Parker has but faint praise for ESJ 2005s

[Robin Garr]

Personally, I think a Parker rating in the middle 80s generally suggests a wine that I'd love ... it's the 90-plus bombs that make me wary.

Still, a lot of people consider scores at this level a resounding insult, so I expect these TNs on <b>Edmunds St John's 2005s</b> from The Bob's freshly published in Issue 172 - along with comments that range from light to faint praise - will stir up some debate in the wine space. (I'm making the decision to publish these four reviews out of the entire publication as a clear case of both fair use and legitimate wine news.)

Your comments?

<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.

[David M. Bueker]

Incredibly bizarre notes from "the Bob." Even more bizarre when you consider that in a recent issue of the International Wine Cellar (Steve Tanzer's journal) Josh Raynolds gave all of these wines 89-91 point scores with much more flattering desriptors.

I'm at a loss.

Of course I have lots of these wines in my cellar, and Parker's poor ratings only make them more appealing to me. Some folks (including the man himself) defend his reviews by saying that detractors only like dull, charmless wines and have no understanding of wines that provide enjoyment. At this point I think we're perhaps dealing with him having a palate dulled by too many high octane wines. Sad.

I agree with David. I hope this does not turn nasty! Some of the eBobs posters would just love it if we get up the anti. Let us not fall into that trap!!

To me, the description of the Rocks and Gravel makes me happy I picked up a bottle this month.

[David M. Bueker]

Some of the eBobs posters would just love it if we get up the anti. Let us not fall into that trap!!

Oh why not. There's not too many opinions over there worth caring about.

[Robin Garr]

I'm at a loss.

One simple hypothesis: The wines came in, RMP opened the box and rated them in travel shock. I would expect him to know better than that, but it's a relatively benign alternative.

Another more cynical hypothesis: Steve said or did something to p!$$ him off.

[David M. Bueker]

Another more cynical hypothesis: Steve said or did something to p!$$ him off.

But he has the eGobsofhedonisticfruit.com "mafia" to deal with that...

Robin,
RMP is not alone in dissing Steve's wines, though. In a fairly recent issue of CGCW, they called the '06 Bone-Jolly "shrilly acidic" or something like that. It's hard to find wine geeks even among the critics, it would seem. Re RMP and ESJ: I remember a time maybe 20 years ago when Mr. Parker was championing the wines of ESJ. Lo, how the times have changed, alas.

Mark Lipton

[Robin Garr]

RMP is not alone in dissing Steve's wines, though. In a fairly recent issue of CGCW, they called the '06 Bone-Jolly "shrilly acidic" or something like that. It's hard to find wine geeks even among the critics, it would seem. Re RMP and ESJ: I remember a time maybe 20 years ago when Mr. Parker was championing the wines of ESJ. Lo, how the times have changed, alas.

Hmm, I've judged wine in Australia with Charlie Olken, and he didn't seem to have an acid-hating palate, although of course we're talking about Australia here. I also routinely review the high-end California wines distributed by California Wine Club's Connoisseurs' Series, which involves Charlie (as the name implies), and I find I usually like the wines he chooses - New World to be sure, but generally not on the fruit-and-oak-bomb side. Odd.

The only Robert Parker I read is the one that writes the Spenser books. It's a much better use of my time.

Very conflicting thoughts here. Of course, Steve seems like a really nice guy who makes great wine, so one can only wish him success, riches, and fame. But from the evil selfish viewpoint, who wants to fight with the point-chasers over 98-point ESJ wines???

Looks like it's up to us to make him successful and rich without the fame that comes with the big Parker scores!

[David M. Bueker]

FYI on the Bone Jolly Rosé, the note from the IWC (again Josh Raynolds) was extremely positive, saying the wine was "too easy to drink." So there are critics out there (and good ones) who really like the wines.

Robin,
RMP is not alone in dissing Steve's wines, though. In a fairly recent issue of CGCW, they called the '06 Bone-Jolly "shrilly acidic" or something like that. It's hard to find wine geeks even among the critics, it would seem. Re RMP and ESJ: I remember a time maybe 20 years ago when Mr. Parker was championing the wines of ESJ. Lo, how the times have changed, alas.

I'm a bit surprised he even reviewed them; I don't think he has the last couple of years.
Of course, one wishes, for Steve's sake, that they would all get remarkable scores and Steve would finally get the prices and sales he deserves. And I'm sure he would like that.
But I don't see Steve making wine for any critic; near as I can tell, he makes what the grapes tell him to and tries pretty hard to intervene only when it is absolutely required.
Having aspirations in that field of endeavor, I have seen folks do it both ways and have asked myself how I would do it. My answer has always come back Steve's way.
A choice between high scores and integrity is no choice at all.
And fortunately, Steve has been doing it for many years and making a living doing it his way, so the financial reality is, he can continue to do it his way.
Best, Jim

Don't we always say, drink what you like? Everyone's palate is different?
Maybe Parker just doesn't care for the wines. That's his prerogative.

It's strange to me how, in the minds of wine geeks, 85 points is deemed an insult. I have found that the wines Parker rates mid eighties tend to be the wines I enjoy most.
So, by my reasoning, RMP got the wines right.

To call Bone Jolly "shrilly acidic" OTOH, to me is simply inaccurate. Who was the critic who authored that?

[David M. Bueker]

John,

It wasn't so much the scores, but rather the text of the reviews. Read them; they're nasty. They read like 75 point reviews. (Which opens up the old grade inflation argument, but I don't really want to get into that...)

To call Bone Jolly "shrilly acidic" OTOH, to me is simply inaccurate. Who was the critic who authored that?

This is the rose (I think in some years there's a red Gamay)?
I agree, that's just wrong.

I guess we all need to resolve to buy more ESJ wines to make up for the scores.

Guys, let's not let the play the points game out of the bag, and spoil it. We've been drinking WS scored 86s for years, and having a ball!

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

I knew Joe Perry could resolve this issue.

I have no problem with RPs scores, it is a style that is not to his liking. How many of us here claim to not like the wine style RP likes? I am a major fan of Steve's wines but his better Syrahs I have found difficult when they are young. Only after several years of bottle age do they come out and blossom. I am sitting on all of his stuff from '00 and '01 and just wish I had bought his wines earlier.

ESJ more serious wines, IMHO, are wine geek wines and may not have mass appeal. You have to like cerebral wines and be patient. It may not be the best way to maximize profits and putting wine goop in a bottle may have made him slightly more financially successful but that is not Steve. Have to look at his hippy roots and he is after all 60.

Walt

Living in Western Michigan, where not a single bottle of ESJ wine has hit any wine shop shelf in years, I have not tasted a single one of the 04 or 05 wines Robin mentioned, and certainly haven't had the chance to taste the 06 Bone Jolly, so I cannot really disagree with Parker. Nor do I really care whether I disagree or not, and his review would not stop me from purchasing any of those wines. Every ESJ I have had in the past - probably only half a dozen, suit my taste just fine.
This is not to bash Parker, or any other critic or wine rater, but my tastes and his differ. I also wonder what he rated and and how he described the red 2000 Los Robles Viejos we had at the Earle in AA last weekend? If he bashed that wine, or the 2001 version geot brought me a year ago, he is full of s#!t.

[David M. Bueker]

It's really funny that almost nobody is reacting the notes Parker wrote. They're ugly. Scores are indeed mostly irrelevant, but it sure doesn't look like he was tasting the same wines we do.

[James Roscoe]

The real issue here is what the heck is Joe Perry doing surfing this site instead of drinking barolo and spending "quality time" with his wife like any normal newlywed?


(I answered my own question. I assumed Joe was normal.)

Edit; I found out Joe is back. Hope they had a good time!

I honestly haven't read anything else this man has ever written, so I don't know how normal this is for him, but some of the phrases strike me as having a really nasty undercurrent that is personal and not just about the wines.

My initial reaction was "Why doesn't this guy like Steve?" Not "Oh, he doesn't like this style of wine."

It's really funny that almost nobody is reacting the notes Parker wrote. They're ugly. Scores are indeed mostly irrelevant, but it sure doesn't look like he was tasting the same wines we do.

Actually, the scores seem consistent with the descriptions. I haven't had any ESJ wines since the 2001 vintage, but Parker's notes don't give me any problem, he is describing middle of the road American Rhone Clones.

If you have tasted these wines and like them better, so be it - you'll be able to buy them without any Parker induced price inflation.

I have tasted many CaliRhones that were right in line with his descriptions, as well as a few that were actually very good that he hasn't reviewed (thank goodness).

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

Jim, I agree about the effect of Parker on winemaking - I miss the range of wines we used to have and loved some of the idiosyncratic wines that are no longer made because they don't garner good reviews. I applaud any winemaker that goes his own way without (much) regard for points.

I have always supported Parker as a reliable reviewer. He is very consistent and once you calibrate your palate to his, you can pretty much bank on his reviews (not points so much as what he writes). I don't happen to share his taste for big fruit, but knowing that I can read his descriptions and find wines I think I will like - often in the high 80s as far as points are concerned, which means that in a market lamentably point driven, the wines don't get snapped up nor do they go up in price the day after the latest review hits the stands. Suits me just fine.

I must admit to reading this thread and wondering what the fuss was about - it's not like RP wrote up a wine as total crap yet scored it over 90 or vice versa.