Robert Parker is a man that many bloggers and retailers love to hate. They love disagreeing with Parker, and as I am both a blogger and a retailer, I should really hate him!
But I don’t. I disagree with him on a great many things. His view that you can’t make an informed decision on a wine if you didn’t pay for it for example. I believe that you can, as do many writers, some of whom have a much, much higher reputation than I could ever hope to achieve. My palate tends to lean towards the likes of Michael Broadbent and Jancis Robinson rather than Mr Parker, but that doesn’t make him wrong and me right, or vice versa. We are different, simple as that.
Jamie Goode, on his excellent wine blog, has recently posted an article about ‘why we should be grateful for Robert Parker’. I read it, and can’t find fault him in most of his arguments. I might not like the fact that Parker has become a ‘king maker’ and allowed producers of excellent wines to price them beyond my reach, I might not like that wine is now an monetary investment rather than an investment for a future dinner party, but that is the way it is. I know that if I was a winemaker that had just got 99 points from Parker, I would be constructing a shrine to the great man and bowing my head everytime I walk past it.
Rather than addressing the article in depth, go here and read it for yourself, and make your own mind up as to whether Goode makes a solid argument. I think he does, with one exception, but it is a very important one. At the end of the article, Goode mentions that Parker, along with Jancis, Hugh Johnson and Oz Clarke, “have played a vital role in growing the consumer base for interesting wines”.
Firstly, I have no problems saying that the latter three critics have contributed to the growing interest in varied wines, but Parker? Parker does recommend many other wines aside from Bordeaux and Australian wines, as anyone who follows him on Twitter can plainly see, but his work on Bordeaux and, to a lesser extent, Australia overshadow all of this other work. In nearly a decade of working in wine retail, I have never had any customer ask for a wine from South Africa or Portugal because Parker scored it highly, but have had people ask for a wine after other critics have liked it. At most, Parker’s influence in other regions is when a customer comes into the shop and is wanting a wine from a particular area and happens to see a tasting note from Parker, and the customer chooses that wine over another. Outside of Bordeaux, Parker points encourage people to change producers, not explore new wines.
The likes of Gary Vaynerchuk, Tim Atkin and Jamie Goode himself have more influence on getting more people trying interesting wines from new regions. Goode’s writing about Portuguese wine, which won him the 2008 Portuguese Wine Awards Journalist Award will have introduced many people to this country, and its diverse range of wines. From lighter minerally whites, through to the big stonking reds, Goode’s work, and open mind to new styles, will have encouraged his readers to venture into the Dao, Bairrada and Douro. The same applies with any wine journalist with a weekend column, irrespective of whether they are national or regional. I’m not saying that Parker doesn’t taste these wines, but his writing and scoring doesn’t translate into retail sales. His position as the critic for Bordeaux has, and always will, overshadow whatever else he does.
Robert Parker’s contribution to the wine world should be respected, and yes, he may have encouraged more people to drink wine but that was just the first step on the journey. The range and diversity that we are fortunate to have today is because other writers, like Jamie Goode, have explored and loved the other wine regions of the world, and then put pen to paper.
But I don’t. I disagree with him on a great many things. His view that you can’t make an informed decision on a wine if you didn’t pay for it for example. I believe that you can, as do many writers, some of whom have a much, much higher reputation than I could ever hope to achieve. My palate tends to lean towards the likes of Michael Broadbent and Jancis Robinson rather than Mr Parker, but that doesn’t make him wrong and me right, or vice versa. We are different, simple as that.
Jamie Goode, on his excellent wine blog, has recently posted an article about ‘why we should be grateful for Robert Parker’. I read it, and can’t find fault him in most of his arguments. I might not like the fact that Parker has become a ‘king maker’ and allowed producers of excellent wines to price them beyond my reach, I might not like that wine is now an monetary investment rather than an investment for a future dinner party, but that is the way it is. I know that if I was a winemaker that had just got 99 points from Parker, I would be constructing a shrine to the great man and bowing my head everytime I walk past it.
Rather than addressing the article in depth, go here and read it for yourself, and make your own mind up as to whether Goode makes a solid argument. I think he does, with one exception, but it is a very important one. At the end of the article, Goode mentions that Parker, along with Jancis, Hugh Johnson and Oz Clarke, “have played a vital role in growing the consumer base for interesting wines”.
Firstly, I have no problems saying that the latter three critics have contributed to the growing interest in varied wines, but Parker? Parker does recommend many other wines aside from Bordeaux and Australian wines, as anyone who follows him on Twitter can plainly see, but his work on Bordeaux and, to a lesser extent, Australia overshadow all of this other work. In nearly a decade of working in wine retail, I have never had any customer ask for a wine from South Africa or Portugal because Parker scored it highly, but have had people ask for a wine after other critics have liked it. At most, Parker’s influence in other regions is when a customer comes into the shop and is wanting a wine from a particular area and happens to see a tasting note from Parker, and the customer chooses that wine over another. Outside of Bordeaux, Parker points encourage people to change producers, not explore new wines.
The likes of Gary Vaynerchuk, Tim Atkin and Jamie Goode himself have more influence on getting more people trying interesting wines from new regions. Goode’s writing about Portuguese wine, which won him the 2008 Portuguese Wine Awards Journalist Award will have introduced many people to this country, and its diverse range of wines. From lighter minerally whites, through to the big stonking reds, Goode’s work, and open mind to new styles, will have encouraged his readers to venture into the Dao, Bairrada and Douro. The same applies with any wine journalist with a weekend column, irrespective of whether they are national or regional. I’m not saying that Parker doesn’t taste these wines, but his writing and scoring doesn’t translate into retail sales. His position as the critic for Bordeaux has, and always will, overshadow whatever else he does.
Robert Parker’s contribution to the wine world should be respected, and yes, he may have encouraged more people to drink wine but that was just the first step on the journey. The range and diversity that we are fortunate to have today is because other writers, like Jamie Goode, have explored and loved the other wine regions of the world, and then put pen to paper.
Comments