Broadbent Sues Random House.

[William P]

http://www.luxist.com/2009/07/28/michae ... s-vinegar/

[DavidG]

I don't think it's the book that ruined Broadbent's reputation. He accomplished that without Benjamin Wallace's help. Broadbent's involvement in the sale of all those Rodenstock bottles is what ruined his reputation. Even if he can prove a couple of facts wrong in Billionaire's Vinegar, I think he would have a tough time winning this one. Lots of other facts are most likely true, and just as damning as the couple that are mentioned as being challenged in the suit. And don't you have to prove willful intent or some such? Guess it's his only way to try to save his reputation.

[William P]

David I agree if the trial was held in the States Broadbent would have a tough time providing damages. I believe the defense will be that that even if one or two minor facts are wrong, the majority of what the book says about Broadbent is correct and that would be enough to ruin his reputation. So there are no or little damage to his reputation.

The problem is England's libel laws are much different than the US.

[DavidG]

Have to admit I don't even know that much about US law, even less about the libel laws in England. Should make for interesting fodder in wine circles, though.

[stefan]

"The 82-year-old wine expert says the book has wrecked his reputation."

I thought He-Who-Shall-Not-Here-Be-Named pretty much destroyed in the 1980s whatever "reputation" Broadbent had.

stefan

[William P]

Bill, I should know what you are referring but the little grey cells are rebelling.

I think you refer to the 1982 vintage where Parker said it was a vintage of the century and I suppose Broadbent was one of those who said it was too fat and wouldn't age.

[stefan]

Not just '82, Bill, but the fact that HWSNHBN openly said that such-and-such a famous estate made lousy wine in such-and-such a year. Remember 1964? The daring critics said that some Medoc estates produced diluted wines because they picked after the downpours. Which ones? You either had to do a lot of research or taste the wines yourself to find out.

stefan

[JimHow]

Bill is correct. We can say almost anything here in the US. In England, though, the libel laws are much more strict.
Being here in the US, though, let me say I think that Michael Broadbent is a phony old pissbag.

[William P]

I suspect that Random House did not sell the book in England. Which to me raises a jurisdictional issue. Further, if the case is dismissed in England will Broadbent refile in New York?

I think this will be a entertaining case but I see no upside to Broadbent. He would have to refute the entire book. I also predict Broadbent will not live to see the end.

[DavidG]

Legalities aside, I think he is doing this to defend his honor, regardless of the likely outcome. But as I said before, Broadbent torpedoed his own credibility among the cognoscenti long before this book came out.

[AlexR]

Urban myths die hard.

Parker's innovation was not to praise the 82 vintage.
Parker's innovation was to get in there and dso QUICKLY and enthusiastically, with a brand of tasting notes not seen before.
Sure he rocked the boat. But it is wrong to say that "he saw what the others did not see".

Prior to Parker, futures were sold at a leisurely pace, and barrel tastings took place over a 3 month period.

No longer. The day after - or even on the same day - professionals now flock to taste the new vintage (far too early,
at the end of March) and post puerile percentage point ratings on the Internet.
This is the logical conclusion of Parker's original beating of people to the punch. History has since been rewritten to
imply that Parker was a great visionary. That is hogwash.

He simply acted quickly. He deserves credit for this, but let's not exaggerate....

As for Broadbent, this has raised considerable controversy on the English winelovers' board: http://www.wine-pages.com/cgi-bin2/ulti ... aysPrune=0

Why did the man wait a year to react? Why is he still working at 82?


Best regards,
Alex R.

[rjsussex]

I gave up on Broadbent after the first edition of his weighty tome gave 4 stars to Cantemerle 76. Like a fool I bought a case and most of it went down the sink.

Richard

[William P]

Well Alex, I don't think it was a urban legend that Parker was on the minority side of the 82 debate. Which he eventually won. 82 made parker because he vigorously defended and praised the vintage. It was his first introduction to a bigger audience that just geeks. Most critics thought the vintage was ok but not a long term wine what, a vin de garde. If I remember correctly it was about a 25/75 split. No he was not the only supporter of the vintage but he was the pointman. It could be said that the 82 vintage was his lauching pad.

[DavidG]

I think both Alex and Bill are right. Parker was in the minority on the '82s, and trumpeted them in the face of stern opposition from most (not all) of the established crowd. He also wrote very accessible notes and gave points that appealed to and were easily understandable by a much broader audience. I think the rush to be first with the scores also started around then. I didn't make the connection to the Parker phenomenon, but on reflection I suppose that when others saw the audience he was drawing, they wanted to get in on the action. Then it was off to the races with getting the news out, sometimes before the final blends had been made at some Chateaux.

[AlexR]

William,

I was in Bordeaux working for a wine firm in the spring of 83 when the wines went on sale.
Everybody in the trade knew it was a great vintage at a very early stage.
There was really no debate, as you say, not in Bordeaux anyway.

If there were debate in the US or UK, who was this from?

Best regards,
Alex R.

[William P]

Well Alex as I recall the cry of many critics was the 1982s were too fat, not enough acid, overly concentrated, and they won't age. I remember a San Francisco critic who was very worried. I would imagine that Clive Coates was not a fan for the exact reason. Does any remember Clive's position. Sorry, I didn't keep notes.

Oh, one more thing, isn't every vintage from Bordeaux the vintage of the decade at least when judged by the locals? Hardly impartial judges.

[William P]

So far, I've found in the questioning the vintage 1982 camp, Frank Prial, Robert Finigan, Kermit Lynch.

In the pro 82 Michel Bettane

[AlexR]

William,

As I said, in Bordeaux there was no doubt from the first about the quality of the 82s.
You would know better than I about a few dissenting foreign journalists.

You wrote:
"Oh, one more thing, isn't every vintage from Bordeaux the vintage of the decade at least when judged by the locals? Hardly impartial judges"

Of course, there is a big difference between what the wine trade thinks and what they say .
You are indeed right. Every year seems to be made out to be either a blockbuster vintage or else a miracle vintage thanks to the inevitable Indian Summer.
Very tiring, I agree...
However, behind the hype, the people on the ground know what's what.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[DavidG]

It may be that the Bordelais truly believed that '82 was a great vintage back in the fall of '82/spring of '83. But what the rest of the world heard was what the critics said, and the majority were not complementary. Michel Bettane was the most notable exception who believed it was a great vintage, along with Parker, but Parker was a nobody back then.

I am also curious whether there has been a shift in the nature of what the Bordelais consider a great vintage (Parkerization?)? Have they always liked low acid, ripe years like '82? I mean really liked, not just because they had to sell it. Is it even fair to say that there is any preferred style among the Bordelais? Aren't they just as subject to differences of personal preference as any other group?

[Tom In DC]

...
However, behind the hype, the people on the ground know what's what.
...

Alex, as a consumer I don't find this knowledge at all useful, since what they actually say is the same for each vintage, be it 1982 or 1977....

Of the folks who did state what they thought of the wines, I recall it running at least 3-to-1 against, particularly in the early stages. Terry Robards of the Wine Spectator and the New York Times famously suggested at the time that a consumers money was better invested in classic Bordeaux wines from '79' and '81, even though here in the states, the 82's were less expensive than his recommended vintages!!!

[William P]

Just for the under 40 crowd, as David said, Parker was relatively unknown before the 82 vintage. I think he had only be publishing 3 or 4 years before 82. On the West Coast out of San Francisco was another newsletter publisher Robert Finingan. I would have to say, he had a slightly bigger following than Parker. Certainly they were rivals. Well Finigan blew the 82 call and Parker did not. Parker's wine letter took off and Finigan's languished and eventually he stop writing about wine and wrote exclusively on restaurants.

[DavidG]

Didn't Finigan develop a medical problem that caused him to lose his sense of smell?

[William P]

I do not know David, but I do know he continued in his career as restaurant critic and smell is equally important factor in tasting food as with wine. Maybe this happened later in life.

Bill

[AlexR]

Please, guys, let us not forget that the market for fine Bordeaux is worldwide.

That Parker got in there first with the 82s in the US is inequivocal.

But no one will ever convince me that he, a relative newcomer, had a better handle on things than professionals of many years' standing.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[stefan]

Alex, the oldtimers were generally more guarded in their comments while Parker came right out and said that '82 was one of the great vintages--best since '61, IIRC.

stefan

[DavidG]

Alex, I think the fact that Parker was a relative newcomer was in part what allowed him to call it as he saw it, unburdened by the traditional perspective. Though Parker's self-confidence/ego/arrogance/whatever you want to call with respect to wine evaluation was probably in play as well. But it contrasted to the established critics, who were probably weighed down to some degree by "business as usual" - thinking the '82s were no good because they didn't fit the "classic" mold of the, say, '79s, which as Tom noted was famously (infamously?) touted as the superior vintage by the "experts" of the day. I know you are a fan of the less-than-exalted vintages, and '79 may be considered one, with some decent wines, but tell me, given a choice, would you rather drink a '79 Pichon Lalande or an '82?

[greatbxfreak]

Alex,

I know that you don't like Robert Parker and really don't apppreciate his merits. So please don't run crusade against him every time there's a thread mentioning his name.

Yes he "discovered" 1982 vintage bexcause he came with fresh attitude, fabulous tasting senses and was not brought up by old English wine writer aristocracy. Yes he was and is much better than many proffessionals. He's has all my respects despite some faulty steps from time to time.

Somebody mentioned 1964 vintage - wasn't it Robert Parker who mentioned in his book, that Montrose finished a day before downpour came? And that Domaine de Chevalier finished one hour before it was raining cats and dogs.

Concerning Michael Broadbent - he's one of the British brigade including Hugh Johnson, Oz Clarke, Jancis Robinson and Serena Sutcliffe, who during primeur week don't mingle with other people from wine press. Always aristocrats.

Concerning Michael Broadbent''s role in Rodenstock scandal - I've never seen somebody discredit himself in such a way. I was through the book twice.

[JimHow]

Alex can write whatever he wants, greatbxfreak, stop telling people here what they can and cannot say.

[AlexR]

Izak,

Robert Parker's role in the world of (fine) wine has been very important for a couple of decades.

Like anyone: Obama, Sarkozy, Wen Jiabao, Pope Benedict, or Britney Spears, his works and viewpoint are subject to analysis and criticism.

I am not a systematic opponent of Parker by any means.
I have repeatedly pointed out what good he has done for the world of wine (as you say, freeing Americans from the yoke of the British, going against hierarchies to some extent, etc.)
But his role is not all good, and I think that those things that are not good should be pointed out as well.

I wonder: who will be the new Robert Parker? He's 62, and many people feel they need quick fixes from *someone*!

Best,
Alex

[rjsussex]

So Izac - what does Parker do in en primeur week while the Brit aristos refuse to mingle? Get pissed with the lads?

Richard

[DavidG]

Jim I cant really speak for the GBF, but I suspect that writing in a second language he is most likely trying to disagree with Alex' point of view, not shut him up, though it does kind of read that way. In any case, I've seen Alex stand up to a lot more bullying than can be read into that post, and I have no fear about him speaking his mind.

It will be interesting to see what happens once Parker retires or is no longer taken so seriously. You never know who might emerge, but I doubt there will be anyone who will be his equal in terms of influence on both the wine-buying public and the producers. Even if you are a fan of Parker's, as I am, you have to admit that such a huge influence has both positive and negative effects.

I think many producers will continue to produce highly extracted wines from very ripe grapes, using modern techniques. And everyone from producers to retailers will continue to use ratings, someone's ratings, to market wine. Ratings will still have an influence, but the source will be more diffuse and the impact may well be less. Will Bdx futures jump as high when the Spectator comes out with a 98+-point rating as they did when Parker was around? Probably not. But the WS's and others' ratings might have a bigger influence than they did in Parker's heyday.

[stefan]

It is hard to imagine another critic emerging who can influence how wine is made. OTOH, high scores from the WS probably does influence demand and retail pricing, and I imagine that Meadows has similar influence on high end Burgundy demand and pricing. It would be nice if Alain would correlate scores from various sources with prices.

stefan

[greatbxfreak]

Richard,

Robert Parker always comes two weeks before primeur week and he doesn't apply for participation in Union des Grands Crus tastings as other journalists. He leaves Bordeaux before primeur week starts. We're around 100 wine writes every year and everybody mingles except the names mentioned before. I particulary appreciate exchanging impressions with Charles Metcalfe and Michael Schuster, two fine British wine writers who do mingle.

Alex and DavidG - my bet is Neal Martin, young generation wine writer, to be in place when Robert Parker retires. He has all the potential. I agree with him on many Bx wines, white and red, but not exactly on Bx sweet wines. For the moment, I can't think of anyone else. To hire Neal Martin was a smart move from Robert Parker.

JImHow,

I only disagreed with Alex, whom I've known for several years. No need to be harsh on me.

[DavidG]

Neal Martin certainly writes in an accessible style which I enjoy, and he has the platform. Being on the Wine Advocate team would seem to give him an inside track as heir apparent. His palate preferences do differ from Parker's, but he seems to be reliably consistent from what I've read of him, which is a key attribute for the more serious of those who actually look beyond the scores to read the tasting notes. If he does take over the Bdx/Rhone/Oz/US beat when Parker retires, it remains to be seen if he wields anywhere near the influence Parker has had.

I agree with Stefan that it's hard to imagine anyone influencing the producers like Parker has.

Will consumers learn to prefer the slilghtly more restrained wines Martin likes, being led along like the sheep many (Alex?) claim them to be? Or will the Parker mystique be non-transferable, and will they turn instead to other critics? I imagine that for a period of time simple momentum would maintain the power of a high Wine Advocate score in the marketplace, since many of the less geeky probably do simply buy on the scores and the recommendations of the store merchant.