Parker has but faint praise for ESJ 2005s

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."

"Oversized, overripe, overoaked". Just what Parker likes in a wine.

Steve Edmunds's latest offerings apparently didn't whomp RMP's jaded palate strong enough to merit top scores.

RMP's loss, and our gain, IMO.

Bob Parker is entitled to his opinion, and I'm entitled to mine.

-Paul W.

I'm sitting here drinking a glass of 01 ESJ Ca Syrah - such a beautiful wine it is.
Balanced and elegant on the palate, layers of flavor under still vibrant fruit, I could drink it 8 days a week and not tire of it.

I'll just keep buying Steve's wines, because I love them. And to me, that's all that matters.

Whether or not the review was disrespectful, or just the way the man chose to honestly express his impression of the wines, there's a lesson here for all of us.

Trust your own palate.

I just read this thread, and I'd like to agree with Tom Hill and others that the tone of RP's review was off. The sentence including 'low brow' is particularly strange; it seems intended as an insult (to mean 'inferior'), but that's not what 'low-brow' means. (Steve's wines are too high-brow for the mainstream, in my opinion, and never low-brow.)

Given Steve's clear stylistic choice, for which I thank God, it would be odd if Parker liked the wines much. But at least he could disapprove without meaness.

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

Awwwwww, James... a has-been???? How about...hmmmm...a never-was!!!
Tom

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.)

That's part of it, certainly. A response validates the effort put forth, in that in means that someone not only opened it (a 'view'), but read it and thought about it enough to type a response. However, my (mistaken) impression was that no one cared enough what I wrote to even look at it. If that had indeed been the case, why bother to write? Or, having written, why post it? Easier to keep it in my own files.

I look at a lot of the WTN's, but rarely respond. There are various reasons. In many cases, not only have I not tasted the wine myself, but I'm not likely to in this lifetime. Fun wines to read about, but I doubt anyone is interested in me not being able to afford them! Often they're simply not available in my area, at least as far as I'm aware. I'm in a rather small market. Sometimes I do have an opinion, but find it already and usually better expressed. So, I understand when there are few or no responses.

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.

I never said it was. However, if Iwrite notes for myself, it's easier for me to keep them at home, on my own computer, or perhaps in a notebook, where I can take them with me. If I go to the trouble to type them up here, I'd like to think that someone else is at least looking at them, else there's no point to the effort for me. YMMV

I never said it was. However, if Iwrite notes for myself, it's easier for me to keep them at home, on my own computer, or perhaps in a notebook, where I can take them with me. If I go to the trouble to type them up here, I'd like to think that someone else is at least looking at them, else there's no point to the effort for me. YMMV

Ah, well there I disagree with you.

By posting to several fora, I have my notes available from anywhere, online, and they have survived through a couple of computer crashes that would have taken out anything I had on my home computer.

I look on it as a combined back-up method and way of having them accessible from anywhere.

And the effort you speak of amounts to maybe 3 minutes to post to (in my case) 6 different sites.

And the effort you speak of amounts to maybe 3 minutes to post to (in my case) 6 different sites.

Maybe you have more time than you might think.
Best, Jim

[Robin Garr]

to post to (in my case) 6 different sites.

Polygamist!

to post to (in my case) 6 different sites.

Polygamist!

Well chosen - neither polyandry nor polygyny would apply.

And Jim, that is 3 minutes to post to all 6 sites , not to each of them - I open them all at once, prepare the first one with bold, underlining etc., and then just cut and paste to the other 5. If it makes a difference, this site is usually the 'parent' site set it up on.

Some posts get somehow lost on some sites but not others. Multiple redundancy, that's the ticket!

"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."

Bill, I agree with you generally, with one important caveat -- from time to time people will chime in on a wine tasting note, and give me interesting/useful/corrective information. It's a great way to deepen my own knowledge of wine.

I basically post the notes I keep in my own wine diary -- it's great if others find something of value in them, but it's a mistake, I believe, to judge their value by how people respond to them.

Regards, Bob

"Polygamist."

Genesis. 24:2

Regards, Bob

Genesis. 24:2

Regards, Bob

Deuteronomy 17:17

[David M. Bueker]

867-5309

Beachwood 4-5789, you can call me any old time

2005 Edmunds St John Shell And Bone (white): 84 points
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.

The '05 Shell and Bone has been one of our favorite white wines this summer. We've enjoyed several bottles with various seafood dishes. The pear and melon notes are what jump out at me from the S&B. Why Parker doesn't mention them is baffling. The supporting minerality and acidity, along with what I think is a reasonable long finish makes the wine excellent summer fare. It's not a super complex wine, but who cares. There is power in simplicity. Is it really possible that Parker, or his paid tasters actually missed the pear and melon in this wine?

[David M. Bueker]

Parker was the taster. I really think that he has just taken the idea of a specific, ideal style too far. Going back to some of his prior controversies he will inevitably compare the offending wine to something big and rich, and then proclaim the quality of the big wine and inferiority of the less big wine.

My current thought is that I can see him comparing Steve's whites to Alban's (a useless comparison) and his reds to John Alban, Saxum and Pax (again a useless comparison, as they are not going for the same thing). If asked about his "low brow Cotes du Rhone" comment he will inevitably compare to numerous wines that he refuses to list. This is the classic defense. Mark (in closing the thread equivalent to this one on eGobs) has saved him the trouble.

Sam,
I'm with you on the 2005 ESJ S&B. I love the fruit and the mouthfeel. Perhaps RMP had an off bottle, but to say this wine lacks finish is quite bewildering.
'Winger

David,
Not to bash eBob, but I found Mitch Tallan's post about the peasants/knights and the subsequent dragging of the King from his castle to be hilarious. Too bad the moderator there feels the need to stiffle any perceived criticism of the King by closing threads.
Redwinger
Disclosure: I consider Mitch a friend, but please don't judge me by that

Disclosure: I consider Mitch a friend, but please don't judge me by that

So do I.
And despite what he writes, I tend to think of the "grassy knoll" as high ground. Elsewise, someone's going to bring up the Warren Report.
Best, Jim

David,
Not to bash eBob, but I found Mitch Tallan's post about the peasants/knights and the subsequent dragging of the King from his castle to be hilarious. Too bad the moderator there feels the need to stiffle any perceived criticism of the King by closing threads.
Redwinger
Disclosure: I consider Mitch a friend, but please don't judge me by that

I don't know Mitch at all, but I thought that post was both hilarious and good-natured.

So I don't check into the e-Bob forum much, but am I correct in seeing it basically as a place that is in existence to serve the business interests of Robert Parker? That would explain the locking of such a thread. If Squires is up front about that, then I guess I can't see a problem with it.

[David M. Bueker]

I'm not covering for eGobs. I think it was ludicrous that Mark closed the thread. It had drifted some, but that was about it.

While Parker always calls it "Mark's board" it is clear that disapproval of something Parker writes is the second quickest way to get shut down (quickest is political content, and rightly so - politics gets really ugly over there).

I also thought the little screenplay was hilarious. I only wish I could be in the movie.

I don’t see want all the “hoopla is about”, one critic on a “particular day” thinks the wine is “above average good” or “very good” (almost excellent) and another thinks it’s “excellent” or “above average excellent”.

95 to 100 (18 to 20) Extraordinary
87.5 to 92.5 (15 to 17) Excellent
80 to 85 (12 to 14) Good
72.5 to 77.5 (9 to 11) Pleasant
65 to 70 (6 to Acceptable
0 to 62.5 (0 to 5) Poor and Objectionable

A few years back a very “wise man” (when it comes to wine) gave me a formula to convert the UC Davis 20 point scale into the 100 point scale.
UC Davis score X 2.5 + 50 = 100 point score.

Salute

[David M. Bueker]

Victor - the points are not the point. Read the notes. And FYI there was also some introductory text that was none too kind. In fact it was decidedly mean-spirited.