Dee Randall wrote:
> Is it just me, or has anybody noticed that Robert Parker has been giving
> lately more California wines a 90+ rating?

Dee,
Here's my perception of the change: back in the early '90s, Parker,
who'd long criticized California wines as lacking in depth and
character, started praising a "qualitative revolution" in California and
singling out certain producers (Harlan, Araujo, Dalla Valle, Colgin,
Screaming Eagle) as "pushing the envelope of quality." What
characterized this "revolution" were lower yields, high levels of
extraction, more forward tannins and lavish oak. These wines were (and
are) very dramatic, attention-grabbing wines that may be more suited for
drinking on their own than with food and with questions regarding their
ability to develop with age. Nontheless, with Parker's praise came
steep increases in demand and price, and now many CA producers seek to
emulate the success of those early producers. As this shift in style
has occurred, Parker has continued to praise it, with the result of high
scores. I used to agree with much of what Parker wrote about CA wine,
but now I find that a score in excess of 95 is almost a sure sign that
I'll dislike the wine (not that I get that many chances to try them).
What interests me in all this is that certain producers (Mondavi, Dunn,
Montelena, Ridge) didn't change their style to suit Parker and have, to
an extent, fallen off the map. It's no coincidence that these are among
my favorite producers, too ;-)

Mark Lipton


--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.cwdjr.net