Early Parker v Late Parker: How did scoring evolve?

[Robin Garr]

A fascinating data dive from the Swedish wine geek at The Wine Gourd:

Quantifying the Parkerization of the wine world

Interesting idea, although didn’t go very deep for me!

Would have been nice to try and account for changes in composition of wines that he reviewed. To see if the wines changed or if he changed. As he mentions, not easy, but off the top of my head could try by perhaps comparing alcohol levels, other chemical analytics (if data available). Perhaps messy but could also track over time relative to other critics, especially if those critics did not inflate.

[David M. Bueker]

Expansion of coverage eliminated scores for almost all wines rated below 85, and certainly below 80. There just wasn’t space for poor wines.

I forget who first said it, but I've heard the Parker scale described as a two-point system--if the wine scores below 90 points, no retail store will carry it, and if it scores 90+ points, you won't be able to find it.

I subscribed to The Wine Advocate for about 10 years, starting in 1985, and bought back issues from circa 1980. So I'm very familiar with Early Parker. Back then he was trying to bring Naderist consumerism to wine reviewing. He proudly proclaimed his stance outside the wine biz. He reviewed only wines he bought himself at local retail in the DC area, and he published reviews of whatever he got his hands on that month. He handed out a lot of scores under 80 points, and he had a great turn of phrase for describing poor wines.

That all changed with the 1982 Bordeaux vintage, which propelled him to fame. Parker got access to barrel samples at the chateaux, and so he was no longer an outsider. His influence soon made him an integral cog in the wine biz. It gradually became rare to see scores under 85 points. Undoubtedly this was due to his access to far more wines, and lack of space to publish reviews of mediocre wines. His success also made him a big target for defamation lawsuits, and I suspect that led to his soft-pedaling poor reviews. I dropped my subscription to The Wine Advocate for two reasons: his palate and mine grew increasingly far apart, especially for Burgundy and German wines. Also, his reviews were increasingly of wines outside my budget and local access.

Late Parker scores were distinctly higher than Early Parker, but I think that's because he stopped publishing poor scores rather than any change in his palate or judgment criteria.

-Paul W.

Expansion of coverage eliminated scores for almost all wines rated below 85, and certainly below 80. There just wasn’t space for poor wines.

So this means there were wines/wineries he reviewed in the beginning that he stopped covering once he expanded regions?

I forget who first said it, but I've heard the Parker scale described as a two-point system--if the wine scores below 90 points, no retail store will carry it, and if it scores 90+ points, you won't be able to find it.

I subscribed to The Wine Advocate for about 10 years, starting in 1985, and bought back issues from circa 1980. So I'm very familiar with Early Parker. Back then he was trying to bring Naderist consumerism to wine reviewing. He proudly proclaimed his stance outside the wine biz. He reviewed only wines he bought himself at local retail in the DC area, and he published reviews of whatever he got his hands on that month. He handed out a lot of scores under 80 points, and he had a great turn of phrase for describing poor wines.

That all changed with the 1982 Bordeaux vintage, which propelled him to fame. Parker got access to barrel samples at the chateaux, and so he was no longer an outsider. His influence soon made him an integral cog in the wine biz. It gradually became rare to see scores under 85 points. Undoubtedly this was due to his access to far more wines, and lack of space to publish reviews of mediocre wines. His success also made him a big target for defamation lawsuits, and I suspect that led to his soft-pedaling poor reviews. I dropped my subscription to The Wine Advocate for two reasons: his palate and mine grew increasingly far apart, especially for Burgundy and German wines. Also, his reviews were increasingly of wines outside my budget and local access.
Late Parker scores were distinctly higher than Early Parker, but I think that's because he stopped publishing poor scores rather than any change in his palate or judgment criteria.
-Paul W.

Well, Paul....I recall he used some pretty scathing terms to describe wines he did not like. Don't recall any off the top of my head, but this would be a good thread to resurrect some of those zingers. He could be pretty acerbic when he chose to be.

According to some of the Parker sheep, it was not Parker's grade inflation that led to higher scores. It was because of his vast influence led the winemakers, kicking & screaming, into making better wines that jived w/ his palate.

Parker always like to wear that Ralph Nader of the Wine World mantle. Maybe so in the early yrs, but it later became pretty threadbare.
Tom

Without getting into a Parker argument, it's interesting some of the points about distribution- s a distinct preference for even numbers, except for lots of 55, 65 and 75 scores (when he still published low scores).
To be fair, those of us who score, grade, or prong also don't have a "normal distribution " (because we buy wines we expect to like)/

[David M. Bueker]

Expansion of coverage eliminated scores for almost all wines rated below 85, and certainly below 80. There just wasn’t space for poor wines.

So this means there were wines/wineries he reviewed in the beginning that he stopped covering once he expanded regions?

He may have tasted them, but if they didn't hit 85 they were not in the publication.

I recall he used some pretty scathing terms to describe wines he did not like.

My favorite was "the vinous equivalent of Liquid Plumber", which led off his review of a 52-point wine.

-Paul W.

I recall he used some pretty scathing terms to describe wines he did not like.

My favorite was "the vinous equivalent of Liquid Plumber", which led off his review of a 52-point wine.

-Paul W.

Ahhhhh yes, Paul. That one I remember.
Tom