Jancis Robinson on Napa; 20 and 100 pt scoring system discussion

I wondered in the 1980s why more new wine enthusiasts didn't also compare RP carefully to his competitors. But often their behavior was as if they liked his style, therefore he must be the best. Same phenomenon again.

(If you and I had brains, Thomas, we'd be getting rich off these knee-jerk habits instead of grumbling about them!)

Maybe they did, Max - for those that had access to the information. People read the magazines and discussions were probably limited to face to face conversations or maybe in a limited production newsletter or publication. But today the Internet makes everything so accessible. Here we are, at different places around the world, talking about a subject in a way we never could have done back then.

I never heard of Parker back in the 1980's - or for most of the 90's. But I did find out that Parker first reviewed NZ wines in 1986 or 1987 (under the heading 'Australia'), the scores were not very exciting. One Sauvignon Blanc, which had absolutely enthralled the Brits, got a 50 and a comment of "horrible". No wonder no-one here mentioned him. Today those scores would not have made it into the publication.

Winemakers only want to brag about the good scores, not the bad ones.
In fact some winemakers / wine producers only will acknowledge good scores - and never the words - which is why scores on their own, as utilised by winemakers / producers and retailers are simply marketing tools.

But I did find out that Parker first reviewed NZ wines in 1986 or 1987 (under the heading 'Australia'), the scores were not very exciting. One Sauvignon Blanc, which had absolutely enthralled the Brits, got a 50 and a comment of "horrible". No wonder no-one here mentioned him. Today those scores would not have made it into the publication.

When did his opinion ever change? NZ got one page in Parker's 1995 Wine Buyers Guide, pretty much suggesting that nearly everything from the island was second-rate at best, there were some quaffable sauvignon blancs, but that was it. He did have the foresight to suggest that things would get better, but it was a scathing write-off of a whole nation's wines.
cheers,
Graeme

Maybe they did, Max - for those that had access to the information. ... But today the Internet makes everything so accessible.

Sue, to clarify, I'll add that in the wine-geek circles I knew in the US from the late 1970s on, the US wine newsletters were a popular topic of conversation. Also, in some markets such as the San Francisco Bay region where I came from, it was routine to find current issues of most of the newsletters (sometimes even bound collections of them) among the notable wine retailers.

When I mentioned behavior of new US wine enthusiasts in the 1980s, it was what I observed personally from various angles. The wine enthusiasts that I mentioned heard about the non-Parker wine newsletters from other wine enthusiasts (such as me) who mentioned or circulated them. Also, the enthusiasts will have seen them in the same shops. (Finally, the vast and highly publicized 1984 University of California Press Book of California Wine, principal book on the subject to date I believe, even had a chapter comparing the different wine newsletters.)