Aviation Hall of Fame induction
MidFirst balloon festival
You've been spotted: 2008 Air Show
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2007 > April > 05 > Entry
When Spectator and Parker ratings wildly disagree: Whom to trust?
It was an intriguing idea for a wine tasting: Take a half-dozen wines on which Wine Spectator and Robert Parker disagreed substantially on their ratings, and figure out which one was right — and which was wrong.
That was the premise of a recent tasting organized and hosted by Dayton-area ophthalmologist Michael Kunesh, who found six wines with scores that diverged in score anywhere from 6 to 14 points. In three cases, the Spectator rated the the wine higher, and in three cases, it was Parker who was more generous with his score.
Here were the wines:
— 1997 Merryvale Vineyards Proprietary Red (Parker 89 points, Spectator 97)
— 2003 Branson Coach House Shiraz (Parker 98, Spectator 92)
— 1997 Antinori Guado al Tasso Bolgheri (Parker 88, Spectator 96)
— 2003 Dominus (Parker 95, Spectator 81)
— 1995 Phillip Togni Cabernet Sauvignon (Parker 96, Spectator 88)
— 1997 Spring Mountain Estate Reserve (Parker 88, Spectator 95)
Kunesh served the wines blind for us to make our own determination (on the 100-point scale, naturally), and to give us the chance to guess the identity of the wines. That task was made more difficult when one of the wines — it was revealed later to be the Antinori — was corked. The level of TCA was substantial enough to make the wine impossible to evaluate.
My favorite of the night (95 points) was the ‘97 Spring Mountain — a wine with just a smidge of brett-like barnyard in the aromas, and waves of complex flavors that just kept coming over the course of a long, luxurious finish. Both the Merryvale and the Dominus (94 points) came in tied for second on my score sheet.
None of the wines showed poorly (with the exception of the corked wine, of course). None seemed to contain elements that I would think would be controversial, with the possible exception of the whiff of brett in the Spring Mountain. So in essence, I have no clue how two such influential tasting conglomerates such as Parker and Spectator could diverge so dramatically, especially on the Dominus, with its 14-point difference.
Who “won” the credibility battle? Alas, there was no clear-cut winner. My selection of Spring Mountain aligned me more with the Spectator rating, but I was almost equally impressed with the Dominus, which the Spectator scored an 81. I didn’t like the Australian Shiraz nearly as much as Parker did, but my score on the Togni aligned with his more closely than the Spectator’s.
So … could Parker and Spectator both be fallible? Sacrilege!
Oh, and I correctly identified only two of the five wines, the Merryvale and the Branson (the Aussie was close to a gimme). Oh, the shame and humiliation of the blind tasting….
Cheers!
Mark Fisher
Comments
By Steve in a bottle
April 11, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this
It isn’t about Wine Spectator vs. Parker, for despite some variances here and there, they both actually suffer from the same problem- they taste too many wines and have muted palates from it. The bottom line is that because of this, they rate high alcohol, high sugar, and over-ripe wines over 90 BECAUSE THEY STAND OUT IN THE CROWD. One or the other or both pan wines with complexity, balance, and finesse because they don’t “stand out” in a tasting of 100 wines. The W.S. and Parker both need to be reminded that they rate wine, not cocktails. Look at the notes from Mark’s blind tasting- “None of the wines showed poorly…” Yet, four of the ten scores were under the coveted “90” rating, making the rating useless to the wineries for marketing their wine ;-( These two major publications and their 100-point ratings have only been a detriment to the wine industry for all the reasons listed by the other bloggers and through setting an almost impossible benchmark for wineries who want to make a balanced and elegant wine. [That’s the public’s fault for ignoring scores under 90, remember, an 88 is a B+ anyhow!] Who loses? The consumer who is obsessed with points loses. How to win? Try a lot of wines, get to know your regions, producers, and labeling laws, take notes, and discuss your wonderful hobby with friends!!! Wow, ya’all got me on a rampage!!! Please write the W.S. and Parker everytime you get a high-scored table wine that tastes like Port, and let them know how it was offensive to your meal and tasted “hot.” Let them know you want fewer wines tasted by more people. More importantly, give more credit to “other” publications, blogs, and of course your friends and retailers of wine.By Cheffie
April 5, 2007 5:38 PM | Link to this
Points? Ratings? It is this very game that intimidates people and leaves outsiders thinking that wine tasting is snobbery. As far as good ratings go - they give a winery license to jack up pricing. And who in history has ever remained honest and impartial when their decisions could create or cost vats filled with not wine, but $$$? I realize that reviews are necessary when honest and impartial to protect the consumer. Don’t get too serious - I mean they rate blush wines too! Like someone said, look in the mirror! That person is the most important judge. Drink what you enjoy and if economically you can afford the big boys, God Bless! But its been on more than one occasion when a fantastic, extremely expensive wine has been ruined by a poor food pairing. Just try and pair up hearty reds with cheeses - if honest with yourself, you find neither marries very well, despite what the “experts” claim. And sometimes a non-descript vin du pays, in the right surroundings with the right people is more memorable than anything I ever drank that claimed to be “highly rated”. That said, I’m jealous Mark! Sounds like it was an incredible opportunity! Shame the Antinori was corked……By wine-o
April 5, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this
I know that it is part of their job (and their self-professed credentials) to be able to look far into a wine’s future when determining the final tally, but I would say that since most of these wines were released years ago (and reviewed then as well) it is hard to compare what the original score was and what your assesment is now. My point? You ARE the best critic Mark, and that too much emphasis is placed upon the numerical value given by the big boys. If you say it’s good, I will gladly drink the ‘97 Spring Mountain. Now, who is going to send me a bottle?By David Vergari
April 5, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
Whom do you trust? Hmm, lemme see…James Halliday? Jancis Robinson? Lindsay Lohan? Steven Tanzer? Imelda Marcos? James Laube? Pee Wee Herman? Nah. The winner is looking back at you in the mirror. I enjoyed your article. Keep it up!By Dr. Vino
April 5, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Sounds like a fun tasting Mark! Indeed, I think the net result is that YOU are the best critic of the wines you like. For anyone who’s interested in doing such a tasting, this is essentially the idea of a class I’ll be teaching in Chicago next Saturday afternoon. A few spaces still left! http://grahamschool.uchicago.edu/has/courses.cfm?courseid=3945