Poll: Was Robert Parker a net positive or a net negative for Bordeaux?

[JimHow]

Was Robert Parker a net positive or a net negative for Bordeaux?

[barsacpinci]

Positive - got me into wine. I followed his newsletter back in the day

[JimHow]

I wonder if he really did change winemaking.
How would wine be different today if he had never come on the scene?

[Comte Flaneur]

I think we would have ended up in the same place had he not been around, but on a different path. Without him we would not have gotten so many extracted right bankers David has endured, and his influence spilled over into other areas like southern Rhone and Australia. I think it would be fair to say that St-Emilion is the most improved region in Bordeaux in the last 20 years as the extraction has been dialled down.

[SF Ed]

I voted net positive but its a tough call. I think he definitely helped the consumer, especially in the US, through the mid-90s.

His palate change/decline, combined with market demand that he helped create for riper wines, contributed to loads of wines I don't much like.

If I look at the evolution of wine making in areas where Parker had much less influence, like Burgundy, I think we would have ended up in a similar place in Bordeaux today with or without him. But I think his promotion of riper wines helped Bordeaux and Bordeaux consumers enough in the 80s and a good chunk of the 90s to be worth the excesses that Parker helped lead in the late 90s and 00s.

SF Ed

[JimHow]

Ha I was just trying to formulate a question about the 80s/early 90s as compared to now issue, Ed, and your post answered it for me.

[RPCV]

I voted net positive. While I view Robert as a very controversial figure, he brought to light many things that plagued wine all over the world. The effect of heat on wine during transport and storage (Kermit Lynch as well, of course), ripe fruit makes good wine, the effect of TCA in the cellar, and, perhaps most importantly, that he challenged a very stodgy industry. Some counterpoints are that he homogenized wine-making and it became formulaic, points became more important than style and heritage etc......From a historical perspective, I do find that heretical thinking is only recognized after many years of time passed. A debate worth glass of 1989 Haut Brion.

[AlexR]

This is an oft-raised issue.

I think that Parker was definitely good for Americans because he was the first American to speak French, go to Bordeaux, and show an ability to think outside the box. He emancipated Americans from English wine critics and explained wine to them in a way they could understand using the American report card yardstick.

Parker did, however, give the nod to some new generation wines that did not please lovers of classical claret.

But is this one man responsible for all the overoaked, overextracted wine that came (and to some degree still comes) from Bordeaux.
I think that would be a stretch.

AR

[greatbxfreak]

Net positive!

I can't follow Alex in his comments.

Angelus, Pavie, Cos d'Estournel back then weren't the whole Bordeaux.

HE DIDN*T MAKE THESE WINES!

Imho, there is no equally gifted wine critic right now as him.

[AlexR]

Izak,

I wrote: "Parker did, however, give the nod to some new generation wines that did not please lovers of classical claret."

That comment refers to "some wines", Izak, certainly not most or all of them!

No one in Bordeaux believes that Parker had no effect on winemaking at famous châteaux.

The prevailing attitude is that certain estates unquestionably changed their winemaking style to please the world's most important critic.
I tend to agree with that opinion, but wines must be taken, of course, on an individual basis.

Is to say that a wine is "parkerisé" non-sensical? Well, it is an expresssion understood by everyone, so there must be an element of truth there.
The only real issue is the extent to which this phenomenon prevailed/prevails.

It is pretty much agreed that no publication or critic will ever again have the influence of the Wine Advocate in its prime (where is the publication at now?). Who counts the most these days in the English-speaking world?

All the best,
Alex

[Comte Flaneur]

Alex asked: “Who counts the most these days in the English-speaking world?”

There may never be anyone to have the influence that Parker enjoyed in his hey day.

But the answer to your question Alex may be William Kelley, and from what I gather he is still a young man.

[JimHow]

So i think Ed answered my question before I asked it, and I’m still not quite sure how to formulate it, but its kind of a compound question:

Do we agree that we will never see wines again like what we saw in the 1980s, and, if so, did RMP’s influence have any role in that outcome?

A related question: Are the wines of Gruaud Larose and Talbot better today than they were in the 1980s?

[Nicklasss]

I vote net positive, for bringing Bordeaux to be a main interest of general wine consumers.

And from his description and rating, it was easy to identify wine that you would like. An example : i probbably prefer the wines that Parker rated 90-94 for being more "classical", and i'm less convinced by the wines he rated 96-100 as many time it is only concentrated, oaky, powerful wines.

But of course, execptions are existing.

[DavidG]

Net positive and not close for me, though there were definitely negative aspects to his influence.

Parker did impact winemaking. For the better early on, and then negatively from the mid-'90s forward. Fortunately, the good changes (cleaner cellars, less rot, less Brett, etc.) are sticking while the bad changes (over-extraction, excessive ripeness) have faded somewhat since he's left the reviewing scene.

He also had a net positive impact on consumers. Got me and a lot of people turned on to wines we never would have known about. Eventually this too had a dark side as an RP 95 or greater would drive up prices. That effect also went away when he stopped reviewing, but a lot of the price escalation has remained. Don't think we can blame Parker for all or even most of that.

Parker made it easy to tell which wines I'd like in the early years. That went south in the '90s and I made a few mistakes following his advice (see the 2005 revisited thread). I had a lot more hits than misses with him. His newsletters and the local tasting groups I participated in were the two major influences that developed my palate and allowed me to figure out what I liked on my own. No substitute for that. If I'd first gotten into wine and started reading him in the mid-'90s rather than the early '80s, I'd probably have a different opinion.

[robert goulet]

Net positive!

I can't follow Alex in his comments.

Angelus, Pavie, Cos d'Estournel back then weren't the whole Bordeaux.

HE DIDN*T MAKE THESE WINES!

Imho, there is no equally gifted wine critic right now as him.

Presently...My favorites by landslide over RP are William Kelley and (Not Pro) but Pro level Englishman"s Claret.

Negative effect....I hold a deep disdain for what RP did to Bordeaux extraction which also spawned clowns like Rolland and others. It far overshadows the positives for me.

[Harry C.]

Positive. One only needs to follow the money.

[greatbxfreak]

robert goulet,

I do not understand why you have a strong dislike for Michel Roland. He is not the one who makes the wine; the chateau owners do. The Bordeaux extraction accounts for only a small percentage of total Bordeaux wines. Moreover, Michel Roland didn't recommend the extraction technique, instead, it was the chateau owner's decision in the end."

[JimHow]

I voted net negative. I just find it hard to believe that one person, even Robert Parker, so significantly impacted a global wine industry. There are a lot of industries that have changed dramatically since 1980. A lot of products have been improved and perfected in the past 40+ years. Bordeaux improved because the world got richer, Asia got richer, in the 1980s and beyond. In the end it is the winemakers who make the wine, produce the product, know their markets, know what is best for their bottom lines.

Here in New England there is still a sports talk radio obsession with who was more responsible -- Tom Brady or Bill Belichick -- for the 20 years success of the New England Patriots. I'm one of those who are of the opinion is was more like 90-95% due to Brady and 5-10% Belichick. That's not to say Belichick was unimportant. It's just that you've gotta have the talent in the first place before you can be successful. Same goes for coaches like Andy Reed, Phil Jackson, Gregg Popovich, etc., etc.

I'm not saying Parker had zero influence, but I doubt it was as significant as most people think.

[greatbxfreak]

He rated Montrose 1990 100 p and Beausejour Duffau Lagarrosse 1990 100p. Overextracted and dull wines?
Give me a f... break.

He has loved Lafite, Ch. Margaux and Cheval Blanc. Overextracted and dull wines??

I voted net positive.

[Chateau Vin]

There are both ‘positives’ and ‘negatives’.

For me, if I have to consider ‘net’, then hands down “net positive”.

[DavidG]

Jim revised the question to whether we would have ended up where we are now without Parker, and whether we would still have wines like the Gruauds and Talbots of the 80s.

I agree with SFEd that we likely would have ended up in a similar place with or without Parker. He certainly catalyzed the process, speeding up the popularity and accessibility of Bordeaux for the American public. That gave the Bordeaux estates the capital needed to invest in cleaner cellars, lower yields, and pay greater attention in the vineyards. Which led to a lot of improvements in the 80s. Things went overboard in the 90s with ever more hype and the influx of Chinese money acting like too much fertilizer on a lawn. The pendulum has swung back some since he’s exited the scene. I suspect it would have done so eventually with or without his continued presence.

If there had been no Parker, would we still have funky 80s-style Cordier wines? Probably not. Getting Brett out of the cellars and the wines would probably have happened anyway, but it might have taken longer. Would a host of wines like Pavie and Angelus have become overblown messes which still haven’t fully returned to their classic styles? Probably not.

I still come down on the net positive side for Bordeaux, but less resoundingly so when I consider that much of the good probably would have eventually happened without Parker. He was definitely a major positive for my own wine journey.

[JimHow]

I think that’s about right David.
To me, the Gruauds and Talbots of today are homogenized, their wines of the 1980s are some of my favorites of all time.

[Gerry M.]

I think for the first 10 years or so he was a positive influence between increasing consumer awareness and calling out the shortcomings of the industry but it flipped to negative with rapidly escalating prices and the industry response to dealing with his consumer influence.

[ericp]

For me, this was a bit of a tossup. I agree with Gerry - his early days in the industry provided a lot of additional transparency to consumers about wine making, the quality of wine and moved the needle on information availability from a very few reviewers/negotiants too much broader general access.

Later in his career, in an effort to chase score ie dollars, many of the château were making wine with even riper fruit, and as a result, much higher alcohol. Not only did this produce uncharacteristic Bordeaux wines, it also drove pricing to levels much higher than I suspect they would have without his influence on the marketplace.

Eric

[Ianjaig]

I went net negative as I just feel that his influence was too omnipresent.

[DavidK]

Very, very, very negative. The manner of his tastings led to his favorable impressions of exaggerated wines. His point scoring system is a travesty of the nuance that underlies the wonder of wines. His rating system trivialized comprehension of wine and brought non-knowledgeable consumers into the wine marketplace, driving up prices. Parker was the worst thing that happened to wine in my lifetime, plus he was an inelegant writer. I first came across him around 1980, when I saw his Baltimore-Washington newsletter in a Baltimore wine shop. Glancing though it, his expository writing was inept, and his preferences were preposterous. I don't envy anyone's success, and he made it easy for retailers to market wines--it's a 90! I preferred the wine marketplace pre-Parker, when one had to develop one's own knowledge about wine, and, most of all, when there were no points denominating the supposed quality of wine. I had a deep understanding of wine before Parker unfortunately came along, and he had no influence whatever on me.

[greatbxfreak]

DavidK,

You are entitled to your opinion, but your comments are difficult to understand because of the overuse of philosophical jargon.

"His point scoring system is a travesty of the nuance that underlies the wonder of wines. His rating system trivialized comprehension of wine and brought non-knowledgeable consumers into the wine marketplace, driving up prices. Parker was the worst thing that happened to wine in my lifetime, plus he was an inelegant writer." Did you write it by yourself or ...? For me it is utter crap to read. Sorry.

[robert goulet]

Very, very, very negative. The manner of his tastings led to his favorable impressions of exaggerated wines. His point scoring system is a travesty of the nuance that underlies the wonder of wines. His rating system trivialized comprehension of wine and brought non-knowledgeable consumers into the wine marketplace, driving up prices. Parker was the worst thing that happened to wine in my lifetime, plus he was an inelegant writer. I first came across him around 1980, when I saw his Baltimore-Washington newsletter in a Baltimore wine shop. Glancing though it, his expository writing was inept, and his preferences were preposterous. I don't envy anyone's success, and he made it easy for retailers to market wines--it's a 90! I preferred the wine marketplace pre-Parker, when one had to develop one's own knowledge about wine, and, most of all, when there were no points denominating the supposed quality of wine. I had a deep understanding of wine before Parker unfortunately came along, and he had no influence whatever on me.

I agree...I have criticised his inadequate scoring system at length in the past ..he created a bunch of points chasers, chasing after wines with little or no clarity behind the points given. Oh and yes, def. drove up prices...and then when his palate died RIP in came the high alc. overextraction caricatures of wine

Also a Parker wine could get perfect scores all around with the palate score just pretty good, but it's still a 95...then people taste it and wonder why it doesn't blow them away...or the opposite, a wine could be an 85 and taste awesome because maybe it scored shitty on all the other parameters other than taste...it was such a joke to the point that it is the main reason I stopped scoring wines all together....scoring should be broken down into individual itemized scores and listed as such
Palate score:
Aroma:
Balance:
Ageability:
Color:
Etc etc...

Each should have their defined score with the addition of an individual tasting note for each parameter to achieve full clarity.

I have little positives to say about Parker

[greatbxfreak]

robert goulet,

I strongly disagree with your statement. I think that you are displaying a lack of respect for Robert Parker.

It seems to me that you are venting your frustration and envy at not being able to taste wine as well as he can. I believe showing respect towards others, particularly those who have achieved great success in their field, is essential.

[robert goulet]

robert goulet,

I strongly disagree with your statement. I think that you are displaying a lack of respect for Robert Parker.

It seems to me that you are venting your frustration and envy at not being able to taste wine as well as he can. I believe showing respect towards others, particularly those who have achieved great success in their field, is essential.

Your 100% correct Izak...U got me

I'm definitely dripping with envy..... damn, I've been made, I knew u would see through my comments.


...and yes, what your picking up is my second language.

[Comte Flaneur]

I was just reading the Farr Vintners intro spiel on Troplong Mondot - link here: https://www.farrvintners.com/wine.php?wine=69497

Was Michel Rolland (born in 1947, the same year as Parker) a net positive or negative for Bordeaux?

For me the answer is clear - he has been a been a net negative - for example, he obliterated the terroir of Troplong Mondot

[Claudius2]

Folks
I was debating whether to respond to this, as I see a lot of both positives and negatives.
Yet for Bordeaux as a region, Parker introduced many people to the region, and his writings, particularly the earlier books, notes and stories, really helped Bordeaux commercially.

I have to say that the Chateaux need customers, and presently, the wine producers across the world could really do with a new Parker.
Wine consumption in Australia last year fell for the first time is a very long time. Overall, the traditional wine drinking and producing nations are in decline. I have a lot of data from the AWRI and Wine Australia that backs this up.

I wonder though whether or not the positive effect on Bordeaux was less so in later years. As Parker got older and his palate more jaded, he seemed to demand riper, richer styles of wine, and as was the case with many writers, there was too much emphasis on concentration. I suppose drinking (or at least tasting) 600 wines a day wore him out.

I am not as convinced that Parker had such a good effect on Australia as too quickly, the makers turned out by the pallet load wines that were heavy, alcoholic and tarry. These wines were often over-priced and did not age well. Thankfully, the warmer areas are now pulling back on alcohol and concentration to produce more balanced, fresher styles, though in reality, the warm areas like Barossa, McLaren, Hunter, Swan, etc struggle these days due to heat.

From the viewpoint of producers, I do not think that anyone can reasonably say that Parker was a net negative overall for Bordeaux. And I again make the point that in a world that is drinking less wine (and not less alcohol per se) a few new opinion leaders are needed. Hopefully they will champion balanced wines.

cheers
Mark