By John

March 24, 2006 8:48 AM | Link to this

It’s like movie reviews to me. If I happen to know that my taste in films diverges from Reviewer X, then I can take that into account when I read the review. But I don’t just look at the numbers, I read the actual text and decide from there. Would you drop $20 on any other form of entertainment without spending 30 seconds to know what to expect?

By Michael Schmidt

February 5, 2006 2:20 PM | Link to this

well, Parker is not a heavyweight on every wine region, in actual fact his wine guide shamelessly repeated the same old crap on German wines until 2003, without any revision of the text for 15 years. Deceased wine makers were praised, liquidated estates recommended. Does the recent appointment of Schildknecht make up for 20 years of bollocks? I think not!

By Mahmoud A.

January 18, 2006 9:05 PM | Link to this

There are a lot of egos on the eRobertParker bulletin board, and if someone, especially British, is critical of a highly scored wine, they attack. I think that some of them are so focused on wine reviews, the point-score of wines, that they forget the value of general wine commentary. Michael Broadbent’s son Bartholemew was eloquent in defence of his father’s position on high alcohol wines but it hardly put a dent in the level of criticism. All they could think of was why did Michael Broadbent mention the name of a particular wine that they so very much liked. Among my circle of wine lovers we are frequently reminded of the ability of medium-bodied 12-12.5% alcohol to age gracefully and successfully. Meanwhile the high alcohol wines from the United States and Australia are showing early signs of fatigue and my friends are increasingly shying away from them and moving towards the wines of the ‘old world’. I for one am glad that we have many wine writers from both sides of the Atlantic who give us different perspectives, as well as preferences, on the many different styles of wines from around the world. Personally, I am most inclined to want to try anything that Jancis Robinson recommends. Mahmoud A. travelling in the Middle East

By Ric

January 15, 2006 9:03 PM | Link to this

Do most people in Dayton even know where Bordeaux is located?

By Gordo

January 5, 2006 3:53 PM | Link to this

If I am going to spend $20 or more on a bottle of wine, I would either have tasted the wine (at one of the many wine tastings held here in the Dayton, OH area), or I would prefer that someone else whom I know personally and who is earning a living in the wine industry had tasted the wine and would offer me her / his opinion.

By Paul

December 31, 2005 1:55 PM | Link to this

Interesting discussion. I think Parker certainly has lots of influence on American wine-buying habits. I suspect he has less influence in France or England. At least in England, I suspect Broadbent, Coates, Robinson and other English writers have more impact — if for no other reason than that they are not as well known in the US as they are in Britain. As for myself, Parker used to have more influence than he does now. I think over time, Parker’s tastes have shifted from French to American styled wines — perhaps because of improved winemaking in the US. So while there used to be a high correlation between Parker’s ratings and the wines I personally enjoyed, I now find almost a negative correlation between Parker’s ratings and the wines that I enjoy. Strangely, I guess this means Parker does still impact my wine choices, since my tendency now would be to avoid a wine Parker rated highly, particularly if that was the only input I had available. In the end, I suspect consumers react to any critic based on whether following that critic’s advice improves the consumer’s enjoyment. So if Parker or Broadbent or any other critic can consistently recommend wines you find pleasing, that critic will have a positive impact on your buying habits. On the other hand, if the recommendations are consistently unpleasant (or at least less pleasing), then that critic will have a negative impact. About the only way they will have no impact is if the recommendations inconsistently predict what you find pleasing. Or perhaps if that critic is virtually unknown to you, and therefore has no track record. Perhaps the real question is whether Parker has become so institutionalized in the US that he can now define what consumers like and dislike. I don’t pretend to know the answer, but I find the prospect somewhat alarming.

By Mark M.

December 29, 2005 3:43 PM | Link to this

Parker Shmarker… I wait for my Wed. DDN, find out what Fisher recommends that week, then run off to my local wine store before it is all sold. Kind of like going to a wine store with the list of Best Buys from Spectator and finding that they are all sold out. Wine critics like movie critics will have some say in the marketplace if they are any good — meaning if they are consistent enough so that you can interpret and relate their opinions to your own preferences. This ongoing debate on how numerical wine ratings may be causing a homogenization or globalization of wine, with the corresponding loss of wine diversity, is well documented in the film Mondovino. Modern production techniques can greatly improve the general quality of wine, but at the same time create wine that is indistinguishable, and no longer influenced by terroir. Hopefully, wine geeks will continue to evolve their tastes - and someone will rediscover a well-made wine like a merlot that reflects the rocky soil, the ocean breeze, and the one hot week in late August…

By cathy

December 28, 2005 4:43 PM | Link to this

I can’t resis a good ole’ cat fight (mrow, hissss), but in this case I’m in agreement with Bob that I don’t have enough information to make a wise comment. But I will make a comment anyway. :-) I did read the decanter.com Parker ‘backlash’: survey tidbit, but it is incomplete. In addition to saying that “48% of respondents cited Parker’s recommendations as having ‘no influence’ on their decisions regarding whether to purchase wine costing US$20 or more,” without telling us what the other survey options were for the other 52% (e.g., somewhat influenced, largly influenced, no opinion); they also stated that “Roughly double the number of people went out of their way to indicate that Parker has no influence at all on their ‘twenty dollar plus’ buying decisions…” Roughly double of WHAT? I went to wineopinions.com, which was supposed to have conducted the ‘research,’ but I couldn’t find any results on this topic. Since I am a non-subscriber to Decanter, and Broadbent’s original article is apparently not available on-line, I can only say that, if it’s true that he dissed a wine without even tasting it, then that’s about the same as dissing Broadbent without reading his full article (i.e., I don’t approve). So let’s see, what were Mark’s blog questions anyhoo? I forgot. Oh here they are: 1) who are you rooting for in the big heavyweight bout? My answer: I don’t care. And 2) what influence — if any — to critics’ scores have on your wine-buying decisions? Me: Some but not alot. Like most honest people, if I have no other input available (e.g., if the wine manager or my wine-geek friends aren’t available to ask), given a bunch of wines that I don’t know much about, I would consider the posted rating as input. I’ll also consider my cheat-sheet vintage rating chart I keep in my wallet, as well as myriad other factors of which I’m not even aware. See, research has proven that WHERE the wine is placed in a wine shop has a direct correlation with how much of it gets sold. Ask any wine store owner; they move bottles around to get certain things to sell better. Sante!

By Rick

December 28, 2005 2:17 PM | Link to this

I don’t see how they think Parker has this overbearing impact on the wine world. He’s definitely a major player and turning into a sub-celebrity, but let’s not get overzealous. e.g. Let’s say you buy that one wine of the 11 that has the Parker rating. Then, when you drink it, you decide that it sucks. You’re not going to go out and buy a case just because Parker recommended it. To add to that, what if there was a rating of another wine by someone else? Someone who’s not Robert Parker? Would you give that one less credence? Or just compare the two ratings and make a decision for yourself? Part of Parker’s prominence is the sheer volume of ratings that come from his camp. A smart business decision if you ask me. He’s popular, but he’s no Don of Wine. —Rick Dobbs http://martini-lounge.blogspot.com

By John C.

December 28, 2005 12:40 PM | Link to this

Parker’s rating system serves an important purpose. It helps consumers who are confused about what wine to buy. Unless the wine industry starts making its labels easier to understand, they’ll be at the mercy of Bob Parker’s tastebuds. I do use Parker’s rating system as a guide, but generally the salesmen in wine stores I visit influence my buying decisions. They’re consistently the most reliable judges of what tastes good.

By Bob

December 28, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

I find it difficult to make informed comment on some of the issues here for I agree with the fellow who wrote that one should not comment on something that you haven’t read. I did try to read about the survey. Unfortunately what they report are their own conclusions from the survey data and not the actual survey questions and response percentages. Of course many surveys can bias the results simply by how they phrase the questions and the possible responses. Does 48% saying that Parker has no influence on their $20+ wine buying decisions mean that 52% say that he does? I would think that having a direct effect on the buying opinions of 52% of a market would be an absolutely amazing influence not a backlash. The article cites that ‘61% rated friends and relatives as having the biggest influence on their purchasing decisions’. How many of these people are indirectly influenced by Parker because their friends and relatives who give them advice are influenced by Parker? I know a lot of wine-oriented people. I also easily know 10 times as many people who know very little about wines. I would venture to say that a good percentage of the non-wine oriented people that I know have no idea who Parker even is. While I often don’t agree with Parker and prefer to read and understand his tasting notes rather than rely on his numbers (he tells you to do the same) there certainly is a consistency to his ratings. I am not a fan of really highly extracted wines that result in what to me are overly high alcohol levels so I am interested in reading Broadbent’s full article before I would join the fray on the bulletin board.

By Stacy Law

December 28, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

You know, this constant “expert thing” torks me. I don’t need “experts” telling me what’s good and what’s not; who to vote for and who not; what’s popular and what’s not. I can taste and evaluate wine on my own; why limit my exposure to only the things they say I should try?

By Tom Wark

December 28, 2005 10:04 AM | Link to this

Some of the commentators at erobertparker simply want a fight. To suggest that Broadbent is anything other than one of the greatest wine writers to ever lift a glass is absurd. I read this thread you are speaking of. It was like watching an auto accident on the side of the road. And with regard to Parker’s influence. It’s important to keep in mind that he has about 40,000 subscribers. That’s pretty small. His influence is monumental in the wine TRADE and among wine geeks. That influence remains.

By Lenn Thompson

December 28, 2005 9:39 AM | Link to this

I don’t really come down on either side of this battle. As amusing as I find these sorts of fights, I don’t think they have much relevance for most wine drinkers. You could put “Bozo the Clown’s Rating: 95” and people would buy that wine — particularly American wine drinkers. Most American’s seem to NEED a number…regardless of who offers it.