Shawnee vs. Catholic Central
Edgewood vs. Miamisburg
Alter vs. Centerville
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > April > 25 > Entry
Clive Coates slams Parker, Wine Spectator and ‘emasculated’ wine trade
Clive Coates MW (Master of Wine), writer and author whose 10-year-old book entitled “Cote d’Or: A Celebration of the Great Wines of Burgundy” is considered by some to be the Bible of Burgundy, has just released an expanded and updated successor entitled simply “The Wines of Burgundy” ($60, University of California Press).
The book’s publisher has sent out some review copies of the book, which has an official release date of May 12 but which is available for ordering from the publisher’s web site now. The book contains some rather interesting assertions about the role of the media in the world’s perception of Burgundy, from a wine writer who has spent most of the last three decades in Burgundy..
And Coates isn’t afraid to name names, singling out Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate, and Wine Spectator magazine, for specific and detailed criticism. Fine timing indeed, since the current (May 31) Wine Spectator is its “Special Report: Burgundy” issue.
Tell me what you think. Here are some excerpts from the book’s introduction:
“Wine Critics are often misinformed or just plain pig-ignorant. They ARE prejudiced. They set about doing the job of sampling Burgundy in the wrong way and at the wrong time. They try to imply that there is only one way to judge a wine (i.e., according to the personal taste of that critic), forgetting how subjective and temperamental taste can be, and also ignoring the fact that most wine is made to be consumed and judged mature with food and friends, not immature alongside numerous other bottles.”
“The bad critics look at Pinot through Cabernet-tinted spectacles and so criticise it for being what it never set out to be. Generally, they cause anger in the Cote d’Or and confusion at home. Moreover — and this is a situation which is almost universal in the United States, though thankfully largely absent in Britain — the trade has allowed itself to be emasculated. Instead of continuing to buy and sell based on their own professional judgement, they have consigned themselves to the role of mere purveyors. They buy what the Wine Spectator and the Wine Advocate score highly and then sell their wares by proclaiming the magazine’s marks. It is totally crazy. … “
“Burgundy has been much maligned — more so than any other region — by certain elements of the media. Robert Parker proclaimed that the region was a dinosaur of poor quality and high prices: the exact opposite of the truth.”
“The Wine Spectator has criticised the increasing bunch of estates that refuse to play ball with its modus operandi and submit samples for mammoth tastings. The magazine’s representatives arrive in the region only a few months after the wines have been bottled, before they have had a chance to recover, and attempt to rate every wine in percentage points out of 100. The time for accurate ratings such as this is much later, a year or two after bottling and shipment, dispassionately, in groups of 25 or so.”
Your thoughts?
Cheers!
Mark Fisher
TweetGo to my facebook page and click Like to comment.
Comments
By David Brown
July 2, 2008 12:54 AM | Link to this
I see both sides. However in reality there is far too much wine out there for the average wine lover not to use some sort of rating system/comments to help with selection. Also Mr. Coates rates many wines in his book out of 20 rather than 100, that makes it any better?
By kdott
June 25, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Read over a lot of the comments, and in view of what has been said, I have this to add: 1) Clive Coates seems to be scolding critic-dom for not acting in a more self-aware manner, that is, realizing what kind of power and impact they wield, and reporting in that context in a fair that is ideally fairest to both the wine trade and its customers 2) Critics are what they are, and what customers ought to do is learn to “interpret” reviews and reviewers, so that when RP says one thing or Clive Coates says another thing, it can be translated with a good degree of accuracy that the wine in question will match the customer’s expectations
By lok
May 2, 2008 12:00 AM | Link to this
I think that Clive’s comments are “fine, very fine, with due maturity. Long. Complex. rather good for his vintage.”
By Sergio
April 28, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this
When you visit the place, you understand the sort of desperate attitude of French wine lovers/producers. It’s so beautiful, the hills, the vineyards, the chateau’s age and beauty. It’s a wonderful place. I understand they think their terroir the only one able to reach a certain quality level in wines. The thing is critics have put other new world wine into the scene at much lower prices and just as good as ANY old world wine. But you know what?, it’s better for new world wines that people like Coates keep thinking they are kind of the chosen ones. At the end, consumers are realizing the truth. (excuse my second language english).
By Lenny Pepperidge
April 28, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this
Let’s not leave out the wholesalers. The wine wholesale industry is one of the most complacent, lazy and parasitic industries in America—a function of their legally protected monopoly status bestowed upon them by the 3-tier system. Wine wholesalers—particularly the smaller “boutique” ones—helped create the Parker/WS phenomenon every bit as much as did the retailer. In Parker, the wholesalers saw somebody who would do their job for them (i.e. sell the wine) and they latched onto him and pumped him up into this omnipotent presence. After all, heaven forbid that they actually sell product and build and manage brands like every other wholesaler in America. Far better to just xerox off some Parker reviews to shove in their customer’s faces.
By rosario perry
April 27, 2008 9:15 PM | Link to this
can we just get rid of the salutation “cheers”? It is OK when we are drinking, but it is just so over worked as a ending to a short note. Sincerely rosario
By Tish
April 27, 2008 4:23 PM | Link to this
Great post, Mark. I totally agree with you that there is no conspiracy regarding Wine Spectator and advertisers. The evil here resides in the power that parker and Spectator has amassed, primarily because so many retailers have usurped their own sense of authority to rely so heavily on ratings to move wine. That’s the sad part. I am fortuante to have a few excellent retail sources who still consider themselves to have the role of guiders. Not raters or judges, mind you, but true guiders who will recommend based on a conversation of what I have enjoyed and what I am looking for.
By zak
April 27, 2008 8:50 AM | Link to this
I totally agree with Clive. Very seldom do I drink wine alone, on it’s own. It’s usually with friends and over a meal. Tasting wines without food is very different from analytical tasting. What makes one wine 98 and the other 99 pointer? What is that missing 1 point?
By Vince
April 27, 2008 1:34 AM | Link to this
At the end of the day, wine drinking is just another art form — like music, paintings, movies, or pornography, I know it when I see it and I rarely buy wha the critics/reviewers say is best [ or rated highest ]— Coates has merely said what many of us think [ or should ]
By Andy
April 27, 2008 12:24 AM | Link to this
Hey, the day I can walk int any wine shop in the country, pull out a few interesting bottles, have a taste and then buy the ones that I like—-I would then support doing away with the critics. In the meantime, I have to have someway to negoiate the vast world of wine. That being said, it is more important to read the tasting notes than it is rely on the score and to understand as best as possible, your favorite wine critics tastes compared to your own (e.g. it requires both thought and experience, not just a mindless numbers game)
By Pete Meyaart
April 26, 2008 7:34 PM | Link to this
Clive is right that most US retailers have become outlets rather than advocates for wine. Most are lazy and not up to the task of learning their trade. In my shop I don’t have a score anywhere and customers rarely, if ever, ask me what a wine has been scored. Relying on scores to sell wine has trained consumers to look for a scored wine, so retailers have initiated this cycle.
By Anthony
April 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
Thought i am no wine expert and i have not been working in the industry for very long and i have noticed something. The whole situation with wine spectator and wine enthusiast and such is this. It is the few leading the masses. I do not understand this. I buy wines i like, i don’t rely on someone else’s palate to decide what i like. I have noticed people conforming their tastes to that of Parker and Spectator. Of that, i do not approve.
By Peter
April 26, 2008 3:23 PM | Link to this
What we’re really getting down to is trusting our own palates. There seems to be a fear of having a wine opinion because the industry has been held hostage by the all powerful evil empire (cue music) of the wine press. I’ll admit I often want to check my thoughts with the likes of Parker and Laube, Coates and Meadows, and don’t forget Tanzer. But where do we stop? As as retailer you can take the bold move of saying “we don’t know the score, we don’t follow it”. But even I’m not bold enough to do that. At least not yet. And to be truthful, once again, these guys move boxes when it’s needed. As we’re finding out though…may have a problem with the system and the reviewers. So what’s the solution?
By Franco Ziliani
April 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Link to this
Bravo Clive,I agree totally with your opinion re Wine Spectator and Robert Parker. They are not friends and supporter of good wine, they are only interested to business
By Tom Casagrande
April 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
Coates is right to be dismayed, but it’s not Parker’s fault that retailers and consumers are ignorant. Parker reviews wines, he doesn’t judge them. The WA rating system tells people, “read the notes.” That idiots who don’t appreciate wine focus solely on whether a wine is rated 90 points or higher isn’t his fault. I’ve been reading the WA since 1983. I think it provides detailed, subjective information allowing someone who actually reads the notes to determine if it’s a style of wine they are looking for. As to style, Parker is often unfairly stereotyped as liking “high-alcohol fruit bombs.” And he does like some of these wines, but he also seems to like lean, terroir-driven French whites too. The uniting concept here is character. He likes wines that have character, and so do I. The opposite is wines that are overcropped and thin. And in the late 1970s when Parker began, that described a lot more wines in Burgundy (and elsewhere) than it does today. Being a leader means taking some heat from people who disagree, but bringing about positive change. I’d say Parker has done that, and very well. As for the WS, I don’t read it. There doesn’t seem to be any constant principle throughout its reviews, so I find the reviews worthless. Nice pictures, though!
By PB
April 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this
I am with Mr. Coates 100%. But as a member of the wine trade I must also say that I don’t care anymore about what “wine critics” say… I know their palate, their “spectacles” (love that one!) and simply I go on my own. Sure they can do some damage to a winery, a vintage, or to an importer in the short term but in the end they damage themselves too. People should remember that what a journalist/critic says is JUST an opinion.
By k2
April 26, 2008 12:42 PM | Link to this
As a wine retailer, I see the pluses of wine scores as well as the minuses. Personally, I have disliked the 100-point scale because it misses the point of what individual varietals are all about. Anyone who believes that a Pinot Noir should be full-bodied is absolutely daft, because Pinot Noirs aren’t meant to be huge, full-bodied fruit bombs. And THAT is what is wrong with the 100-point scale - it is a rating system that rewards fuller bodied wines rather than any sort of varietal character. It isn’t the reviewers that are flawed - it’s the system. So the only one that could really bare the brunt of the criticisms on critics is Parker - isn’t the 100-point scale attributed to him? But the real culprit in all of these is all of us for even paying attention to the scores. The scores are but arbitrary numbers assigned by one person or a small committee of people who may or may not know what they are tasting, but subscribe to the rules of the 100-point system, judging wines on the basis of body, not character - kind of what human beings seem to do in life, don’t you think?
By JRB
April 26, 2008 11:30 AM | Link to this
In addition to high and low rating, there are no ratings. Again, in taking to some producers in Italy, they already know the palates of the scorers, and they know their wines don’t match those palates. So, many good producers simply refuse to submit their wines. Some of those wines are exported to the US, and a couple of wine shops tell me they’re hard to sell because many customers want to know the Parker/WSp ratings.
By Mark Fisher
April 26, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
Mr. Dauphin: In your comment, you invite readers to “notice” that Wine Spectator reviews favorably wines from producers and importers that advertise in its pages, and reviews less favorably wines from producers and importers who do not advertise. As I’ve said before on Uncorked, I do not believe that’s true. The magazine has too much to lose from such a practice. What I see in the Spectator’s ratings are high and low ratings for wines that are advertised,and high and low ratings for wines that are not advertised, with no discernible pattern of favoritism. Anecdotal evidence from a handful of individual wines doesn’t make for objective proof. I know how tempting and trendy it is to be cynical about wine ratings, and I’ve been called naive more than once for holding the view that such favoritism does not exist. But to date, no one has brought forth proof of such a practice, and until that happens, I will not buy into the conspiracy theory.
By Wino one
April 26, 2008 9:55 AM | Link to this
“…that the region was a dinosaur of poor quality and high prices: the exact opposite of the truth.” So I am to believe that the region has excellent quality and low prices? Give me a break! Yes, they produce a good wine on occasion but not every year and certaintly not at low prices. Other places with more favorable growing climates are much more consistent and also lower in price. Burgundy wants way too much for their name rather than what the product is worth.
By Alfred J. Dauphin
April 25, 2008 10:03 PM | Link to this
Clive Coates is correct. Notice the favorable comments in the Wine Spectator on wines whose producers or importers advertise in its pages, and the less favorable ones on those who don’t. Being in the trade for 21 years, I have often tasted wines that I deemed worthy, to find them low-rated in that magazine. As to Parker: one example suffices. The first time he gave an Argentinian wine a 92, he conferred it on a 1983(?) Cabernet from Weinert. Three well-experienced and palated people tasted that wine (which I had already stocked in my Fishkill, N.Y. shop as a decent value), including myself, and we could not come up with higher than an 85, though we all tasted independently, on separate occasions, in different locations (year: around 1991-2). After his review, this Cab’s price shot up by about 6 dollars a bottle (retail), up from $9.99. Great marketing job from both producer and critic! The sad part is that I recently got thrown out of a retail store in Fort Myers, Florida, (year: 2007) because I dared ask the owner to ignore both of these critics’ opinions on the 2005 Fabre-Montmayou Gran Reserva Malbec that had been awarded a gold trophy by a panel of eight British Masters of Wine at a tasting in Mendoza (of 450+ wines in February 2007), in effect making it the best Malbec of Argentina. Both Parker and Wine Spectator had not seen fit to laud it or its companion offerings from the winery, as he found out from a cursory consultation of his computer. The winery does not advertise in such venues, and the importer is too poor. Parker did, after the results of the Masters of Wine’s opinions came out, scramble to pen a favorable review, not to be outdone. When wine shop owners do not know their own palates, and cannot give their customers competent advice, Parker and Spectator are always good crutches. Very sad. It’ll take us decades to educate the American public, and stop the fleecing.
By JRB
April 25, 2008 7:06 PM | Link to this
I agree with the spirit of the British critic of the American wine press. In two weeks, I’ll be back in Italy. My Italian friends in the wine business also loath both Parker and Wine Spectator. Collectively, they detest the pretense of 100 point precision; they also resent Americans “scoring” Italian wines by/for American palates. Some American would say that’s why they listen to these critics—Italian say “you don’t know what you’re missing.” I’m with the Italian (and Burgundians) on this one.
By Lenny Pepperidge
April 25, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this
Amen to Clive Coates. I’ve met the man on occasion, and he’s forgotten more about wine than a simple minded philistine like Parker will ever know. Parker is horrible. He lines up 100+ wines and races through giving each wine (by his own words) a five second evaluation. What is going to stand out under such conditions? Horribly unbalanced wines with excessive amounts of oak, alcohol and even chemical flaws such as brett and volatile acidity (which are frequent components to high scoring Parker wines). America is still an unsophisticated wine drinking culture, which is fertile ground for a fraud like Parker to come along and attempt to dumb down a complex subject to the lowest common denominator.
By Richard
April 25, 2008 5:08 PM | Link to this
The British writers are angry and jealous because they were once the last word on wine, but they’ve fallen from their thrones. Why? They continue to push wines that just don’t taste good to modern palates. English wine writers enjoy dark, creepy flavors in their wines: diesel, sweaty armpits, sweaty saddles, pyrazines, musk, rancio. But those flavors are not enjoyable to people raised on the clean, bold flavors of modern food. The British judgements about wine were never very relevant to the normal wine-buying public and they’re even less so now. But as I writer myself, I encourage everyone to buy Clive’s book. I’m sure it’s wonderful.
By Peter
April 25, 2008 5:01 PM | Link to this
Bravo Clive Coates. Of course, the ultimate irony is that Clive Coates is, too, a critic. I am appalled by the power of the wine press. However, what disturbs me more is the producers reluctance to stop cooperating. The wine industry is no longer about what’s in the bottle, obvious given the success of Yellowtail and Veuve Clicquot. The wine industry has become all about how many boxes you can move. Let’s be honest, the wine press moves quite a few boxes. The only way we get rid of the evils of the wine press is for the producers to stop suppling the wines to the press and trusting the retailers to sell the wine. Again, Bravo Coates!
By Chas
April 25, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
Any critic who judges newly made wine and issues a finite score is simply misleading the public. But, waiting until wine has been bottled and out for sale for a couple of years is simply ridiculous as well. The time to judge wine is when it is released to sale because that is when we buy it. One expects critics to be able to understand young wines and to reasonably suggest their aging curves. And, critics are a help to wine buyers, not a substitute for judgment. Coates criticism on that score is wrong because he suggests a universal truth that is simply not true at the retailer levels for good retailers or at the consumer level by knowledgeable persons.
By Doug
April 25, 2008 10:08 AM | Link to this
I agree with many of Coates’ comments, but his assertion that “the time for accurate ratings… is much later, a year or two after bottling and shipment,” is impractical. While it would in all likelihood improve the accuracy of the review (ie, in answering the question, “how good will this wine be when I am most likely going to drink it?”), it would neutralize the value of a regional review as a buying guide.
By Tony
April 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
What is worse than the critics who “misjudge” wine, or believe that their taste is the only acceptable one, is that because of their market cloud, they are having an immense influence on wine making in every part of the world e.g. high alcohol, fruit forward, little tannin, less acidity, etc. Although, hopefully, it is an exaggeration, if this continues we will have the choice between one bottle of red and one of white because they all will taste the same. I like the statement “looking at Pinot through Cabernet-tinted spectacles”. That is, unfortunately, why some Burgundy winemakers under pressure, are changing how they make their wine and the consumer loses that delightfulness so characteristic of a good Burgundy.