Comments on: One Robert Parker http://wine-zag.com/2009/05/10/one-robert-parker/ Wine Blog : Sensible Appreciation Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:01:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Michael Pleitgen http://wine-zag.com/2009/05/10/one-robert-parker/comment-page-1/#comment-14 Michael Pleitgen Fri, 29 May 2009 08:29:47 +0000 http://winezag.wordpress.com/?p=52#comment-14 Dear Thomas, very interesting point: "house style". I worked with one of big importers and distributers in Germany. When you taste for years with the same peers, even blind, you agree very quickly on a wine. So from time time you have to take some time off or taste with a different group and see wether you stand their arguments. For a buyer it's relatively easy to see wether he's right: he follows the sales of his products. Michael Pleitgen Weinakademie Berlin, Germany Dear Thomas,

very interesting point: “house style”. I worked with one of big importers and distributers in Germany. When you taste for years with the same peers, even blind, you agree very quickly on a wine. So from time time you have to take some time off or taste with a different group and see wether you stand their arguments. For a buyer it’s relatively easy to see wether he’s right: he follows the sales of his products.

Michael Pleitgen

Weinakademie Berlin, Germany

]]> By: Thomas Matthews http://wine-zag.com/2009/05/10/one-robert-parker/comment-page-1/#comment-13 Thomas Matthews Thu, 28 May 2009 21:57:03 +0000 http://winezag.wordpress.com/?p=52#comment-13 Should a publication be consistent regardless of who reviews the wines, or should a critic be consistent, regardless of anyone else's views? Neither position is entirely satisfactory. I would say we at Wine Spectator have a general "house style," shorthanded as preferring ripe fruit, balance, concentration, typicity and lack of flaws. Yet the editors often taste together in blind flights, and usually there is some variation among scores. So ultimately readers have to trust the individual tasters, or at least trust the publication to choose tasters who are well-qualified for their beats. Thomas Matthews Executive editor Wine Spectator Should a publication be consistent regardless of who reviews the wines, or should a critic be consistent, regardless of anyone else’s views? Neither position is entirely satisfactory. I would say we at Wine Spectator have a general “house style,” shorthanded as preferring ripe fruit, balance, concentration, typicity and lack of flaws. Yet the editors often taste together in blind flights, and usually there is some variation among scores. So ultimately readers have to trust the individual tasters, or at least trust the publication to choose tasters who are well-qualified for their beats.

Thomas Matthews
Executive editor
Wine Spectator

]]> By: GregT http://wine-zag.com/2009/05/10/one-robert-parker/comment-page-1/#comment-12 GregT Thu, 28 May 2009 17:18:10 +0000 http://winezag.wordpress.com/?p=52#comment-12 Parker was faced with two choices - limit coverage or add more people. In the early 1980s there were maybe 6 wineries in Virginia; today there are over 125. That's Virginia of all places. Washington State has somewhere between 520 and 550 wineries today, against a fraction of that several years ago. California has even more. Spain has simply exploded - there were many growers for centuries, but they weren't exporting and many sold their product to co-ops whereas today they make their own wine. So Parker could have continued to cover Bordeaux, the Rhone, Napa and Sonoma and maybe all of California, and one or two other areas he knows and loves. But his workload can't possibly allow him to cover all regions any more. So if he wanted to cover more regions, he needed to bring in additional help. TMs method of introducing a new critic isn't bad. Another way is to fold in other existing critics with expertise in specific areas. The Wine Advocate did that by bringing in Galloni for Italy and Schildineckt for Germany and white wine regions. Those people may not have the same palate as Parker, but they've established their own palates and reputations. In some new and emerging regions, there are no widely recognized experts, so you don't have that option. I believe that he brought in the other critics because he felt that their palates were fairly aligned with his, and that's not a bad plan either, if one wishes to maintain a consistent approach. He was faced with a tough choice and there were pitfall with any approach he took. Because WS was subdivided much earlier, it seems more accepted, but as an experiment, it would be interesting to have the critics at both publications all rate a number of the same wines and then to compare the scores. Ideally, they'd be pretty tightly clustered for every wine and then you'd know what "grassy" meant. If they weren't consistently clustered, you simply need to understand the individual critic. I doubt that many people have the time or inclination to do that. Parker was faced with two choices – limit coverage or add more people. In the early 1980s there were maybe 6 wineries in Virginia; today there are over 125. That’s Virginia of all places. Washington State has somewhere between 520 and 550 wineries today, against a fraction of that several years ago. California has even more. Spain has simply exploded – there were many growers for centuries, but they weren’t exporting and many sold their product to co-ops whereas today they make their own wine.

So Parker could have continued to cover Bordeaux, the Rhone, Napa and Sonoma and maybe all of California, and one or two other areas he knows and loves. But his workload can’t possibly allow him to cover all regions any more. So if he wanted to cover more regions, he needed to bring in additional help.

TMs method of introducing a new critic isn’t bad. Another way is to fold in other existing critics with expertise in specific areas. The Wine Advocate did that by bringing in Galloni for Italy and Schildineckt for Germany and white wine regions. Those people may not have the same palate as Parker, but they’ve established their own palates and reputations. In some new and emerging regions, there are no widely recognized experts, so you don’t have that option. I believe that he brought in the other critics because he felt that their palates were fairly aligned with his, and that’s not a bad plan either, if one wishes to maintain a consistent approach. He was faced with a tough choice and there were pitfall with any approach he took.

Because WS was subdivided much earlier, it seems more accepted, but as an experiment, it would be interesting to have the critics at both publications all rate a number of the same wines and then to compare the scores. Ideally, they’d be pretty tightly clustered for every wine and then you’d know what “grassy” meant. If they weren’t consistently clustered, you simply need to understand the individual critic. I doubt that many people have the time or inclination to do that.

]]>