Netscape WineLovers Community Poll: Rate Robert Parker!

[Robin Garr]

Seldom has there been a figure more polarizing in the world of wine than the American critic Robert M. Parker Jr. Some swear by him, beating down the doors of wine shops to buy the wines he rates over 90. Others use his reviews in reverse, assuming that they'll hate the big, fruit-forward wines he loves, and cherry-picking among his lower scores. Some decry his power and influence on the industry; others shrug and declare that influence overrated. Love him or hate him, we invite you to rate him, using his own 100-point scale to express your opinion in this week's Netscape/CompuServe Community poll.

<b>Click here to vote!</b>
(No need to register or log in to vote; post comments on either forum.)

[David M. Bueker]

Wow does this present an interesting situation...

Rating a person seems even weirder than rating wines. If I had to do it I would give him a solid 88 in a world where there is only 1 90+ in his genre IMO.

But I don't do ratings.

I don't mean to sound cheeky, but I'm afraid I don't even know how to rate a person - on consistency, maybe? If one asked me what I thought of him (rather than offering a numerical score, parody that it might be, alluding to critics' scoring of wines), I'd say that he has his tastes and has been a phenomenally influential person in the wine business. I don't share his tastes, but then to each his or her own.

Robin
Very cheeky - watch out for his hounds though (or at least the lap-dogs, they're more persistent ).

Seriously though, on the face of it he's not much different to other wine critics that have gone before.

I like the fact that, like Broadbent, he publishes notes on older wines as well as new releases (I think the sheer volume of critical comment on young wines has influenced the instant gratification era at least as much as Parker's preferences ).

I also like his drive for independance from the supply chain, though can't comment on how well he achieves this.

Where I do dislike his manner, is in his overly strident pronouncements and willingness to fight to justify them. Wine appreciation should be based on ones own preferences / taste / experience, yet I feel Parker more than most feels the need to justify why his judgement is correct. Some of his postings on Squires board make him come across very arrogantly - in front of some of his biggest fans. I recall a thread over there about timing of the issue of his journal, where he was utterly off-hand (IIRC this was the thread where he accused some of his followers of being points whores).

Still these criticisms are overly magnified by the position he has worked himself into. As a businessman, he's done very nicely for himself.

Thus he's no fool, but I can't vouch for his acolytes

regards

Ian

Rating a person seems even weirder than rating wines.

David,
Didn't you ever go to Jr. High School. We "rated" the girls every day (but never scored)
BP

I had to downgrade his score for aging potential.

Mark Lipton

[James Roscoe]

I'm with Paul, rating a person on a wine scale is too weird.

I'm with Paul, rating a person on a wine scale is too weird.

I agree! I taste enough without his influence, I like to find my own (high-scoring) wines!!
Spurrier, HRH Jancis, Broadbent, Jefford, Jamie Goode, Chris Kissick et al...just as good in my view. Oh, must not forget Redwinger!!

FWIW, I think Parker is a very talented and gifted taster.... and for some regions I tend to follow his coverage. In some cases, e.g. Champagne, I dont think he is reliable. But for some regions of France and for the US and Australia, he is the benchmark for me. At least thats how Ive calibrated his ratings to my tastes.

[David M. Bueker]

Too bad for you he will not be doing Australia anymore. That's been given over to Dr. Jay (Mr. 100 points) Miller.

Paul, I don't buy wines by the number any longer, and haven't for a lot of years, but where Parker is concerned, I will say that he is CONSISTENT, above all. My palate differs from Parker, but that doesn't mean that I would not pay some attention to his rating on a particular wine I was interested in. I like to think that I know the difference and can apply it. There are several of the wine ratings people in the business, and IMO he takes a back seat to no one in consistency. Of course that is only my opinion, but I think I have a story that might convince some of his consistency.

I also like his drive for independance from the supply chain, though can't comment on how well he achieves this.

*I* can.

When he started out, he was indeed completely independent. He went out to local retailers and bought the bottles that he reviewed with his own money.

These days he does barrel tastings at cellars, and tastings of free samples sent to him, just like all the other major critics. IMO, to a very great extent the utter independence on which he built his reputation is totally gone.

He still is far more independent than publications such as The Wine Spectator, in that he does not take money for advertising in The Wine Advocate. Nonetheless, he has his blatant favorites and whipping boys among the winemakers whose wines he reviews.

Whether he likes it or not, Robert Parker has become an integral cog in the modern wine advertising machine. And that loss of independence is IMO a shame.

-Paul W.

A lot of what I have said in the last reply is to say that he is just a human being.

Not a divine oracle of the wine absolute truth.

-Paul W.

I don't think that rating a person on a 100 point scale is any more ridiculous than rating a wine on a 100 point scale is. It's reductive as hell, regardless of which is being rated. That said, I voted. After all, the man who popularized numeric rating for wine deserves to have the same thing applied to himself. I give Parker an 87. That's just the rating that I look for from him - the sort of rating that well-made, light and elegant wines often score. His palate differs substantially from mine (and for that matter, from everyone I know,) otherwise I'd give him more points for consistency and integrity.

Parker's followers though, and point-chasers in general, that's another story. They're like a $10 Aussie Shiraz. Solid, substantial and utterly boring. I'd give them a 78.

Paul
Thanks for this.
regards
Ian

[Robin Garr]

I don't think that rating a person on a 100 point scale is any more ridiculous than rating a wine on a 100 point scale is. It's reductive as hell, regardless of which is being rated.

Thank you! I'm glad some of us got it ...

Seldom has there been a figure more polarizing in the world of wine than the American critic Robert M. Parker Jr. Some swear by him, beating down the doors of wine shops to buy the wines he rates over 90. Others use his reviews in reverse, assuming that they'll hate the big, fruit-forward wines he loves, and cherry-picking among his lower scores. Some decry his power and influence on the industry; others shrug and declare that influence overrated. Love him or hate him, we invite you to rate him, using his own 100-point scale to express your opinion in this week's Netscape/CompuServe Community poll.

<b>Click here to vote!</b>
(No need to register or log in to vote; post comments on either forum.)

I am not sure that I understand this rating of wine or in this case a human being. I admit that there was a time that I followed the ratings of both Parker and the Spectator, however that didn't really last a long time. I further admit that I subscribed to the Spectator longer than I did to the Advocate.

Now after those admissions I would like to say that I do not understand the antipathy that the rating of a product seems to elicit from some of us. Back when I did read the Spectator, my MO was to check the score assigned to a wine. I then paid no further attention to the number so long as it was 80 or above. I then moved along to the written note on the wine. I knew that I would not likely buy a wine with a number less than 80.

Almost everyone is rated by someone at least once per year. It is even called a rating....a performance rating. This is largely how our pay raises are determined. I understand that some (self employed) persons are not directly rated (assigned a numerical score) but even those are rated by the public. If I don't like how you conduct your business, I won't buy your wares, and that is the final rating, perhaps the most crucial rating of all. In the case of rating RMP, I don't see it as rating him per se, but rather it is rating how well we think he has performed his job.

I replied in this thread to Paul B, up above, but in that reply I was only addressing Paul's question about how to apply a rating and wondered if it were done using consistency as a measuring stick, and I replied that IMO consistence is what Parker does best. I bring this up here to say that consistency is as good a measuring stick and any other. Again IMO.

Rating a person seems even weirder than rating wines. If I had to do it I would give him a solid 88 in a world where there is only 1 90+ in his genre IMO.

OK, spill the beans. Who do you rate at the 90+?

-Paul W.

Rating a person seems even weirder than rating wines. If I had to do it I would give him a solid 88 in a world where there is only 1 90+ in his genre IMO.

OK, spill the beans. Who do you rate at the 90+?

-Paul W.

If David's rating is more than 92, I'm not going to like them.

Paul, I don't buy wines by the number any longer, and haven't for a lot of years, but where Parker is concerned, I will say that he is CONSISTENT, above all. My palate differs from Parker, but that doesn't mean that I would not pay some attention to his rating on a particular wine I was interested in. I like to think that I know the difference and can apply it. There are several of the wine ratings people in the business, and IMO he takes a back seat to no one in consistency. Of course that is only my opinion, but I think I have a story that might convince some of his consistency.

Ditto, except that I pay attention more to his comments than his ratings.
Yup, this is a bit wierd, but giving numbers to a wine is also, IMHO, a bit wierd.

Good point on Miller taking over Australia.... I need to get to work on calibration again....