I don't know how many readers here saw the US wine-publication scene in
depth before Parker's impact. (I gather at least joseph b. rosenberg did,
and Cwdjr; Ian Hoare from Britain). I saw it in the US at the time; I
subscribed to some of those publications and read others. I also wrote
about them at the time here, for anyone who was interested, on the original
version of this newsgroup (two name changes ago, and many people ago),
starting in 1983 with article >. For anyone who is
still interested (and did not see it already) the original remains
accessible in the Google archive at
http://tinyurl.com/3vjrg
I described Finigan's, Underground Wineletter, Olken and Singer
("Connoisseurs' Guide to California Wines," and the respected Vintage
magazine (which reported blind taste tests by various contributors and
panels, many of whom migrated to the new Wine Spectator after Vintage was
unable to thrive with its subscription-only, no-advertising policy -- itself
a model of independence at the time). I omitted in 1983 (and have since
apologized for that!) John Tilson's Underground Wineletter (one of whose
editors reads this newsgroup sometimes).
The next year, 1984, the landmark UC-Sotheby book appeared, a principal US
wine reference book and about the largest one to that date (ISBN 0520050851
and printed in such numbers that it has flooded the used market since).
Chapter X.6 reviews established US wine newsletters ("a phenomenon of the
1970s") regardless of their emphasis in US vs. European wines: Finigan,
Connoisseurs', Underground Wineletter, and California Grapevine (Vintage
ceased publication in 1983). Parker does not appear. Parker emerged
"beyond the Beltway" [Baltimore-Washington region] into general US
wine-enthusiast attention, joining those others, with his early
recommendations of the 1982 Bordeaux (after the UC / Sotheby book).
"Bill Loftin" in news:V8FVd.53502$uc.7674@trnddc03...
>
> ... Parker states that when his newsletter first got started
> that British writers dominated wine publications.
I don't know the context of the statement. Certainly from the US that was
not the picture in consumer publications, as I outlined above (and did in
1983) as did the UC-Sotheby book. You would also see Decanter, the books by
the British authors, and in-depth articles by US wine writers -- Anthony
Dias Blue, Gerald Asher, Anthony Spinazzola, and so on -- in general food
publications. But specifically, there was a lively field of established
independent US newsletters. I still have them, and refer occasionally to
tasting notes as well as historical material published in some of them.
Certainly not all, or even much, of their writing is easily dismissed as
tainted in some commercial way (a point that may be unrelated to the
interview article). It's remarkable how little searching attention is given
today to the context into which Parker emerged, whatever his own strengths
and weaknesses. Most of the journalism today is done by people with no
experience of the events, guided by partisans. (Parker himself, for
example, as a source on the nature of his predecessors, is valuable, but it
does have something in common with interviewing, say, Microsoft about the
early alternatives in operating systems, or G. W. Bush about his political
rivals.)
> Then he went on to say that most of them were in
> the wine business and were not exactly impartial.
Again I haven't seen the story. But for any of you unacquainted with the
following, an odd dichotomy attends the _implications_ of merchant
experience. British and some traditional US writers have emphasized
objective tasting skills. The (British) Masters of Wine program, since the
1950s, uses rigorous blind tests to measure if would-be experts "know" the
wines and scents and tastes they claim to. (This program used to get more
press in US wine publications.) Historically, wine merchants had the best
success at passing such exams. (Among US as well as British applicants.)
Wine writers reportedly have not done nearly as well. This situation used
to be interpreted as evidence for strong tasting skills among merchants (who
then became wine writers in some famous cases). Lately, some US wine
writers seem to favor attacking the motivations of merchants, rather than
trying to compete on objective tasting skills.
> He states that his primary motivation in the
> publication of his newsletter was to always be
> impartial and he has gone to great lengths to do that.
I believe that many people would agree, and also that it's an admirable
goal. One that was hardly new with Parker, and it would be helpful to have
other sources than Parker or his fans about the point.
By the way, when Parker surfaced nationally and was first discussed here on
the wine newsgroup, there was a lot of thoughtful exchange on his strengths
and weaknesses. That was in 1985-87, and the subject seemed pretty well
understood. (Unfortunately, such discussion was lost on new arrivals, some
of them having just breathlessly discovered Parker and eager to tell about
it. Moreover, it is less well archived publicly now than it was at the
time.) It was in the middle 1980s also that newsgroups became widely
publicly accessible in the US, by the way, though not everyone cared. But
20 years ago, wine enthusiasts I saw who latched onto Parker always claimed
some distance -- "I don't just follow his numbers of course, he himself
discourages it." 10 years ago, the numbers were showing up forthrightly in
conversation by some wine enthusiasts, sounding new and strange to others.
Today, people actively advocate the merits to the consumer of buying by
numbers. (Though the stuff about P. as a defender of the consumer against
tainted writers and merchants is a relatively recent addition, or anyway it
was not an angle I saw being played up 20, or even 10, years ago.)
-- Max