Poll: Was Robert Parker "Good" or "Bad" for Bordeaux?

[JimHow]

Robert Parker was around from, what, the late 1970s to about 2012ish.
During that time the wine world in general and Bordeaux in particular changed dramatically.
Were the net changes for the better? Did the wines become higher in alcohol, more extracted, less balanced, more "Parkerized"?
Or did RMP with his "American grading system" help bring about unprecedented levels of excellence in winemaking techniques?
In the end, after nearly 40 or so years of tasting notes, was Robert Parker a net "Good" or net "Bad" for the generations-old region of Bordeaux?

[JCNorthway]

Personally, I think he was probably a bit of both. For sure, he exposed producers who were "asleep at the wheel" just putting something out and living on their reputation. On the other hand, especially later in his career, I think his own tasting "prejudices" combined with the impact of his scores did cause winemakers to steer their winemaking toward what he seemed to be valuing in his tasting and scoring.

Good question. It will be interesting to see what others think.

[JimHow]

I think that's a pretty good assessment Jon.

[DavidG]

I agree with Jon. But ultimately I think the commitment to cleanliness and quality will persist while the influence on ripeness will fade. People will make the wines they want to make. So in the end a net positive.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

He discovered the Rhone. Or was it just Chateauneuf-du-Pape?

[Blanquito]

I believe he invented the Chateauneuf du Pape.

[AlexR]

I didn't vote because I think that this is not necessarily a black and white issue.

If the question were worded a little differently - "Was Robert Parker more good than bad for Bordeaux". I would say yes. But there was also unquestionably some bad too...

I was glad that Robert Parker dealt directly with Bordeaux. Americans now had someone and no longer needed to go through British intermediaries, which was the case before Parker.
Many of Parker's discoveries were discoveries for Americans more than European consumers. So much the better!
However, the man also branched out and went off the beaten track. His love of garage wines is an example of this. But some of these were no really deserving of the praise they received.

As for the bad part, let's not dwell on this. The balance sheet is positive and Parker is history. I cannot imagine any other critic weilding such power and influence.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[DavidG]

From a financial perspective, Parker's popularization of Bordeaux amongst Americans was very good for the owners of the top 50 or so properties. But I don’t think that’s what Jim was asking.

[Tom In DC]

Good for Bordeaux chateau owners.

Not all good for consumers of Bordeaux.

[Nicklasss]

As the ''Parker influence era'' is more heavy approximately since a few years after the birth of Chateau Valandraud (birth around 1993, the garage wine to me, at the start, were to please Parker's palate), so from 1997-1998 until 2010-2014, it will be important to taste the concentrated fruity alcoholic red Bordeaux produced in that era at 20-35 years old. Then we will be able to make a better idea about it.

Actually, I have a tough time thinking the wines from that era will be better later than the wines from the 1975-1996 era. More of everything to me is California Cab or Australian red, and these powerful red don't age as well, or complexify as well as the 1975-1996 red Bordeaux.

In the last few BWE conventions, wines like 1979 Pichon Lalande, 1982 Figeac, 1985 La Mission Haut Brion, 1978 Ducru Beaucaillou, 1975 Cheval Blanc, 1989 Lynch Bages and Pichon Baron, 1983 Leoville Las Cases, 1988 Gruaud Larose, 1990 Haut Bailly, have been so good, so balanced, so drinkable, and made without (or very limited) Parker influence I guess.

At the opposite, I'm looking forward to taste the modern 15-15.5 % alcohol, super fruity oaky, super fine tannins and low acidity red Bordeaux, in a few more years. I'm sure they will be good because the same terroir, but similar to the 1975-1996 era?

Nic

[JimHow]

The 1998 Pavie we had in DC gives me some hope for the future.

[Ognik]

Let me say: He was useful

[KWP]

For the consumer....good for quality and availability, bad for cost of acquisition.

[RPCV]

Parker influenced the wine world in a positive way that improved quality, selection and avoidance of heat damage in the supply chain. That's it, IMHO. If it stopped there, I would have voted yes. However, his influence at the tasting table produced homogenous wines that required the grower/producer to try and match the characteristics of high scoring wines and then amp them up to get a higher score, thus losing the individual character of the vineyard, grape and wine making touch.

I wrote this in response to a WS article back in 2001 when Mondavi was criticized for not adopting a more modern approach:

"Laube's recent article discussing the challenges at Mondavi deepens the wine media's influence on producing heavily oaked, extracted, tannic and low-acid wines that have no place at the table. Many of the "stellar" 1997 Cabernets are, in my opinion, so close in style that one cannot reasonably distinguish an individual wine. There are far too many wines that are meals in themselves and do not fare well when paired with food. Mondavi has taken the approach that wine is an integral part of a meal and, when paired with the right foods, these wines complement rather than overpower. Should you not applaud Mondavi for this approach? "

Seems like ages ago but this was in 2001. My $.02 anyway.

[William P]

Yes.

Bill

[stefan]

>>
Many of the "stellar" 1997 Cabernets are, in my opinion, so close in style that one cannot reasonably distinguish an individual wine.
>>

That sums up what I thought about 97 Cabs way back when. Have they separated apart in the interim? I don't know as I hardly ever drink one and do not seek them out.

[Comte Flaneur]

My 2c is that if you take the 2016 vintage as where we are now, it is the vintage that finally absolutely establishes us as being in the post-Parker era. I suspect we would have arrived at this point anyway had Parker not existed. Only the journey might have been very different.

[Claret]

I agree with stefan on 97 Cabs. Ripe and blah. Montelena did shine at the Henry's Evergreen offline in NYC.

[DavidG]

Agree that a lot of 97 cabs were ripe and often indistinguishable from one another. I thought they were better than blah but not as good as the hype and if distinctive character is primarily what you were looking for I can see the blah moniker. In addition to Montelena, the Ridge Monte Bello and Phelps Insignia stood out.

[Ryan DB]

Unquestionably Parker was good for Bordeaux. Even though perhaps he influenced a change in the wines, he also led to many chateau owners/winemakers opening their minds and adopting new winemaking techniques. Fortunately, there has been a correction from this, and more classic wines are being made again. And even if you didn't like Parker's palate, at least you could trust his tasting notes. He was also superb at evaluating a vintage. I've talked to many winemakers in Bordeaux (and yes, many who don't like the 'Parker style' at all), and they all respected him and his palate. They also know how much he grew the market in Bordeaux. One chateau owner once told me that the Bordelais should erect a statue of Parker in Bordeaux.

[Comte Flaneur]

A mere statue would be an insult to his legacy.

They should build a monument to him, like the one in Columbey-Les-Deux-Eglises for De Gaulle

[AKR]

I drank a good spectrum of the 97 cabs, but most were gone by year 10.

A 97 BV Tapestry a few months ago was still hanging in there, even though a classic Bordeaux blend, it was unmistakably Napa. It never got that much lovin from the interwebs, but Mondavi's base Napa CS, was quite good in 1997. And that was a classic, elegant wine that was $16 at the supermarket back then, that kept well beyond its first decade. It's biggest drawback was the strange flanged bottle.

I liked the 97s, but probably like 96 overall more.

Over the last decade, the only CA cab years I laid a few down in were 2007 and 2013. It does seem like the recent years are all very worthy though. But prices seem so high to me.

[stefan]

If I knew how to create a poll, the question would be

Is Jim How good or bad for Bordeaux?

On the plus side, the BD created an outstanding internet wine site that has introduced people to Bordeaux and has led to many friendship. He pointed out the greatness of left bank 1996 and 2002 Bordeaux. Many people panned the 2002s, and some were unenthusiastic about the 1996s.

OTOH, he singly handed priced Lynch-Bages out of the range of most of us (especially the 1989), then laughed at people who bought recent vintages of L-B that did not measure up. He has encouraged followers to consume Bordeaux when they are jail bait! Even worse, he has persuaded some Bordeaux wine makers to produce wines that are attractive when they are young. He promotes the heresy that the right bank is not part of Bordeaux.

What say you, BWEers?

[DavidG]

Happy to help, Stefan.

[Nicklasss]

I think I have to say bad, as I never understood why he started rating Gruaud Larose, Figeac, and some others low after 1990. Always kept low ratings for some genuine Chateaux like Brane-Cantenac or Bélair or Beauséjour-Duffau (except maybe one vintage of course)

Unfortunately, no one will say so but I guess some producers really tried to fit his palate. Troplong Mondot (the 2006 is horrible) or Larcis Ducasse come to my mind.

Also, all his followers are thrashing any different opinions on all other Bordeaux wine boards.

A bit of bad influence.

Nic

[Racer Chris]

Also, all his followers are thrashing any different opinions on all other Bordeaux wine boards.
Nic

There's another Bordeaux wine board?