Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Robert Parker, Ratings and "Good" Wine
So I finally finished the biography of Robert Parker ("The Emperor of Wine") and though better informed, I am just as conflicted about his role in the wine world as I was before. The author, Elin McCoy, is an experienced writer in both the wine industry as well as travel, parenting and even children's lit. She has known Parker, somewhat casually, since his first forays into wine criticism in the early 80's. She was briefly his editor but mostly a colleague in the industry; writing on similar topics for different publications but rarely in direct competition. She spent some time touring vineyards and tasting with him for the book but otherwise doesn't seem to be a buddy of his nor an enemy.
The book starts as a straightforward narrative of his life, his rise to the top of the world wine critics hierarchy and the results of his influence. I read these sections slowly, engaged but not glued to the pages. The last section of the book finally gets into the controversies his opinions and the reactions of producers, other writers and various other people to them. This part was most enthralling because I struggle on a daily basis with his ratings and favorite wines. The wine shop I work in relies heavily on ratings as a basis for choosing our portfolio. Though we use ratings from a variety of sources, Parker and his Wine Advocate get the lion's share. When customers ask for my advice, the rating is a large factor in determining quality and taste. Lately, this has taken an interesting twist.
Last week the latest issue of Advocate came out and as usual, retailers pored over its pages, calling distributors to make orders for whatever wines were featured. We were lucky to some cases of wines that others may have missed out on. While producing the bin labels for these wines, I became excited to try them; Parkers descriptions are notoriously enthusiastic and full of exuberance. The image in my mind (and palate) of one wine in particular was great, it earned 93 points at just 18 bucks. I couldn't wait to try it and bought two bottles for myself without having tried them.
A few days later, we did try it and I was reminded that Parker and I don't always agree. This wine was hugely alcoholic with strong dried fruit flavors that were more appropriate in a dessert wine than an innocent looking table wine. No where in his description were warnings of this. Even if you are familiar with his preferred style, you'd never guess how it would taste. I, having had issues with this in the past, shouldn't have been surprised but this wine was simply beyond typical. Even the store owner and manager, each with more tasting experience than I, were surprised.
Out of these experiences, I realized that Parker is a in general a force for good, in that he encourages producers to update their techniques and equipment to produce overall better quality wine. His vineyard travels led him to become a sort of consultant, preaching that grapes should be picked at peak ripeness, methods should extract maximum color and flavor, and that filtering and fining are bad, bad, bad. This had the effect of improving quality but also of somewhat homogenizing wines into a typical style to suit his influential taste. This is the main contention of his critics.
This all brings me to the usefulness of ratings. Everything in the store has to be rated 85 points or more before we even consider carrying it. The price on the shelf corresponds; a low rated wine rarely costs more than 12 bucks. Our best finds are the 90+ pointers that cost less than 20. We actually have a good amount of these and feature them in the top 10. When customers browse, they use the ratings as indicators of quality if they aren't familiar with the wine.
When tasting wines in consideration for sale at the store, we give our own ratings. Generally, we end up agreeing, within a couple of points, with the rating it already earned. Personally, I prefer to rate without knowledge of the professional rating as a measure of how well I taste but that isn't always possible. Even then however, we are usually in the same range. Objectivity is key; just because I don't like chardonnay very much, I have to suspend my personal preferences in order to accurately rate based on presence of flaws and overall quality. I then use these criteria when giving advice to customers. When asked if the rating is really that important, I respond that as a marker of quality, it is. As a matter of taste, that is up to the drinker.
So all this leads back to my gripe with Parker. His ratings are very good indicators of quality but also belie his preferences and if you believe some of his critics, his relationship with the producer or region. I personally prefer the ratings of the Wine Spectator or Stephen Tanzer's International Wine Cellar for their more (but not totally) obejective stance. I find that I prefer subtlety in wine rather than the full flavored bigness that Parker enjoys. My tastes better match these publications than Parker's.
To sum up, if you're looking to decipher the ratings code or the influence of parker, don't rely on the word of someone else as the decision maker. Rely on ratings as indicators of overall quality, not how much you'll like something. If you don't like shiraz, don't buy it no matter how good the rating/price proportion is. You still won't like it. Base your decision on what you like, your price range and only then factor in ratings.
The book starts as a straightforward narrative of his life, his rise to the top of the world wine critics hierarchy and the results of his influence. I read these sections slowly, engaged but not glued to the pages. The last section of the book finally gets into the controversies his opinions and the reactions of producers, other writers and various other people to them. This part was most enthralling because I struggle on a daily basis with his ratings and favorite wines. The wine shop I work in relies heavily on ratings as a basis for choosing our portfolio. Though we use ratings from a variety of sources, Parker and his Wine Advocate get the lion's share. When customers ask for my advice, the rating is a large factor in determining quality and taste. Lately, this has taken an interesting twist.
Last week the latest issue of Advocate came out and as usual, retailers pored over its pages, calling distributors to make orders for whatever wines were featured. We were lucky to some cases of wines that others may have missed out on. While producing the bin labels for these wines, I became excited to try them; Parkers descriptions are notoriously enthusiastic and full of exuberance. The image in my mind (and palate) of one wine in particular was great, it earned 93 points at just 18 bucks. I couldn't wait to try it and bought two bottles for myself without having tried them.
A few days later, we did try it and I was reminded that Parker and I don't always agree. This wine was hugely alcoholic with strong dried fruit flavors that were more appropriate in a dessert wine than an innocent looking table wine. No where in his description were warnings of this. Even if you are familiar with his preferred style, you'd never guess how it would taste. I, having had issues with this in the past, shouldn't have been surprised but this wine was simply beyond typical. Even the store owner and manager, each with more tasting experience than I, were surprised.
Out of these experiences, I realized that Parker is a in general a force for good, in that he encourages producers to update their techniques and equipment to produce overall better quality wine. His vineyard travels led him to become a sort of consultant, preaching that grapes should be picked at peak ripeness, methods should extract maximum color and flavor, and that filtering and fining are bad, bad, bad. This had the effect of improving quality but also of somewhat homogenizing wines into a typical style to suit his influential taste. This is the main contention of his critics.
This all brings me to the usefulness of ratings. Everything in the store has to be rated 85 points or more before we even consider carrying it. The price on the shelf corresponds; a low rated wine rarely costs more than 12 bucks. Our best finds are the 90+ pointers that cost less than 20. We actually have a good amount of these and feature them in the top 10. When customers browse, they use the ratings as indicators of quality if they aren't familiar with the wine.
When tasting wines in consideration for sale at the store, we give our own ratings. Generally, we end up agreeing, within a couple of points, with the rating it already earned. Personally, I prefer to rate without knowledge of the professional rating as a measure of how well I taste but that isn't always possible. Even then however, we are usually in the same range. Objectivity is key; just because I don't like chardonnay very much, I have to suspend my personal preferences in order to accurately rate based on presence of flaws and overall quality. I then use these criteria when giving advice to customers. When asked if the rating is really that important, I respond that as a marker of quality, it is. As a matter of taste, that is up to the drinker.
So all this leads back to my gripe with Parker. His ratings are very good indicators of quality but also belie his preferences and if you believe some of his critics, his relationship with the producer or region. I personally prefer the ratings of the Wine Spectator or Stephen Tanzer's International Wine Cellar for their more (but not totally) obejective stance. I find that I prefer subtlety in wine rather than the full flavored bigness that Parker enjoys. My tastes better match these publications than Parker's.
To sum up, if you're looking to decipher the ratings code or the influence of parker, don't rely on the word of someone else as the decision maker. Rely on ratings as indicators of overall quality, not how much you'll like something. If you don't like shiraz, don't buy it no matter how good the rating/price proportion is. You still won't like it. Base your decision on what you like, your price range and only then factor in ratings.
# posted by Yossie @ 9:50 AM 
