Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

[David M. Bueker]

I think that the statement by Parker about ethical standards is certainly surprising, but it's not in any way a direct line ot having importers show their wares.

And in case anyone was paying attention, importers have lined up their wines for the Wine Advocate for years. It's nothing new. There's gambling going on here for God's sake! Look at Rovani's old German tastings. He specifically cites Terry Theise running him through the wines. And as for tasting at the winery, David Schildknecht has done that for years, both for Tanzer (Austria, Germany) and Parker (Austria, Germany, Burgundy, etc). He clearly states it. The tastings were not blind. Do people throw out David's notes?

The whole level of venom and outrage is just so ridiculous, especially since many of hte things people are complaining about were always accepted. And it's only a wine rating to boot.

Hi All,
My name is Robert Parker and I love all the attention I am getting. It sells lots of subscriptions.
Bob

Focusing on the major importers makes a lot of sense. Given that TWA aims a lot of its coverage at the US market - no surprise that major importers (whose wines see the broadest distribution through the US) have their wines reviewed pretty comprehensively, so consumers who read it will have useful info on wines they're most likely to see being sold at their local retailers. Just adding to David's German comparison - most of the wines covered in the TWA write ups tend to be from the Wiest or Theise portfolios that are the most accessible to consumers. Some of the really fringe/offbeat stuff like Ulli Stein, Van Volxem (after Theise/Skurnik dropped them) and Baden/Franken wines which you'll occasionally see at places specializing in German wines like Crush or DVW and almost nowhere else rarely get coverage. Not a question of bias there IMO - just that most consumers wouldn't have use for that.

A perfect example of the blind gig is something we did in response to an earlier post, regarding Oregon and price point and mainly 2007. I have been remiss in posting our results (yes, I will get them soon), but we tasted blind over 30 Oregon Pinot Noirs, with a varied panel over a few days. Had this not been blind I know the results would have been different, as one of the worst wines was the most expensive, very well recognized while one of the best was from a large scale producer and less than $15. That will have to wait for another day... However, when we looked at the labels along with our thoughts, folks were amazed and actually wanting to take a second taste to make sure what they thought in the blind was actual... how easy it is for us humans to second guess ourselves !

Linda, "buy the stripper" made me spray coffee all over my screen. Great line.

Re the blind tasting, I'm looking forward to your tasting report. Will be down in Oregon this summer or by October at the latest--a friend bought a great big house up in Gaston and she needs company. Would love to meet you then. And I'll add, appropos of absolutely nothing, that the most successful Oregon pinot in my cellar--I can pour it for anyone, geeks and newbies alike LOVE it--it the Cottonwood Marina Piper at $22. Started with the 04 and found the 05 to be just about identical. I have wines that cost more and much more, but none are crowdpleasers of the magnitude this little wine has turned out to be.

Love his wines. Also have the Raya Jade.

In my humble opinion regarding, trips, non-blind tastings and mingling with those your job requires you to evaluate - I just don't see them working well together. In fact, I find it impossible to be impartial to a brand/winemaker when the labels are showing. It does a few things when you see the label
a: creates an image of the brand
b: tells you the stylistic characteristics you should expect
c: gives you an idea of price point
d: reminds you of the history / relationship you have of the producer ( Did they pay your way to taste ? Take you to dinner ? Open thier cellar ? Buy the Stripper ? Marry your sister ? You get my idea here)
e: and tells you if you think your readership may have any interest

Even in the cellar lab trials we are working on, we ALWAYS go blind, to not interfere or sway our results with what we think we should expect. It is simply just impossible to be unbiased with a product that is so subjective as wine.

In that case everything should be tasted in a vacuum, ideally with blindfolds on. Even tasting with other people will sway results a little bit based on how others react to certain wines. There's no way to taste wine in a completely objective manner, and to expect it to be done on a massive scale to cover thousands of wine for a publication is ridiculous (and completely unfeasible from a business standpoint).

Salil,

With all due respect, although I can see the pragmatic side of reviewing wines that are readily available as opposed to ones that aren't, I mostly find that this is a way of stifling competition and discouraging importers who go off the beaten track and discover new and sometimes exciting wines.

For instance, there is such woeful ignorance of non-classified Bordeaux on certain markets because importers/wholesalers/retailers far prefer wines that are, to some extent "pre-sold", i.e. for which there is a ready market via reference books, advertising, or publications such as the Wine Advocate.
The trade goes for the safe bets.

Best regards,
Alex R.

Salil,

With all due respect, although I can see the pragmatic side of reviewing wines that are readily available as opposed to ones that aren't, I mostly find that this is a way of stifling competition and discouraging importers who go off the beaten track and discover new and sometimes exciting wines.

For instance, there is such woeful ignorance of non-classified Bordeaux on certain markets because importers/wholesalers/retailers far prefer wines that are, to some extent "pre-sold", i.e. for which there is a ready market via reference books, advertising, or publications such as the Wine Advocate.
The trade goes for the safe bets.

Best regards,
Alex R.

A very fair point Alex. Although it's for the same reason that I have no problem with wine writers taking trips (even if paid by other entities besides their publication) to other areas to cover wines that are more off the beaten path and may not be imported - I noticed David Schildknecht's last piece on Germany 2006 covering a number of wines I've never seen in the US before (and a few notes that did list producers as having no US importer), in addition to a pretty comprehensive coverage of the better known estates and the major US importer portfolios. The issue then is that writers taking such trips regularly out to various countries isn't particularly cheap for any business and again something not very feasible on a larger scale if their publication covers areas such as New Zealand, Argentina, South Africa, Loire, etc - and then when they get offered trips (such as Mark Squires' trip to Israel) that allow them to explore some really off-beat wines - they get lambasted by some for taking handouts and not being objective. Damned if you do...

I find the idea that wine critics should concentrate only on the biggest importers amazing, isn't the greatest value when one finds a new estate?

As I have stated, I don't think that if it is disclosed up front there is inherently anything wrong with an importer showing the wines or a governmental entity paying for transportation. Why I found these episodes noteworthy:
1) it's one thing for an importer to show wines. It is another thing altogether to have a critic who regards an importer as "best friends for 25 years" and with whom you vacation. Objectivity is impossible, but one can at least strive for it. One doesn't say a judge should be disbarred because his best friend is a plaintiff, but one would say he should recuse himself.
2) I don't think that blind tastings are necessarily the only or even best way to taste. But I think if one says that the publication "tastes blind whenever possible" that should be the case. Barrel tastings and tastings at wineries are one thing, but I doubt Solomon or Ordonez (or Thiese or Weist) would say no if a critic said "I want to taste blind." Don't say it if you don't mean it.
3) As noted, Parker and his employee (um, I mean contractor) Squires have not been shy about saying/implying others were "too cozy with the trade." If one sets oneself up as ethically superior, be prepared.

The whole level of venom and outrage is just so ridiculous,

Sorry, I felt a little disorientated there and for a moment thought I saw this and thought I was on e-bob.

I find this whole brouhaha about bias and conflict of interest revolving around my favorite hobby quite interesting, juxtaposed as it is to a similar tempest raging in my profession. As a physician, I can say goodbye to the freebies from the drug companies because Lord knows that'll make me prescribe the most expensive new drug, whether it works or not. I'm not talking about expensive dinners or trips here, even the free pens and notepads are now verboten. Hopkins doesn't hand out free drug samples anymore - tough luck for some of those inner-city Baltimore patients who can't afford them. And Massachusetts has just passed a law making it illegal for drug companies to pay for lunches (e.g. a sandwich and a bag of chips!) at continuing medical education meetings. The issues are even bigger when it comes to sponsorship of research. As frustrating as this is, and as sure as I am that I would never be influenced, it's hard to ignore the research suggesting even minor bits of swag can have a measurable influence.

I find it hard to take the wine criticism issue too seriously in comparison. Sure, I know $$$ can be made or lost on the bestowal of or misattribution of magical "Parker points." And it seems like it would be good to know when a critic is tasting blind or unblind or on his/her own dime or someone else's. Even there, though, there is research suggesting that disclosure of a conflict of interest does not diminish the influence of the critic. Ultimately, though, it's a lot easier to take a flyer on a wine some critic recommends than to base a therapeutic medical decision on claims made by a paid drug company consultant.

Perhaps it's sacriliege to say so on a wine board, but the consequences of learning who to trust "the hard way" just aren't that momentous when it comes to wine.

[David M. Bueker]

Perhaps it's sacriliege to say so on a wine board, but the consequences of learning who to trust "the hard way" just aren't that momentous when it comes to wine.

Or as a dear friend of mine often says: these are high-end problems.

But David - have they outlawed the leggy, 22 year-old drug company reps yet? Pen, what pen? I never saw a pen.

This whole debate now has the ring of "the Yankees just buy a championship" whining to me. The have-nots and the fans of the have-nots are desperate to tear down the haves.

I would only point out that, try as they might, the Yankees have not succeeded in "buying a championship" since 2000. I point this out, with some considerable satisfaction, as a life-long fan of the "have-nots".

Very nice of Herr Posner to take quotes from different posts, used in different contexts to build a single argument. Classy stuff.

First of all, I agree with Dale that the posts are not taken out of context. If you're so convinced that they are, please provide some evidence.

Second, the quotes are from different posts because they were made by different people. That's hardly evidence that they were taken out of context.

"Classy stuff" -- it seems that perhaps you've lost some perspective yourself, and are coming at this with an agenda of your own.

As for the wider issue -- as you note, anyone who has been paying attention has been able to see how Parker's tasting methodology has been biased for years. Certainly there are those who have some resentment over this -- much of it justified, IMO -- Parker talks a big talk about how freebies have long biased other critics, but is quite blind to his own sources of bias. So, yeah, there's resentment on the part of some of Parker's critics. Resentment well come by, in many cases. After all, there's also hypocrisy on Parker's part -- and now, the hypocrisy is even more blatant. The result is a contentious mess. Surprise, surprise.

I was aalready ctive on Squires' site when it was just Squires' site. It was actually more fun back then because it did not have the Parker association and all the hero worship (and perceived need to protect the right of same) that it has now.

The growth from the Parker association is a blessing and a curse. That's nothing to do with Parker or how Mark administers the site, it's just what happens when something gets that big.

Exactly my own experience.

The bold part of the quote is a funny coincidence.

Here's what I wrote a few minutes ago on Dr. Vino's blog (and I know it's bad form to quote yourself, but I'll let you know that my britches are quite big ).

While I agree with the trend of these comments, I feel that many are too harsh.

I’ve been a participant on Mark Squires’s Boards for more than 10 years, after reading some very good posts from him on a French website linked to the Revue des vins de France (MagnumVimum).

I love his “real name” policy, and feel it should be adopted by all forums.

I loved (note the past tense) his sense of humor, which seems to have disappeared, and had (again past tense) great discussions with him.

Then things went south… a few months after his Forum became part of eBob.

This is not a snide comment on Robert Parker for whom I have great admiration, even if chinks in his armor have become more and more apparent over the years (and I say this even if I’ve never been a fan of Burgundy or pinot noir…).

Coming back to Mark Squires, I suspect that his Board became to big for its own britches and Mark changed, for the worse.

I once sent him a private message expressing my concerns for his health and well-being, mentioning that he had become bitter.

His answer was a threatening message: if I expressed my concerns publicly, I would be banned from his site.

That was the beginning of the end. After all, a board which led Nigel Williams and his merry band of men (Charles Morgan et al) to self-exile is probably not a board I want to read on a regular basis, even if I still dip my toe once in a while…

All is not bad, but it’s much worse than it used to be…

PS: It’s still a paradigm of quality when compared to the Wine Spectator’s forum.

We seem to have started going in circles, them that have a bone to pick picking nicely away and them with no bone to pick trying to put some order to the discussion. May I suggest re-reading a sensible and sensitive interpretation and summary of nearly all of these questions, that by Jancis Robinson at http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/a20090418.html


Best
Rogov

Following this thread is like turning on the TV and trying to find out the news. Turn on MSNBC and all Keith Obermann talks about is Bill O'Reilly. Turn on Fox and Bill O'Reilly talks about Keith Obermann.

[David M. Bueker]

Following this thread is like turning on the TV and trying to find out the news. Turn on MSNBC and all Keith Obermann talks about is Bill O'Reilly. Turn on Fox and Bill O'Reilly talks about Keith Obermann.

Which is why I only watch The Daily Show.

Oh, and for those that think I have an agenda, I have not even bought a wine recommended by Parker, Miller or Squires in years. I do however find it very funny that some of the most cleverly worded anti-Parker statements come from people who are so in bed with a certain importers wares that their objectivity has been lost in a cloud of "natural" wine.

I do however find it very funny that some of the most cleverly worded anti-Parker statements come from people who are so in bed with a certain importers wares that their objectivity has been lost in a cloud of "natural" wine.

David, can you be more specific? No reason for innuendo, just state if you think someone here has a bias. I'm guessing by importer you mean Dressner (is anyone in bed with Jenny & Francois?). I sometimes shop at Grapes, don't think Daniel stocks any Louis/Dressner (or J &F) wines. I often drink LDM wines, but certainly 10% or less of my consumption (and I dislike some). Lee? Linda? Ian (but he's in UK). Please be more specific, thanks

[David M. Bueker]

Dale,

If we go back to the premise of the thread on eBob that Linda cited recently (the one that slipped to page 2 the other day), there was concern over Parker (and his team) not always tasting blind, and being run through the wines either by the importer or at the estates. I am merely saying that it goes both ways. People write glowing notes on wines after tastings put on by importers (I do it, Gregg G recently did it, there's plenty more out there), and its all "thanks for the notes". There's plenty of folks on that ever so fun site that are friends with Dressner, have either visitied or met winemakers multiple times, yet their comments are held in high regard.

I just find the whole thing so hypocritical. Excuse the strained analogy, but it's now reminding me of the sports talk shows and papers being so outraged about steroids in baseball that they had to talk about it for 24 hours a day. You know why they beat the drum so loudly? It gave them business. It kept them on the air. If they're so outraged why don't they stop showing baseball highlights? If people are so outraged by Parker's perceived bias (and blind to their own) why don't they cancel their subscriptions and stop buying wines that ANY of his writers recommend.

Honestly this whole series of discussions has significantly lessened my interest in wine and in talking about wine.

[Jenise]

Love his wines. Also have the Raya Jade.

Haven't run into it yet. Btw, the Marina Piper is a wine I was introduced to by the good folks at the Horseradish Cafe in Carlton.

If we go back to the premise of the thread on eBob that Linda cited recently (the one that slipped to page 2 the other day), there was concern over Parker (and his team) not always tasting blind, and being run through the wines either by the importer or at the estates. I am merely saying that it goes both ways. People write glowing notes on wines after tastings put on by importers (I do it, Gregg G recently did it, there's plenty more out there), and its all "thanks for the notes". There's plenty of folks on that ever so fun site that are friends with Dressner, have either visitied or met winemakers multiple times, yet their comments are held in high regard.

But the difference to me is that you, Gregg, and other posters didn't say "pay me for my notes, because I am more honest and independent than anyone else"

I just find the whole thing so hypocritical.

Well, I found a lot of hypocrisy, but not necessarily from those criticizing the vacations, paid trips, etc. Parker's newsletter is subtitled something like The Independent Consumers Guide. Please read the section on Independence on page 6 from his buying guide:

http://tinyurl.com/chjw6h

So "airline tickets, hotel rooms, ...must never be accepted," "many wine writers claim these favors don't affect their opinions, " "it's imperative to keep one's distance from the trade", etc. I see.

As I stated, I don't have a problem per se with importer tastings, non blind tasting, etc. But I do have a problem when someone states that they have higher ethics than others, and don't actually follow through on it.

David and I have chatted over the last few days "offline" and I think we have a better understanding of each other. I am not sure if he realized that those posts I took "out of context" were actually posts Jay and Bob made recently on the Parker board.

I do not believe anything was taken out if context. In fact, I believe Miller was making a dig at those of us questioning his ways of reviewing.

[David M. Bueker]

Indeed we do.

And on that note I am enjoying a lovely bottle of 2005 Montelena Estate Cabernet right now. No TCA here.

Indeed we do.

And on that note I am enjoying a lovely bottle of 2005 Montelena Estate Cabernet right now. No TCA here.

Man that's infanticide! Had a 86, 85, a short time ago just coming around in a good place. I've tasted the 05 I thought it would be a few years before I would drink it.
I said this a long time ago. Parker is the fastest gun in winedom and there will always be someone in town who thinks they can establish their own reputation by bringing him down one way or another.
When I say the "fastest" remember he's established that way in the industry. Don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger.