do think that people are not generally as capable of putting aside their emotions and biases (mostly unconscious) as they think they are. As to the Parker quote, I think that was a surprise to everyone. One would assume that a publication that trumpets its standards and independence wouldn't have 2 sets of rules.

I think Daniel used a lot of sarcasm, and a bit of hyperbole in his own comments, but I don't think anything was pulled out of context, nor were there partial quotes of either RP or JM, any edits, or inherent followup comments left out.