Poll: HWSRN: Has he been good or has he been bad for Bdx?

[JimHow]

Has Robert Parker provided a net positive or a net negative for average consumers of Bordeaux?

[OrlandoRobert]

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

BobbyGoulet
My Personal Ballad to Robert Parker (2013)

[OrlandoRobert]

Kidding aside, Bob has been both good and bad for Bordeaux, but unfortunately, his lasting legacy will be his recent spiral into excessive prose, praise and scores for wines that transcend scale and balance. The good includes his imprimatur on the mdoern Bordeaux era, along with others, those that helped raise Bordeaux from the doldrums on the 1970s into an era of clean quality and depth. I doubt very few critics of Bob will ever say the wines on average are no better. They are.

So, overall, I voted positive.

Bob helped introduce me to Bordeaux. For that, I am grateful. But it has long since been time to move on. I cancelled my subscription to TWA many years ago.

[DavidG]

Define "average consumer of Bordeaux." Never mind, half will be above average and half will be below average.

I'll answer for me instead:
1982-1994: positive from a financial perspective, positive from an entertainment perspective
1995-2005: neutral from a financial perspective, positive from an entertainment perspective
2006-2012: negative from a financial perspective, positive from an entertainment perspective

Overall more positive than negative, but I have no idea if I'm an average consumer of Bordeaux.

Robert, nice Teddy Roosevelt quote, but how do you define the "man who is actually in the arena?" The Bordeaux consumer? Winemakers? Vineyard managers? Winery owners? It's not like Parker isn't a consumer as well as a critic.

[JimHow]

The reason why I asked the question is because of my recent experiences with wines like Haut Bergey, Larrivet Haut Brion, de Fieuzal, etc. All "well-made" wines, but lacking personality, lacking excitement, there's a sameness about them.

Would Bordeaux have improved anyway without Robert Parker?
There have been other critics out there.
The 1982 grapes were picked before Robert Parker became famous.

Maybe winemaking would have improved every bit as much as it has because of things like:
The adulthood of the baby boom generation.
The growth of the stock markets.
The rise of Asia.
Technology, science and techniques that would have come on the scene regardless of whether Robert Parker was ever born.

In the meantime, Bordeaux has clearly become largely internationalized.
First growths and now second growths are unattainable, etc.

Maybe all of that would have happened without HWSRN as well.

In the end, I'm just not sure Robert Parker has been a net positive for the average Bordeaux consumer.

[OrlandoRobert]

From an American perspective, he stepped into a relatively unoccupied space and owned it. He maximized utilization of a grading scale with which all Americans are fluent, it resembling our academic scale. Leave aside whether a subjective thing should be accorded an objective grade, but truth is, the scale was easy to understand. When I bought my first 1989 Pichon Baron, a 98-rated wine, for $40, I knew I was buying an A+. Made simple sense to me as a budding wine buyer.

[OrlandoRobert]

Robert, nice Teddy Roosevelt quote, but how do you define the "man who is actually in the arena?" The Bordeaux consumer? Winemakers? Vineyard managers? Winery owners? It's not like Parker isn't a consumer as well as a critic.

It was in jest, criticizing us for criticizing Uncle Bob!

[Bacchus]

Maybe his impact on price isn't all it's cracked up to be:
http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/a201301312.html

[finner]

In the end, for me, it was a zero sum game (re: Bob's influence). He seemed to have a crystal ball with knowing how young Bordeaux would turn out, and I used his scores as a guide. His downside was with the inflation of, and no longer being able to afford, a wine that I loved: Bordeaux.

[stefan]

HWSRN helped quite a bit by writing clearly and being critical. 'Course being a good taster of Bordeaux helped a lot. You younguns don't know how hard it was in the days before The Bob to get real criticism of Bordeaux wines.

[DavidG]

Bob - my sarcasm detector isn't functioning tonight. In any case, nothing wrong with criticizing the critics.

Jim - if you can judge where those young wines will end up on the style spectrum from drinking them at 4 years of age, you're a lot better at predicting than I am. You may well be right and all the critics who lauded the '09s could be wrong. i should really crack some of these myself before disagreeing with you, but I'm not that confident in my ability to suss out where they will end up. I do know that the '82s, '90s, and '00s suffered the same criticism young but turned into real Bordeaux.

Is Parker responsible for the changes in viticulture practices and winemaking techniques over the past few decades? Partly. And it's not just Bordeaux. He did popularize wines made that way with big scores, but he was only part of the process. It also took the Peynauds, the Rolland's, the Derenencourts, the Pontalliers, the Abreus and Turleys and on and on, and all the consumers that bought the wines not just once after reading a gushing Parker review, but repeatedly after tasting for themselves. Those are the men and women who are "in the arena" along with RP.

[pomilion]

I really don't think there is any controversy here -- the answer is clear. In his early years, Bob, regardless of whether you agree with his taste preferences, was a big positive for bordeaux -- promoting the region and introducing millions of people to its wonderful wines with his enthusiasm and voluminous, educated writing about the region. Just as clearly, over the past 10-15 years there have been two problems: first, Bob's ever-increasing imposition of his own stylistic impressions and taste on the region (which some resist but many chateaux feel economically compelled to follow), which has led to more homogenuiety in the region; and secondly, and most importantly, his role in score inflation and radically driving up the price of bordeaux. In 2009 he gave 19 bordeaux a perfect 100-point score. No one can dispute that this is utterly ludicrous. Parker has been in an arms race for the past 10 years with The Wine Spectator and other publications to be THE critic consumers and retailers cite the most in discussing bordeaux. He has won hands down. He has, almost single-handedly in the last 10 years, arguably caused the doubling, tripling and even quadrupling or more in price of many of our favorite bordeaux. This is not just negative and unfortunate; its downright evil because Parker knowingly and willingly did this. Bob clearly had a choice -- he could have set the tone of critical debate and scoring and could have played a moderating influence (he was the only bordeaux critic with enough power to do so), but instead he opted to try to win the arms race, period, end of story. Bordeaux prices are irretrievably ruined to a large extent because of Bob. He has become, quite clearly, the Anti-Wine Consumer Advocate. It's awfully hard to see how anyone could dispute this. I voted negative overall, it goes without saying, but having said that I got into bordeaux in significant part because of Bob's enthusiasm for and insights into the region -- so I'm negative but conflicted...

[JimHow]

David, pomilion has stated my views very well. I think 2009 is a potentially great vintage. But at least some of these wines seem homogenous. We see very few of those interesting wines anymore like the Bordeauxs of the eighties, wines like 82 Lynch, or 86 Gruaud, or 83 Palmer, or 82/86 Talbot. Now the Parker style preference has completely overwhelmed the market. In the 15 years or so that I've been tasting young Bordeaux it seems like the problem is getting much worse. I wasn't drinking young 82s back in 85 but I have never heard many complaints that the young 82s were this internationalized. I think most people would agree that the current wines produced in Bordeaux are quite different than those produced in 82, no? Parker didn't have any impact on the winemaking in 1982, but he seems to now. I don't recall the recently released 1995s and 1996s as having the same "sameness" that we are seeing today. Those infant wines had some personality to them. I drank 89 Lynch when it was 8 years old. They don't make Lynches like that anymore. Is this because of Parker's influence? I think it could be, at least to some significant degree. Maybe styles would have changed and prices would have risen so much without Parker, but I'm thinking he played some significant role. I was shocked at the style of the 2008 Talbot I had last year, especially when I think back to the Talbots of 82 and 86. So much so that I did not buy any 2009 Talbot, like I had planned. Heck, Jay thinks Lanessan is modern! Parker or no Parker, have they ruined Bordeaux?

[Blanquito]

Bob's influence went from positive (pro-consumer) to negative once winemakers started tailoring their wines for Parker Points. For my money, this started as a trickle in the late 90's, picked up stream in the early 00's, and got out of control once the influence of a handful of consultants (you know who you are) became nearly ubiquitous. Before Parkerization, he showed great skill and integrity and was very helpful for picking diamonds in the rough (either specific wines or vintages in general), but these wines had potential not because of some oenological formula designed to appeal to his preferences (micro-bullage, reverse osmosis, uber-extraction, etc.), but because of honestly-obtained raw materials.

I think of this distinction as one of quality versus style: BB (before Bob), Bordeaux's style was fairly consistent, but the quality varied due to a number of variables (vintage, terroir, luck, age of vines, etc.). Parker had/has an amazing ability to pick out quality within Bordeaux's general milieu. Once the style began to change to suit his tastes, however, his utility and objectivity waned, and eventually and quite ironically, called into question his taste.

I think for a long time, Parker was an innocent in the Parkerization process (though for a supposed consumer "advocate", he became uncomfortably close to a number of the key players in this movement, like Rolland). But his heated and borderline irrational denials of what has going on (all on the Squires board) called his judgment into question, and of late, he has piled on with OTT grade-inflation and ever greater hype, which has justified ever higher and higher prices for Bordeaux. He has become the anti-consumer advocate during this process, whether honestly or not, and along the way stripped a large number of Bordeaux of their originality and appeal.

At this point, I much prefer the rustic and "thin" Bordeaux of yore (so oft ridiculed by Parker) to the jammy, over-extracted, oaky alcohol-infused creations devoid of personality of modern Bordeaux. I think his influence followed the arc of the pendulum, from positive to neutral to negative -- by this metaphor, at least we can hope it will swing back at some point.

[Blanquito]

Parker has been in an arms race for the past 10 years with The Wine Advocate and other publications to be THE critic consumers and retailers cite the most in discussing bordeaux.

Exactly, the whole shelf-talker arms-race, where only the bombastic survive. An acquantaince of mine who is the author and publisher of a wine rag, he acknowledged, through various winks and nods, the only way to "get access" and be part of the game was to praise wines to the heavens. Then of course retailers will quote you and put your name out there, from which you can build a readership and get free samples from chateau and access to their barrels, et cetera, et cetera. This report, and increasingly every wine rag, has a scale from 88-100 pts, anything rated lower never gets mentioned.

For all its warts, gotta love CellarTracker and our fellow critics on BWE and other wine boards. Power to the People!

[JimHow]

Amen brother!
I say halleluhia!
Let's get the pitchforks!
Sincerely,
Jimmy "John Brown" How

[Blanquito]

I've got your back, BD!

[JimHow]

On the positive side, I don't recall a lot of Bordeaux from the olden days that have that "light on its feet" quality that we sometimes see today. Coming to mind immediately are wines like 2006 Haut Bailly and 2009 Giscours. So pure and elegant, but an underlying depth that borders on profound. When Bordeaux attains that nirvana, whether it is pre or post Parker, it is reaching levels that are achieved nowhere else. Unfortunately, these gems appear to be few and far between.

[dstgolf]

I'm in the overall negative camp. It's like politics. Its not what they say during the early campaign it's what they deliver while in power and what they leave in their path! Maybe the parallel that power corrupts is not too far off in RPs case. His legacy has already been determined in my?our opinions. Early on no question you looked to find that new gem in the rough. His palate seemed to align more closely to mine then than it does now. Anything he seems to be big on is over oaked,highly extracted,high alcohol inky black and very same same. I have bought fairly deep in 2003/05/09 and I'm not sold on these wines early on. Good yes but not great as their point levels would suggest. Too modern as many have said. I must say I'm getting more pleasure hunting for treasures out of Spain these days and finding some amazing quality and value in a more old world style. Certainly not as familiar with the regions and not aware of a critic like Parker following the region to give those early heads up. Still it's fun to look,try something new and thank god the cellar is full and I don't worry too much about the hunt anymore.

[Bacchus]

Okay, I may not be the wine advocate, but I think I'd like to play devil's advocate for the moment.
1. How can 09 be a great vintage if it's just another Parkerized vintage where all the wines taste the same?
2. In a related vein, if some of us are declaring our love of a thinner style over the thicker modern style, why do so many on this board rate 09 higher than 08, whatever the shortcomings of 08 might be?
3. Maybe we're the weird ones. The buying public as a whole seems to prefer what has happened in Bdx. I too am annoyed that I can't buy a first growth, but someone's buying at that price. If it's power to the CellarTracker people, can we really just dismiss the millions of people buying modern Bdx as a bunch of sheep and sycophants? Are we prepared to be the elitists implied by that perspective?
4. Maybe Parker's "genius" is just that his taste buds are more in line with the majority of the buying public than with ours. Are wineries shaping their product for the points, or because they now know what people prefer their wines to taste like.
5. Has anyone ever considered the up side of homogeneity? If they all taste the same, can the consumer get most of Lafite in GPL or Duhart; or most of Ch. Margaux in a bottle of Giscours or d'Issan; or LLC in Gloria?
6. And speaking of those that haven't been as quick to follow the Bob, anyone try the 09 Gruaud Larose?

[JimHow]

1. How can 09 be a great vintage if it's just another Parkerized vintage where all the wines taste the same?

It has better raw materials, but they have messed it up.

2. In a related vein, if some of us are declaring our love of a thinner style over the thicker modern style, why do so many on this board rate 09 higher than 08, whatever the shortcomings of 08 might be?

It has better raw materials, but they messed it up.

3. Maybe we're the weird ones. The buying public as a whole seems to prefer what has happened in Bdx. I too am annoyed that I can't buy a first growth, but someone's buying at that price. If it's power to the CellarTracker people, can we really just dismiss the millions of people buying modern Bdx as a bunch of sheep and sycophants? Are we prepared to be the elitists implied by that perspective?

And most people used to think it was okay to have slaves too. Just because a tyrant majority believes it doesn't make it true.

4. Maybe Parker's "genius" is just that his taste buds are more in line with the majority of the buying public than with ours. Are wineries shaping their product for the points, or because they now know what people prefer their wines to taste like.

See answer to question 3 above. Again, just because the majority says it's so doesn't make it so.

5. Has anyone ever considered the up side of homogeneity? If they all taste the same, can the consumer get most of Lafite in GPL or Duhart; or most of Ch. Margaux in a bottle of Giscours or d'Issan; or LLC in Gloria?

How Orwellian!

6. And speaking of those that haven't been as quick to follow the Bob, anyone try the 09 Gruaud Larose?

No.

[dstgolf]

Just think of the 09 Lafite like demiglace and and a little coke!:)

[OrlandoRobert]

5. Has anyone ever considered the up side of homogeneity? If they all taste the same, can the consumer get most of Lafite in GPL or Duhart; or most of Ch. Margaux in a bottle of Giscours or d'Issan; or LLC in Gloria

This is in part, my thought-process. Without buying into the homogeneity part, my spin on this is whether the qualitative margin between the First Growths and the super-performing classified growths has narrowed so much as to make it difficult to discern a material difference. For example, the 89 Lynch Bages was as good, IMHO, as '89 Latour and better than '89 Mouton. The '03 Leoville Poyferre drinks like a First Growth to me. And perhaps these margins have closed even more in the last 10 years where, for example, an estate like Cos d'Estournel (leave aside the modern style for now), who has invested such much in the vineyards and the cellar, is performing at First Growth Quality at 1/3 the bottle price. While I would love to crack FGs with aplomb, frankly, I am not missing much. When I can pop an '82 Talbot like I did last night, and be wowed, I am a happy many without dropping 1K on a bottle. I bought that Talbot last year for $150.

[Bacchus]

Jim, you sure know how to get BWEers to post. I'm not so sure about the comparison of taste in drink to slavery though. And if you want to apply that principle to the question of human order, if the minority insists that it is right, you can end up in some very nasty political places (I think they call it the Republican Party!) My comments, of course, were aimed at what appears, at least at first blush, to be a couple of contradictions developing in the above posts. 1) Declaring 09 a great vintage, yet condemning the wines as international and homogenized, and 2) praising the people in the context of CellarTracker (independent thinkers), yet condemning them in the context of Bob's taste buds (sheeple). I don't think there's any harm in thinking things like that through a little more. As far as my original points 1 and 2 go, I think most will agree with you that the 09 vintage supplied great raw materials. And no doubt some will agree that many of the bordalaise blew it (Gilman comes to mind). And I'm pretty sure almost everyone will also agree that 08 didn't supply the same level of raw material. But if the wines of 08 are less manipulated/Parkerized, I was wondering if it is possible that at least some of the wines might have ended up better than their 09 versions, despite having poorer raw materials to work with. It seems that might be especially the case for those who prefer a "thin" wine.

[Ken]

I have been subscribing to the Wine Advocate since around 1977, although the earliest issue I can find in my stacks is 1981.

While I generally try to stay out of these kinds of conversations, I would note the following.

When I began subscribing, there were only a few wine review magazines around, including Finnegan's review out of California and the WA. Parker, became very well known after he and Finnegan had a public argument about the quality of the 1982's, which Finnegan dismissed as overwhelming fruit and too California like. Turns out, Parker was more right, and Finnegan went out of business. Thus, Parker built some of his reputation on the recognition that big fruit is important, because the aging process is partly a function of fruit outlasting tanin while the wine develops complexity. However, I think that has been somewhat translated into big fruit is everything to the ignoring of balance, complexity, finish, etc. Parker does have a higher tolerance for alcohol in wine that I do, but knowing that, I take it into account in my purchases.

I thought Parker brought something that was very important to the table and that was: (1) detailed information on each vintage in Bordeaux; and (2) a discriminating palate, while not without errors, that provided us with some information besides a chateau's history that we could use in purchasing futures. For example, I relied heavily on Parker's recommendations on the 1981 and 1982 Bordeaux since I was unable to travel to France and tase the wine in barrel. Even if I had been able to do so, I am not sure what I would have learned. Parker does do a reasonable job it predicting from barrel samples, which is not easy.

Of course today we have a large number of wine pundits and they may or may not agree. What is does provide are multiple perspectives which we usually combine with our own tastings and experience in deciding on wine purchases. No, Parker is not the final arbiter of quality, we are; but he provides useful information that we may choose to use or disregard.

-Ken

[JimHow]

I just mailed my $75 subscription renewal this morning.
I agree with everything you say Ken.
I'm just not sure Haut Bergey is the direction I want to see Bordeaux going.
I decided not to buy 6-12 more bottles at $32 because of my perception of the Parkerization of that wine.
But you are right, WA is a useful reference.

[Ken]

Thanks Jim. I think what we learn to do is to take the palate of the taster into account; so knowing Parker's preferences I can better make sense of his comments and recommendations. I guess the only other thing I would add is that I generally trust Parker more than the Wine Spectator, and I find the organization of the Spectator (in hard copy) difficult to use and follow. At least with Parker, I know what I am getting.

I just wish I knew the palates of Decanter better. My sense is that they generally (in their tasting panels) prefer complexity and balance to big fruit. That is certainly my preference.

-Ken

[Comte Flaneur]

I agree with the sentiments expressed here. When I was a young man in my mid-late 20s just getting into wine, and probably getting paid more than I was worth, Parker's enthusiasm was infectious and helped turn my hobby into an obsession. He also helped me to identify some wines which I bought around 20 years ago, which I would never be able to afford today, things like 85 La-Las and 82 FGs.

In the grand scheme of things there are probably more powerful forces out there shaping global tastes and wine trends, which Parker undoubtedly contributed to, but probably would have happened without him. Without Parker there may be less overly spoofulated wines out there, which have blighted St-Emilion more than any other Bordeaux sub-region, and regions like Southern Rhone and the Barossa Valley.

One region he has had no influence on is burgundy, I suspect because he doesn't really understand it. Ref his dalliance with Helen Turley and her husband when they tasted a Marcassin pinot and La Tache side by side.

[AlohaArtakaHoundsong]

Is this a requiem? Is he dead?

What would Haut-Bergey be without his supposed influence? That's the other side of the coin. The answer might be languishing in obscurity (deserved perhaps), or perhaps with its vines completely pulled up.

Wasn't Bordeaux the most well-known and well-loved wine region already before he (supposedly) took it hyperbolic? I mean, were we Americans such dunderheads? (rhetorical for non-Americans). Even I bought more Bordeaux and French wine generally (though not much to be sure) than any other kind, and that was before I ever heard of the guy, but after he'd become a cause celeb (I had poor enological situational awareness and still do).

[Ken]

I have heard a number of criticisms of RPs reporting on Burgundies, but I don't feel quite capable of judging his perceptions/reporting. I find Burgundies extremely easy to appreciate and extremely difficult to purchase without having tasted them. I envy Stefan's knowledge and experience with the Burgundies (both red and white), but I think that is the level of knowledge required to purchase Burgundies without excessive uncertainty. All that said, I really miss aged white Burgundies and nothing seems to substitute.

[stefan]

>>
I really miss aged white Burgundies and nothing seems to substitute.
>>

Amen, Ken.

[Nicklasss]

To me, most of the critics that taste wine knowing the label, have a negative impact as they tend to comment/rate positively only the best reputation/most expensive wines, while there is so much more to appreciate in all type/price range wines. It is so easy to say a 1000 $ is the best thing you've tasted, when no so many people can afford a bottle to try.

You know, the Word is made of two things : facts and ''images or look''. Unfortunately, most of the people like more the ''images or look'' than the facts. Especially when the subject described is dependant of personal taste and can't be analyzed precisely.

Ok, enough shit, I'm going back to my glass of wine of 92 Parker points...

Nic

[JonoB]

Because of everything that has transpired, I said negative, but I can't really disagree with anything said.

To be honest, one could argue that the biggest problem is not Parker but points and price chasers.
A good example. I went to a restaurant that I love on Saturday with friends, and they have a good wine list. However, everything was about £3-5 overpriced on average... and some wines could have been about £10 cheaper on their list (how do I know this? I work with pretty much all the importers of those wines, so know both trade and restaurant costs). Which got me thinking about the business model and how the business is successful.

My friend kept saying it is the food... I said, it is the reputation of the chef and the atmosphere that keeps people coming through the door. Nowadays you can throw a coin in London and hit a talented chef (at least when they are on their cigarette break... as they should be in the kitchen. ) but plenty of small restaurants around the globe with fantastic food go out of business everyday and many within 6 months of opening. So what is it the keeps people both coming through the door and businesses running? Well it has to be the atmosphere and reputation (which can be built in the internet age on a pack of cards). Create a great atmosphere... have a list that may be overpriced, but fits price bands of £15-20, £20-25, £25-30, £30-35, £35-40, £40+ so that people who don't know anything can pick a price and drink (the wines are good, so there will be no complaints), but it doesn't mean that the drinkers know what they are doing. Add a PArker score and an explanation of who he is, and they order a second or third bottle without trying different things. This isn't to say that these people do not have or can't train their palate. It just means that they don't care. But whenever they go to a shop or another restaurant they have a reference point for what AN other (Parker) likes, and because they don't care that is that. These same people would never become interested in tea... there is no added bonus of getting drunk, but I'm sure that I could convert a good many from wine forae, as for us, it isn't just the alcohol. I'm not trying to say that this restaurant is bad or the food sucks... far from it, I go there a lot, but for the food and the company that I am with.

Perhaps what I am trying to say is that Bordeaux for me changed for the worse, because of RPs words, not because of him, and the apathy of the general wine buying public extenuates that to the point where they think its OK to buy on points alone, and love it because it has 96+. I always used to hate it when people would buy on RP points, even when everyone in the room was telling them how fabulous a wine that only got 91 is. If anything, it is the sheep rather than the message or the messenger that are usually holding the most blame and for many that includes all of us (although we may have seen the light and branched out on our own at various points in time). If the Bordelais see the majority of people getting their RP scores out when they visit a Chateau... do you blame them for cow-towing to the man's taste-buds? I can't, because at the end of the day, they run a business and to suvive, well they need to sell wine! Maybe the same horses would be winning today without Parker, but whilst overall it is an overall slight negative... the biggest negative are those who refuse to think for themselves, and we've all been in the hollow and unimaginitve place at some point of our wine odyssey.

[AlexR]

Hi guys,

Wow, two recent threads touching on pretty important aspects of Bordeaux: Left Bank/Right Bank preferences and now the role of Robert Parker.
That's enough to get the juices flowing!
Let's have some more of these controversial threads: who's the prettiest female winemaker or château owner in Bordeaux? Is Bordeaux better than Burgundy? Can any non-French Cabernet wine approach the Great Bordeaux, etc. Bring 'em on!

The question that started this thread was asked in such a way that one has to weigh up the pluses and minuses and give a clear answer.
Not easy.
I couldn't do it at first, so waited a day to reply.
I voted RP as being more on the good than the negative side, despite a certain number of things.
I guess I'm thinking mostly of the way it was in the 80s and early 90s, and the trailblazing he did, especially with regard to liberating Americans from having to rely on British intermediaries.
It would be ironic if Neal Martin took over from him, wouldn't it?
But, he's a good guy and totally unstuffy.

Best regards,
Alex R.

[Chateau Vin]

My 2 cents...

I think he has been overall good...I never subscribed to WA, but I do follow him based on my needs (trying a new wine or price hikes in anticipation of his scores, etc.)...

1. Undoubtedly, he popularized Bordeaux wines among consumers, especially on this side of the pond...
2. Undoubtedly, he contributed to the improvement of quality of wines across the board. Some people might say the wines are more homogeneous, but I am talking about viticulture processes also...
3. One could argue high prices are negative as a result of parker ratings. Duh, he is not at fault for this. It's free market economy. He does not dictate prices. The market does...If more people want Bordeaux, it hurts my pocket, but that's the way it is. It is also true that with high popularity of Bordeaux wines, bordelaise could charge more (albeit some have become more greedy lately), and subsequently were able to invest more in their properties to improve quality..
4. It's just natural when some things become better, something else has to give in. But in the end, I think he is more positive than negative.
5. The other thing is, Parker sooner or later is gonna retire. But the chateaux that put in place the practices to improve the quality IMO will last even after he is gone.
6. Ken made great points in his post on this thread, which is all the more reason to give an overall thumbs up for Parker..

[Jay Winton]

RP gets a + vote from me. I do think he forced Bordeaux to institute real improvements in quality control and it has drifted down so non classified growths can be great values especially in good vintages (or are there no really bad vintages anymore?). It's no one's fault if the world is drinking more Bordeaux thus driving up prices.

[AlexR]

How, please, has RP contributed to quality?

He reviews very few Bordeaux when you think about it, and when he knocks them, are they supposed to suddenly get better?
Remember his famous "Life is too short for Croizet Bages".
Is CB any better as a result?

Sure, some point/price sensitive châteaux have made bigger wines since he arrived on the scene.
But this was done to please the please just one man?
And are the wines any better?

Alex R.

[Jay Winton]

Alex, I think RP (and others) spurred winemakers to invest in better winemaking equipment and perhaps be more selective in their grape selection. Also, not taking any advertisements helped him remain impartial initially though that has probably changed. I also give him some of the credit for overall improving the way wines are safely transported though Kermit Lynch started this process.We are outsiders in the wine drinking community as we will age our wines for improvement; the world is pop and pour. I'm not defending him 100% by any means and I think his recent sale raised a lot of questions about the brand-we will see.

[OrlandoRobert]

Good point, jay, about his diatribes on the shipping of wine from that era. He also used his soap box to rail against fining and filtration. Both positive things to have done.

[Chateau Vin]

.... I'm not defending him 100% by any means and I think his recent sale raised a lot of questions about the brand-we will see.

Jay,

IMO, WA Brand is Parker. Period. No Parker, No WA in its current form. Almost all the subscriptions are because of him, because they want his take on the wine. Once he is gone, WA has to change the business model to make it look like other wine magazines to be competitive.

As far as the sale, what would he do? He built the thing from scratch, built the brand and pretty soon he is gonna retire. Once he is gone, pretty much it's worthless to him. The buyer obviously thinks it will be worth more than paid for given their thought on any changes to the business model in the future. So why not cash in what he built and move on? Any of us would do the same. As far as the subscribers, they always have the choice to continue or not depending on their needs...