Parker's predictions...what do you think?

I agree about the global competition for premium wines, less corks- more screwcaps, greater interest in unoaked wines, and Increased diversity in wine production. All pretty obvious trends. Not sure about the demise of the three-tiered system, although that would be fantastic. Surprising news that the corked rate is 15%!!.but if Parker says it, it must be true.

From Food & Wine:
http://www.foodandwine.com/articles/parker-predicts-the-future/print

Took me a minute to realize this article was from late 2004. 2/3s way through his 10 year predictions, he's mixed IMHO:

1 Distribution will be revolutionized
Looks like this is getting worse, not better. Distributors are funding more and more restrictive laws. Look out

2 The wine Web will go mainstream
Duh! Of course, he missed one of the greatest successes (Cellartracker), and missed out on chance to integrste WA

3 World bidding wars will begin for top wines
Certainly got that one correct

4 France will feel a squeeze
Pretty much true

5 Corks will come out
Certainly numbers have increased, but not quite at rate he predicts

6 Spain will be the star
He pretty much blew this one, while Spain is still doing OK with cheapies, the market for the higher wines (especially in "such up-and-coming regions as Toro, Jumilla and Priorat" ) has mostly collapsed.

7 Malbec will make it big
Pretty popular at $10 level, but otherwise don't see this

8 California's Central Coast will rule America
Definitely getting more attention, not ruling

9 Southern Italy will ascend
Don't see that in market, much as I love Etna Rosso
]
10 Unoaked wine will find a wider audience
True

11 Value will be valued
Hard to understand argument as something quantifiable

12 Diversity will be the word
There's is more diversity in market, but "We will see quality wines from unexpected places like Bulgaria, Romania, Russia, Mexico, China, Japan, Lebanon, Turkey and perhaps even India."? Still waiting for most of those. Well, I have expected Musar for years.

#7 $10 may be all that's needed. Doesn't have to be full price spectrum to be "big".

#10 I'd argue there is a tremendous amount of diversity in the marketplace. It's amazing how much/many more wines from more places are available now. Not all of them are selling well---but they are most definitely available. And remember, Parker gets to see everything, along with bein in the East Coast corridor instead of flyover country.

[David M. Bueker]

So if you really consider the predictions in their time context he only nailed those things for which he already had compelling data. Everywhere he was prognosticating he pretty much blew it.

And Dale - he most certainly did "integrste WA" - so good slip of the fingers.

Hoke,
I just quoted Parker's headers, as guides for my comments. All of the statements are beyond what I quoted. Here's his Malbec prediction: By the year 2015, the greatness of Argentinean wines made from the Malbec grape will be understood as a given. This French varietal, which failed so miserably on its home soil in Bordeaux, has reached startling heights of quality in Argentina. Both inexpensive, delicious Malbecs and majestic, profoundly complex ones from high-elevation vineyards are already being produced, and by 2015 this long-ignored grape's place in the pantheon of noble wines will be guaranteed
I see a lot of popularity at $10 level as noted, but I prefer my Malbec from France (Cahors or Loire). I don't see Malbec as big (at least not significantly bigger than it was in 2004). As a matter of fact, I see a lot LESS interest in those ones that strive to be "majestic, profoundly complex ones" than I did 5 years ago. Hey, I need to drink my solo bottle of Achaval Ferrer single vineyard, but not a lot of geeks clamoring for it.

I totally agree that diversity has exploded. But I actually see that in more styles, previously ignored grapes, or regions from historical wine countries than in quality wines from Mexico, Russia, China, or Turkey.

So if you really consider the predictions in their time context he only nailed those things for which he already had compelling data. Everywhere he was prognosticating he pretty much blew it.

And Dale - he most certainly did "integrste WA" - so good slip of the fingers.

Agreed, actually almost everything he "predicted" were trends that were well under way.

Hoke,
I just quoted Parker's headers, as guides for my comments. All of the statements are beyond what I quoted. Here's his Malbec prediction: By the year 2015, the greatness of Argentinean wines made from the Malbec grape will be understood as a given. This French varietal, which failed so miserably on its home soil in Bordeaux, has reached startling heights of quality in Argentina. Both inexpensive, delicious Malbecs and majestic, profoundly complex ones from high-elevation vineyards are already being produced, and by 2015 this long-ignored grape's place in the pantheon of noble wines will be guaranteed
I see a lot of popularity at $10 level as noted, but I prefer my Malbec from France (Cahors or Loire). I don't see Malbec as big (at least not significantly bigger than it was in 2004). As a matter of fact, I see a lot LESS interest in those ones that strive to be "majestic, profoundly complex ones" than I did 5 years ago. Hey, I need to drink my solo bottle of Achaval Ferrer single vineyard, but not a lot of geeks clamoring for it.

I totally agree that diversity has exploded. But I actually see that in more styles, previously ignored grapes, or regions from historical wine countries than in quality wines from Mexico, Russia, China, or Turkey.

Fair dinkum. (Whatever the hell that means...)

In the entire statement, plenty of things to disagree with. And to understand how limited Parker's preference band is, as well as his understanding of Malbec. Totally agree that Cahors and Loire are making the only ones close to majestic---not to say Argentina can't eventually, but it's the $10 that's driving the business. And I can take or leave (and usually leave) the Argies as against the affordable French being much more my style.

As to the diversity, yeah, sure, have to agree with what you say...but with the caveat that, understanding their is a whole lot of objective latitude in the word "quality", I have had some credible wines from Turkey (and even Mexico, though I'm more halting with any praise there). And India. Nothing from Japan yet, I'll admit. On the other hand, look what Japan did with "Scotch" whisky!

And right now I'm writing an extensive article lauding the comeback of Bordeaux affordables, so even the old dogs are capable of learning new tricks to win back the market.

What Dale said.
Best, Jim

One thing he certainly did not predict: his own irrelevance.

One thing he certainly did not predict: his own irrelevance.

Hmm, not sure how many folks who make a living in the wine world would claim that Robert Parker is irrelevant, though I suppose that can make for a lively matter for debate.

In any case, Parker, who produces a wine publication, did predict the following:

Internet message boards, Web sites tailored for wine geeks and state-of-the-art winery sites all instantaneously disseminate information about new wines and new producers. Today the realm of cyberspace junkies and hardcore Internet users, these sites will become mainstream in 10 years. A much more democratic, open range of experts, consultants, specialists, advisors and chatty wine nerds will assume the role of today's wine publications.

One thing he certainly did not predict: his own irrelevance.

Hmm, not sure how many folks who make a living in the wine world would claim that Robert Parker is irrelevant, though I suppose that can make for a lively matter for debate.

In any case, Parker, who produces a wine publication, did predict the following:

Internet message boards, Web sites tailored for wine geeks and state-of-the-art winery sites all instantaneously disseminate information about new wines and new producers. Today the realm of cyberspace junkies and hardcore Internet users, these sites will become mainstream in 10 years. A much more democratic, open range of experts, consultants, specialists, advisors and chatty wine nerds will assume the role of today's wine publications.

Now, that is interesting.
I kind of think the handwriting on the wall is a bit dry, but that he would pronounce it so - how about that?
Best, Jim

Did he really call us nerds?

One thing he certainly did not predict: his own irrelevance.

Hmm, not sure how many folks who make a living in the wine world would claim that Robert Parker is irrelevant, though I suppose that can make for a lively matter for debate.

In any case, Parker, who produces a wine publication, did predict the following:

Internet message boards, Web sites tailored for wine geeks and state-of-the-art winery sites all instantaneously disseminate information about new wines and new producers. Today the realm of cyberspace junkies and hardcore Internet users, these sites will become mainstream in 10 years. A much more democratic, open range of experts, consultants, specialists, advisors and chatty wine nerds will assume the role of today's wine publications.

Ah, so he did predict his own irrelevance!

Well, I suppose we here aren't typical regarding how much influence Parker still has. But with the proliferation of wine forums, blogs, etc., though he may not be irrelevant, he simply does not wield the kind of dominant influence he did even 5 years ago. I would say that 2005 Bdx was the last vintage where his opinion was still taken very seriously, though one can make the argument that his decline began with 2003 Bdx. Ironically, if democratization of wine was his objective, then his own declining influence should be considered his greatest acheivement! There's something rather Hegelian about that.

Ironically, if democratization of wine was his objective, then his own declining influence should be considered his greatest acheivement!

Why didn't we all notice that democracy was on his mind when he barricaded his board?

Why didn't we all notice that democracy was on his mind when he barricaded his board?

He was exercising Orwellian democratic impulses: some people are more equal than others.

Mark Lipton

Dale and others have said most of what I would have said if I had got in earlier.

I would like, though, to revert to the statement that 15% of bottles and corked. That is IMO a big overstatement where TCA contamination is concerned but not so when other probably cork related faults are considered. Indeed as bottles age beyond 10 years, the percentage of bottles inferior to the best in a same case easily reaches 15% IMO and often a lot more. The most obvious non TCA fault concerns leaky corks but subtle and not so subtle differences exist without obvious leakiness.

As screwcaps build up a longer track record, it would be interesting to learn how far bottle variability has been eliminated. In particular I would like to know whether premox in white Burgs is eliminated but I fear that too few have been bottled under screwcap to come to any conclusions.

Parker's irrelevant? And yet here we are, talking about him.

We've lived in Napa going on 20 years and if you really think that Parker is irrelevant in the wine business you're out of touch with reality. PS I also have an interest in a wine store in Manhattan Beach CA. He's not irrelevant there either. Now don't try to shoot the messenger just because of the info I've passed on you don't like.

With as much good (everyday wines and better) it is a shame that anyone can have the influence that Parker does. As for me, I tend to like his 88-89 point wines, but so many wines that I enjoy drinking are not even reviewed by him. Just a clear indication that we have a long way to go to get to a good understanding of what wine is all about. Blind tasting is only one way to assess wine.

Even over here Parker isn't irrelevant and certainly he did the Bdx owners a big favour in 2008. Heappear to still a big influence on market prices. That said, there is even stronger disdain for him than before in many online circles - and it is in these areas that his opinions are considered irrelevant.

So not irrelevant, but even more polarising - which shouldn't have been possible!

Even over here Parker isn't irrelevant and certainly he did the Bdx owners a big favour in 2008. Heappear to still a big influence on market prices. That said, there is even stronger disdain for him than before in many online circles - and it is in these areas that his opinions are considered irrelevant.

So not irrelevant, but even more polarising - which shouldn't have been possible!

It's cool to put down Parker even by newbies in wine. Hey you don't have to like Parker's palate but people in the business are very happy that he brought so much attention and publicity to fine wine in general.

Took me a minute to realize this article was from late 2004. 2/3s way through his 10 year predictions,

Good catch on that, Dale. I didn't realize it when I posted it, but I think I like it better that we have the opportunity to check out the validity of his predictions. Seriously, how many people would check back with Jean Dixon's predictions to see how well she scored?

I second Lou, and the others here, who acknowledge the relevancy of Parker. He put the serious American wine lover on the map. I may not agree with his ratings, but I respect the fact that he has garnered a large following that does.

Finally..malbec?? Really?

JB

Parker's irrelevant? And yet here we are, talking about him.

I'm going way far afield looking at this wine forum as the Trick or Treaters are beginning to ebb. But I will balance my earlier comment to you by saying you read my mind while reading over and over again how Parker doesn't matter. If he doesn't to some people it is because they can't see as far as his edges in order for them to circumscribe his mass.