Parker has but faint praise for ESJ 2005s

[David M. Bueker]

David, what was your point - that you disagree with his reviews? Please post your own notes.

I do disagree. I have posted notes on 3 of the wines. Of course nobody reads them, but that's whole other story.

David, what was your point - that you disagree with his reviews? Please post your own notes.

I do disagree. I have posted notes on 3 of the wines. Of course nobody reads them, but that's whole other story.

Perhaps if you posted links to your notes, people could compare.

But with all due respect, I don't think the fact that Parker disagrees with your assessment of a particular wine is newsworthy. RP tastes wines from single bottles at a particular stage of development and calls them as he sees them. For wines he has an interest in he will go back and do follow up tastings, sometimes finding quite different results than he did the first time - I've even seen his first tastings of really poor bottles result in a later revision of 10 or more points and very different descriptions.

The other reviewer I enjoy is Tanzer, who I always consider to be a slightly harder marker (maybe that's just less impressed with the big fruit aspects?) He posts notice of wines he has tasted below a certain threshhold level for a printed description, and I wish RP would do this as well, because otherwise you don't know if RP tasted a wine and didn't feel it warranted a print review or not. Tanzer fails to give a prediction of when the wine will be mature and how long it will last, thinsg that RP does and that I like to see.

I find wines that are reviewed by both of these men where I disagree with notes in one way or another, but nonetheless, their notes are still valuable to me because I can adjust what I am reading and have some idea of what they have experienced.

What is there about these particular reviews that you find remarkable?

[David M. Bueker]

I find the complte disparity in the notes of Parker and Josh Raynolds of the IWC very interesting. Here's Josh's notes on the same 4 wines. FYI - I don't really care about the scores. It's the notes.

2005 Edmunds St John Shell And Bone (white): 89 points IWC (JR)
Green-gold. Smoky yellow plum, peach and pear on the nose, with hints of creamed corn and toasted nuts. Lush and ripe, with chewy texture and ripe orchard fruit flavors dusted by minerals and dried flowers. Finishes spicy and persistent. This would be a good choice for grilled fish.

2004 Edmunds St John Rocks And Gravel (red): 90 points IWC (JR)
Bright red. Peppery, mineral accented raspberry and cherry aromas, complicated by a subtle florality. Silky in texture, with deep red berry flavors and complicating herb and smoky meat tones. This is very Southern Rhone in style. Finished sweet and juicy, with excellent length. When I mentioned to Edmunds that this is a great value he said “I guess I’m just not a born marketer.”

2005 Edmunds St John Red Neck 101 Eaglepoint Ranch: 90 points IWC (JR)
Dark purple. Spice-accented strawberry and raspberry on the nose, with gentle suggestions of dried flowers and smoked meat. Bright and energetic, with sweet red berry flavors, silky tannins and a hint of floral pastille. An elegant, very refreshing wine, showing impressive presistence and lift on the finish.

2005 Edmunds St John Syrah Bassetti Vineyard: 91 points IWC (JR)
Lurid purple. Smoky, floral and suave, with highly expressive dark berry, underbrush and violet scents. Fine-grained and silky in texture, with impressively concentrated blackberry and cassis flavors and good bright, spicy lift to the finish. “This always has a very low pH, and the grapes are teensy,” notes Edmunds. This could pass for Northern Rhone Syrah.

I happen to wholeheartedly agree with Josh Raynolds, but the big issue is the extreme differences in the perceptions of the wines. Screw the scores.

FYI - here's my Red Neck 101 note:

2005 Edmunds St. John Redneck 101 Eaglepoint Ranch - USA, California, North Coast, Mendocino County (5/27/2007)
Another highly successful blend from Steve Edmunds, this is perhaps the most forward of them all. Blackish purple in color, there's essence of dark berry fruit on the nose, and then earth and a touch of herb kick in. Disturbingly easy to drink, the ripe fruit is backed by balanced acids in a totally integrated package. Just delicious. This is a riper, richer and less "sauvage" wine than the Rocks and Gravel, but still remains elegant despite the richness of the fruit.

[James Roscoe]

David, what was your point - that you disagree with his reviews? Please post your own notes.

I do disagree. I have posted notes on 3 of the wines. Of course nobody reads them, but that's whole other story.

David, do not assume that a lack of response means nobody reads your notes. (Beating a dead horse.)

But with all due respect, I don't think the fact that Parker disagrees with your assessment of a particular wine is newsworthy. RP tastes wines from single bottles at a particular stage of development and calls them as he sees them. For wines he has an interest in he will go back and do follow up tastings, sometimes finding quite different results than he did the first time - I've even seen his first tastings of really poor bottles result in a later revision of 10 or more points and very different descriptions.

What is there about these particular reviews that you find remarkable?

Bill,
I find two things remarkable about Parker's reviews.
The first is well stated by Cynthia; the tenor of the notes gives the impression of an axe to grind not a dispassionate review.
The second is that Parker is very well trained in the use of the English language. Were I his former contracts professor or English teacher I would be quite disappointed in his usage.
And I would wonder why he sought to be so demeaning.

Perhaps, he was having a bad day; maybe the wines didn't show well at the moment; possibly, as indicated by his final note, he thought these wines of lesser quality than those from ESJ in the early 1990's and wanted to stress that point - all of these are surely reasons why the notes are as deprecating as they are. One hopes that, indeed, it is one of these reasons, because it also sounds as though it may be something else.
Best, Jim

I had the same impression as you and Cynthia, Jim, on the tone of Parker's reviews. No problem with the scores or the descriptive text, but I felt the language creates a negative impression.

I wonder if this is in reaction to one of Steve's letters awhile back, which engendered lots of commentary, including some comments by Parker. One report on the flap from "Wine Business Monthly":


Steve Edmunds has been making wine in California from Rhône Valley varieties for nearly 20 years, and was one of the founders of the state's now-flourishing Rhône Ranger movement. Based in Berkeley, this artisan producer of Syrah and southern Rhône-style blends of Syrah, Grenache and Mourvèdre is an ardent fan of the eloquent expression of "terroir" found in Rhône Valley reds.

That's why he wrote a letter to Wine Spectator earlier this year after the magazine published a cover story on Syrah entitled "The Next Big Red." Alluding perhaps to the third word in the title, Edmunds noted that many California Syrahs are high-alcohol, heavily extracted wines which, though impressive in power and concentration, lack, in his estimation, clearly etched varietal and regional definition.

Edmunds letter read, in part: "It seems that, in the minds of many producers and consumers, Syrah is a synonym for oversized, overripe, overoaked. It's become the SUV of wines. We seem to get heavy, high-alcohol, syrupy beverages that reek of oak, taste of jam, and give little indication of their provenance or even the grape variety involved.... In my view, there's nothing truly exceptional about the California style, which, in general, eschews nuance, subtlety and soulfulness."

Shortly after the letter appeared, it sparked heated debates on two popular wine discussion sites: westcoastwine.net and marksquires.com, which is hosted on Robert Parker's website. (Parker himself weighed in.) Among those challenging Edmunds' remarks were a number of California winemakers whose rich, concentrated Syrahs have earned rave reviews from wine critics and consumers alike.

The Big Boys

One of the more vehement responses to Edmunds' letter came from Mike Officer, proprietor of Carlisle Winery & Vineyards in Sonoma County. Celebrated for his intense, single-vineyard Zinfandels, Officer also makes a weighty, highly regarded Syrah from Dry Creek Valley grapes. He bristles at Edmunds' implication that his wine lacks varietal character or that he styles it to obtain high scores from key wine publications. (A sentence in Edmunds' letter, excised by Wine Spectator, but subsequently published on the Internet, suggested that the SUV style of Syrah is driven by the desire of winemakers to please influential wine critics infatuated with powerful reds.) "I make wines I like to drink," says Officer, a professed fan of rich, juicy Australian Shiraz. "The day I'm no longer able to do that is the day I hang up my winemaking hat."

The article continues here.

I don't remember Steven mentioning Parker specifically, but I took his words as an attack on Parker and other critics who give high points, specifically from this part of Steve's letter (quoting from the Wine Business article where his views are summarized):

"Edmunds noted that many California Syrahs are high-alcohol, heavily extracted wines which, though impressive in power and concentration, lack, in his estimation, clearly etched varietal and regional definition."

Regards, Bob

Bill's still hoping to get that key invite to Arpie's house.

[David M. Bueker]

Bill's still hoping to get that key invite to Arpie's house.

Ewww...

I've not tasted the wines, so can't comment on them.

It is interesting to see some clear descriptors that make it clear Parker doesn't like the direction they are going. These are really quite useful though, as his descriptors would make the wine sound very attractive to some. So for the large part of the note it is clearly written, expresses style, but in words that allow the reader to make up their own mind (even if it's clear that Parker doesn't approve). Just what you'd ask of a tasting note.

However in closing some of the tasting notes with that classic TN put down 'short finish', he's using that to say 'poor wine' in such a way that even a fan of the wines would take careful notice of. Whatever style preferences people have, short and simple are the biggest put downs I can think of. They're pretty universal whichever side of the style fence you sit. In using Innocuous, superficial etc. he's also handed out the other insult of 'simple' (but he does like to make good use of the dictionary).

What's odd is that others use descriptors such as 'persistent' about these wines - surely someone is right and the other wrong....?

Ignoring other factors for now, I'm speculating that by failing to have enough 'ooomph' in the first place, the finish is not so much short (to Parker) as non-existant. That is, if a wine is too delicate, then there is no finish to talk of for Parker. Thus someone else may find it delicate and persistent, Parker may find it has no finish, almost because he's struggling to believe there's a start!

Having said all that, there may well be an undercurrent and as you go down the notes it seems to get stronger - almost as if each subsequent wine put him in a worse mood! If this is the case then he's let himself (and the winery and his readership) down. He's shown he can describe style clearly, but then sought to guide the reader's interpretation towards his own preference byusing absolutes.

Coming back to the prelude to this conjecture, I don't know the wines, but do find the skill and style of wine writers occasionally interesting.

and yes, this board is different to e-bob. Some over there would call this forum dull, others here will see e-bob as abusive. I'm happy here and couldn't stomach posting over there, but there's not a lot to be gained in taking the cross-forum criticisms to the extreme.

regards

Ian

I'm confused; isn't this like golf where the lower score wins?

No Joe, it's more like tennis, where "Love" loses.

Bill,
I find two things remarkable about Parker's reviews.
The first is well stated by Cynthia; the tenor of the notes gives the impression of an axe to grind not a dispassionate review.
The second is that Parker is very well trained in the use of the English language. Were I his former contracts professor or English teacher I would be quite disappointed in his usage.
And I would wonder why he sought to be so demeaning.

Alright, Jim, I'll assume that this is also what David saw (unless he says otherwise).

So it is more of a matter of tone, and you feel RP was getting a tad shrill and deduce....something from that?

It seems to me that you guys pay a lot more attention to tones and worry far more about what RP MIGHT be thinking about or what agenda he might have than I do or would. I really don't care that much - UNLESS IT AFFECTS HIS REVIEW. In that case I'd agree that you'd have something to complain about.

But I think you'd need far more than a general feeling that he was ticked off to impugn his credibility as a reviewer.

[David M. Bueker]

Actually Bill, I'm mostly questioning his palate. I've tasted the wines & so has Josh Raynolds, a very competent professional who just doesn't have the army of backers that Parker does. Folks here have had some of the wines as well. I just don't think he gets it at all.

And yes his tone was bad, but I'm more focused on his completely out of the blue descriptors. He did get the colors right.

[David M. Bueker]

By the way...no human shield air cover so far on eBob. I didn't get in until post #25

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?p=1808330#post1808330

So it is more of a matter of tone, and you feel RP was getting a tad shrill and deduce....something from that?

It seems to me that you guys pay a lot more attention to tones and worry far more about what RP MIGHT be thinking about or what agenda he might have than I do or would. I really don't care that much - UNLESS IT AFFECTS HIS REVIEW. In that case I'd agree that you'd have something to complain about.

But I think you'd need far more than a general feeling that he was ticked off to impugn his credibility as a reviewer.

Yep, you have a point.
And I would not want to impugn his credibility as a reviewer or in any other way. Although I haven't any use for is work, I do think he is an enthusiastic ambassador for wine.
I suppose its my predeliction with his imprecise use of language, especially considering the degree of training he has had in its proper use. Its like a professional knife thrower that says he didn't really mean to hit you in the heart.
I guess its all about intent . . .
Best, Jim

David, what was your point - that you disagree with his reviews? Please post your own notes.

I do disagree. I have posted notes on 3 of the wines. Of course nobody reads them, but that's whole other story.

David, do not assume that a lack of response means nobody reads your notes. (Beating a dead horse.)

James, one can also look at the number of views. I stopped posting notes because no one was even looking at mine. David's experience may be similar.

[Robin Garr]

James, one can also look at the number of views. I stopped posting notes because no one was even looking at mine. David's experience may be similar.

You know, I wouldn't want to quibble, but this made me curious, so I ran a forum search on posts by "Isaac" with "WTN" in the header, and I found exactly <b>one</b> WTN posted by you, on a Napa Luna something. It had 0 replies but 286 views.

Am I missing something?

Really? Hmm. Perhaps I was mistaken, although I know I used the old TN instead of WTN for at least one. Maybe I was too impatient, and didn't get views quickly enopugh to suit me. Regardless, having been given my comeuppance, I'll try to post a few in the future!

[David M. Bueker]

Robin,

Not to take away from the intended topic, but perhaps Isaac shares similar feelings: I like to discuss the wines I drink. Perhaps many are too esoteric & do not strike a chord, but if there's no discussion then it's not much worht it to me to post. (Jay Selman echoed similar feelings with the lack of comments on Grape Radio...perhaps we just really want to talk/type about the wines.)

[Robin Garr]

Really? Hmm. Perhaps I was mistaken, although I know I used the old TN instead of WTN for at least one. Maybe I was too impatient, and didn't get views quickly enopugh to suit me. Regardless, having been given my comeuppance, I'll try to post a few in the future!

Excellent!

[Robin Garr]

I like to discuss the wines I drink. Perhaps many are too esoteric & do not strike a chord, but if there's no discussion then it's not much worht it to me to post. (Jay Selman echoed similar feelings with the lack of comments on Grape Radio...perhaps we just really want to talk/type about the wines.)

It's a dilemma, David. In the early days of the forum, we kind of took pains to respond to all TNs, but it didn't take long for everyone to tire of content-void responses like "good post" or "sounds like great juice."

It's really unpredictable how TN responses will play out, but it does seem that wines from familiar producers or wines that others have tasted tend to generate the most active threads, while esoterics don't. It does seem to me that the view count on "interesting" TNs mounts over time, indicating that folks are interested but just don't have much to say.

Bottom line, though, I guess we're all interested in finding ways to encourage more discussion of the wines we taste, and strategies like WT101/Wine Focus and Open Mike have come about specifically to encourage that.

If anyone has more ideas about ways to encourage conversations from TNs, I'll be happy to do anything needed from this end to help make it happen. I think we'd all enjoy that, but often it just seems that nature takes its course.

[James Roscoe]

Robin,

Not to take away from the intended topic, but perhaps Isaac shares similar feelings: I like to discuss the wines I drink. Perhaps many are too esoteric & do not strike a chord, but if there's no discussion then it's not much worht it to me to post. (Jay Selman echoed similar feelings with the lack of comments on Grape Radio...perhaps we just really want to talk/type about the wines.)

This point had not occurred to me. I may start a new thread.

<b>2005 Edmunds St John Shell And Bone (white): 84 points</b>
The 2005 Shell and Bone white is a blend of Viognier and Roussanne, it possesses light to medium body, tart acidity, some crispness, and a quickly evaporating finish.

<b>2004 Edmunds St John Rocks And Gravel (red): 85 points</b>
The 2004 Rocks and Gravel, a combination of Grenache, Mourvedre, and Syrah, exhibits earthy, peppery, sweet cherry and currant aromas as well as some dusty, loamy flavors, a distinct herbaceous component, and a quick finish. This is a low brow version of a French Cotes du Rhone.

<b>2005 Edmunds St John Red Neck 101 Eaglepoint Ranch: 86 points</b>
The 2005 Red Neck 101 (a blend of Syrah and Grenache) reveals attractive kirsch and cherry notes in its lighter-styled, superficial personality. The label's message, "Thirsty Pagans with Big Ideas," is commendable, but the wine doesn't deliver. Drink it over the next 1-2 years.

<b>2005 Edmunds St John Syrah Bassetti Vineyard: 86 points</b>
The dark ruby/purple-hued 2005 Syrah Bassetti Vineyard exhibits a superficial freshness of red currant and blackberry fruit, but is one-dimensional and superfluous in the mouth. Although well-made, it is a medium weight, innocuous effort, an adjective I would never have applied to an Edmunds St. John wine made in the early and mid-1990s.

Wading into the fray here....not that I'd know anything about EdStJ wines.
Forgetting the points as not relevant, the tenor (which means, yes, I'm trying to delve into Arpy's mind) struck me as a bit on the mean-spirited side. I seriously doubt that Arpy had an axe to grind w/ Steve over the big/extracted issue and set out to, a priori, trash his wines.
For example, to characterize the R&G as a "low-brow version of a French CdR" seems mean-spirited and not anything really descriptive of the wine. IMHO, it's far better/more interesting than 90% of the French CdR I try, but then I'm not a big CdR fan.
For example, his comment on "Thirsty Pagans with Big Ideas" indicates that Arpy is clueless about Steve's wine making situation. It's actually just the name Steve used on the label, in a self-deprecating way I think, to indicate the wine was made at a different facility than the "Intuition and Blind Luck" wines were made. He seems to be making fun of Steve in a riduculing sort of way, to my interpretation.
For example, to describe the Bassetti as "superfluous" (what the heck does superfluous in the mouth mean??), "one-dimensional", and "innocuous" certainly doesn't describe the Bassetti I've had 3 times now. And to dismiss the wines as not up to Steve's standards of the early '90's strikes me as a bit mean-spirited again. As if to imply that Steve has lost his touch and is now a has-been (well...he is over 60 now..maybe Arpy has a point!!)
When I read Arpy's reviews, I just sorta shrugged my shoulders and thought that these reviews were written by someone who didn't understand Steve's wines, someone who doesn't taste them often enough to follow how they evolve.
To whit...when I taste young Barolos I sorta wince in pain from the excruciating pain their tannins inflict on my palate. I don't understand the wines very well. When Arpy tastes these wines, he goes ape-$hit over them because he has so much experience w/ young Barolos that he knows these tough/evil flavors on the palate are just precursors to what'll become a beautiful old-bones Barolo (occasionally, anyway).
I think Arpy simply doesn't have the experience some do on WLDG with Steve's wines young. They ARE sometimes underwhelming when they're first released. But, oftentimes, they seem to put on weight and become amazingly good w/ some age. And then, from time to time, sometimes they don't. Go figure. Steve's wines are often a moving target. They aren't often the massive/extracted wines, like Lewis or Konsgaard or SQN the he prefers and the often need time. I'd would like to see what Arpy's comment on the '01 Calif Syrah is now...one of the most delicious Calif Syrahs these days.
Anyway...just my vacuous thoughts. But what would I know..I've merely followed SteveEdmunds from the very start.
Tom

[James Roscoe]

Tom, does that make you a has-been too?

Really? Hmm. Perhaps I was mistaken, although I know I used the old TN instead of WTN for at least one. Maybe I was too impatient, and didn't get views quickly enopugh to suit me. Regardless, having been given my comeuppance, I'll try to post a few in the future!

That's interesting.

I do not post notes to get attention - in fact I don't care whether ir not anyone ever reads them.

I post notes so that in the future I can find my own notes with a search.

I do not harbour any misconceptions about anyone having to care about my notes, or respond to them or care about what I say - it is a personal archive for my use alone. If anyone else does care to review my notes and they are useful, that's fine, but it really doesn't matter to me either way.

This isn't a popularity contest.