I certainly agree with you on Montelena, Dunn and Ridge. Mondavi while
still very good...is not in the same leage to me personally.

You accessment on points...I am NOT a huge Parker Fan for anything but
California.

Reminds me of the 1989 Chateau Margaux which was to me far better than the
1990 that got all the rage from Parker. Suckling from WS I thought was more
on the money.


"Mark Lipton" > wrote in message
...
> 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