The Truth about Robert Parker
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 3 มิ.ย. 2024
- Was the 'Parkerization' a real phenomenon in the History of wine? Has Robert Parker been as influential on wineries and wine styles as they'd want you to believe?
Watch my video about how he came to be such an influential wine writer here: • The Rise and Fall of R...
Today I’d like to discuss with you whether or not Robert Parker really influenced the world of wine as much as people say, and how. If you’ve followed a little bit the history of modern wine and winemaking, you know that Robert Parker has unquestionably been the most famous and arguably the most influential wine critique of all times. For 30 YEARS, from the 1980s all the way up to the late 2010s, his palate alone, the scores he gave to certain wines were followed by wine buyers en masse, to the point that Parker was accused of pushing wineries all around the world to produce ever bigger and ever oakier wines in a phenomenon that was called the “Parkerization” of wine. The question I’d like to answer today is… Was this Pakerization and Robert Parker’s impact on the wine world just a big lie? I was a winemaker making wine around the world during that period, even trained under one of Parker’s favorite star global winemaker, Michel Rolland, so, I should know…
Read Liza Perrotti-Borwn Article "The Big Parkerization Lie" on Robert Parker's Wine Advocate wbesite: winejournal.robertparker.com/... (Published 12 June 2018).
00:00 - About Robert Parker's Influence Intro
01:27 - “The Big Parkerization Lie”
06:19 - What Really Happened? (history of modern wine)
10:33 - Final thoughts, "my" point of view! - แนวปฏิบัติและการใช้ชีวิต
![[TH] 2024 PMSL SEA GF D3 | Summer | มาร่วมเป็นพยาน กับวินาทีแชมป์!](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/JCYvEsFlwx8/mqdefault.jpg)
Parker popularized the 100 point scale. Before this, the idea of comparing a German white wine to a Burgundy red was ridiculous. Winemakers switched from trying to produce the best wine for their terroir to trying to produce the highest scoring wine. This goes along with wines like Cabernet Sauvignon replacing more obscure varieties in places like Eastern Europe as winemakers are targeting familiar tastes with high scores over more unique, traditional and interesting wine. I don't blame Robert Parker, he didn't intend to do this and it probably would have happened without him, but his scoring system was the catalyst.
When I met Parker in 1984, a bottle of Lafite was $45 on release. Now, it's $1,100. Parker popularized fine wine in a way that had never been done before. You could argue that he made wine popular and so he brought the peoples' opinion to the wine makers. Yes. The phenomenon is real.
He single handedly drove the average wine drinker out of the fine wine market.
@@JackAgainski - Not really. The 'Market' drove the prices up so crazy high. He just made wine popular with all the wealthy people who are willing to spend $1,000 - $2,000 a bottle -- frankly, I've tasted 1,000's of bottles and would never pay that much. That's stupidity. There are so many great bottles for less than $75.
Very interesting video! This Parkerization theory is so commonly held amongst wine drinkers today, but it makes total sense that the wines of the 80’s and 90’s coincided with the tastes of American buyers which heavily favored bold, ripe, and extracted wines.
It’s just like how today natural and biodynamic wines are becoming so popular, because the American public is more health conscious and the organic/natural foods industry has ballooned since the early 2000’s
I started subscribing to his news letter back in the mid. 80's. His main influence has been to greatly inflate the prices of wines from Bordeaux & California. I was able to get great Zinfandels for little money until his started rating some in the 90's. Prices exploded soon after. I know from his earliest writings that his main problem with some wine makers is that they would filter their wines so as to limit sediment. He felt that, and I agree, that it would strip the wines of depth and some complexity.
I have never taken this nonsense seriously. The truth is that Parker was and is the world's greatest taster. Extremely honest and straight forward. He has done so much good for consumers and the industri. He put chateauneuf du pape on the map. And so on. The parkerisation nonsense is made out of jealousy and stupidity. Nothing else. There is a reason no one in Bordeaux made their en primeur prices before Parker published his scores for the wines. His influence for the industri was enormous. And nowadays allmost every professional taster use the 100 point scale he invented.
The world’s greatest taster? In what sense? He was certainly the most influential and popular wine critic of all time. He was notoriously against double blind tasting and when he did taste blind he had a very poor record of giving the same scores to the same wines.
Parker was the most influential critic ever. If you read his books, he would write about winemaking practices that great wineries had in common. From that perspective, he truly, and I think purposefully changed the way that wines were made.
He did put an emphasis on physiological ripeness over “wine by the numbers” where you look at the sugar levels and the acid levels and used those two numbers to determine when to pick versus using other metrics, including taste to determine ripeness. If you read books on winemaking from the 70’s and 80’s, there is an emphasis on these numbers to establish “balance.” Parker changed that.
After Parker, a lot of smaller wineries started making great wines. His scores also weren’t as deferential to the 1855 classification as other critics were. If a First Growth made a bad wine, he would call it out.
Parker was probably too influential as a critic, but ultimately, that is not his fault. He was just very good and consistent.
Fantastic video! Thank you for sharing your experience.
Most interesting video about wine i have seen for a long time. I remember visiting Canon la Gaffeliere in the late 90's Stephan von Neipperg (owner) was complaining about the trend, and I fully agreed, but all my friends just loved the simplicity of buying a wine en primeur, and if Parker gave it a high score, they could sell it with a big profit. Actually I don't think Bordeaux has moved away from the Parker style enough yet, look at 2022 right bank, you can hardly find a sub 15° alc/vol wine to buy, and many producers pulled up Cab.Franc to plant more Merlot
Thank you for this video. I’ve read different articles but this video was the most informative and interesting. I always learn so much from you. I respect your opinions and knowledge of wine making and wine. You really are the best there is online for wine education. Do you plan on writing a book??? I hope so. ❤❤❤
I lost you but good to see you back Julien. Great video, as expected again.
Love his words all the time! Please keep making interesting episodes, although there are not many subscribers yet.
Comprehensive take on the RP Influence, it's definitely there but he was more like a surfer who rode the giant wave the top of popularization of big red wine, which was really the rise of the yuppie class and all their likes and psychological desire to brag. It's almost exactly like Shultz influencing global acknowledgement that heavy handed roasting of coffee is the way to go.exactky like an Ethiopian or Guatemalan bean with the Starbucks handling, it all tastes a bit the same. It's a phase but both are probably here to stay
very good and insightful take, thank you!
I thought this was Guenter Steiner for a second
Good video. The Parkerization that you describe is one thing, but unfortunately winemakers also started making spoofilated wines with fake oak and colors and reverse osmosis. These wines are a travesty and Parker is often wrongly blamed for starting this trend. Wines should be made in the vineyard.
Parker was absolutely not open to subtle wines (hence his complete misunderstanding og burgundy) and I'm sorry, but your citing an article from someone who who necessarily has a bias--she took over for Parker at the Advocate, for crying out loud. And you worked with the "Flying Winemaker"? Yea, I can't take any of this seriously. I followed Parker from the very beginning and he consistently made and broke wines--and they were always over-oaked fruit bombs that did't go with food--antithetical to everything that I believe makes wine. The only thing he did contribute to, to a point (though this really came out of Davis and Bordeaux) was cleaning up the wineries and making the wine-making process more rigorous. Did his palate play into an American need for something to "identify" as "quality" (I am reminded of the over-roasted coffees that Americans have come to identify with "quality"), yes. Oak and fruit (i.e. sugar, something Americans are addicted to) is something you can identify. But Parker wines were made Parker wines for Parker's palate (and hundreds of winemakers confirmed that they were doing this over the years, knowing that it was the only way to break into the market). And rather than educate people, he played into their worst instincts while consistently lying about his palate (no, he can't remember wines he had years ago, or even yesterday). He is, quite frankly, a marketing genius, and a wine tasting fraud.
Best comment yet
Whoever or whatever was responsible for that horrid trend of over-oaking wines, it was a sad period in the history of winemaking. It was a real chore finding quality wines whose varietals could be fully appreciated. Thank goodness the industry outgrew this adolescent misadventure.
Marketing equals $$$
So Amarone producers were decades ahead of the curve😂😂😂
I think it is remarkable how low he'd score Burgundy. In fact even today scores for Burgundy seem way lower across most critics unless you enter Grand Cru level. Why?
Well, a pinot noir from Burgundy - red fruit, not too acidic, not many tannins, a bit ethereal, not much new oak - is almost the diametrical opposite of rich, oaky Cabernet Sauvignon-dominated wines. I suppose he had to yield a bit for Grand Cru wines - not very convincing to give them average scores.
Well, it was Robert Parker who nfluenced all the time that 1982 is exceptional - but look today: which Château has really made the best wine of all the time in 1982? I guess probably non - maybe, we could except Gruaud-Larose, but there could be a discussion if als 2022 or 1962 (hist on if stored under perfect conditions). So the cheer up of the 1982 vintage is mainly caused by Robert Parker and in retrospective, very debatable. Or look at Lafite-Rothschild 1986: Parker rated it initally with 96 Points, then retasted it later again, bought lots of cases of it and rated it then 100 points. Or look at the Côte-R'otie La Turque 1985 of Guigal: Parker rated it 100 points and wrote: "if there is a wine worth to be killed for: this". I have tasted this wine (bottle was perfect), but it is by far not in the zop ten of wines I had in my life.Lalst: I participated once in a wine tasting wher only 100-point-Parker wines have been served: though the bottles were in perfect condition, I didn't rate any of these bottles with 100 ooints... My personal conclusion: Robert Parker is quite manipulative and by far not innocent as he is now declared. Judge yourself!
Based.
I could not agree with you more. Again (see my comment), his complete inability to comprehend Burgundy says it all for me. As well as his obvious manipulation of the market....
Of course you are a much better taster. LMAO 😂
@@nikolajkrarup-os9gn So let me get this straight: to be able to appreciate whether something is good or not, you actually have to be able to do it? This would apply to a good restaurant? A good painting? Robert Parker's palate was dead decades ago (assuming he had one in the beginning--which I do), from tasting too much (according to him, sometimes hundreds of wines a day). No surprise that the only thing that would break through would be oaky fruit bombs (or Malbec, Chateauneuf, heavy Cabernets, etc.). Parker established the 100 point system (which we all now have to live with, for better and worse) and he played a part in cleaning up the wine-making process. He also contributed massively to the (over-)manipulation of wine (micro-bullage, reverse-osmosis, artificial wood tannins, acidification, etc.) because these techniques were necessary to bring cheaper wines in line with his palate (which soon became the global palate). I don't have to be a great wine taster/connoisseur to know all of this...though my wine palate is pretty good and at this point I'd have no problem matching my palate with his--which I would not say (even remotely) of, for example, Alan Meadows.
wine is all about flavor and extremely subjective. Wine novices tend to enjoy sweeter wines. You taste buds need to develop and get trained to taste all the nuances. I am not rich so I am not going to buy a wine for 100 dollar or euro. When I lived in California I collected wine and would buy them yung and let them age. That is a good way of doing it.
It was clearly a thing. He wasn’t “evil” at all he just got insanely popular and influential and the type of wine he liked happened to be really big, bold high alcohol wines. What’s the mystery?
if parker isn't most influential who on earth is!?