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

Dee Dee

Could it be California wines are getting better?


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

On Nov 7, 7:06�am, "Richard Neidich" > wrote:
> Could it be California wines are getting better?
>
> "Dee Randall" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > Is it just me, or has anybody noticed that Robert Parker has been giving
> > lately more California wines a 90+ rating?
>
> > Dee Dee- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't know about better but certainly more expensive!

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

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

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

I have heard several UK wine tutors speak disparagingly of wines being
"Parkerised" a term they defined much as you do.

pk

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

Haven't noticed that. Could be more advertising in their magazine? I
do think the general publics knowledge of fine wines and has increased
over the past 10 years or so. Thats pushed wineries to produce better
wines. Twenty years ago white zin was the rage along with ultra cheap
wines. I find thats not the case anymore. More and more people are
finding they prefer good decent wines.

On Nov 7, 7:49�pm, Miles > wrote:
>. �Could be more advertising in their magazine? �

Um, Robert Parker (Wine Advocate) doesn't take advertizing. Lots of
things I might bitch/disagree/complain about Arpy, but no ads.

I don't pay a lot of attention to RP, and CA wines aren't my focus.
But there are a lot more CA wines intended for upscale audiences than
10 or 15 years ago. Whether I like them or not, lots more for RP to
choose from

DaleW wrote:

> I don't pay a lot of attention to RP, and CA wines aren't my focus.
> But there are a lot more CA wines intended for upscale audiences than
> 10 or 15 years ago. Whether I like them or not, lots more for RP to
> choose from

I tend to prefer CA wines over FR. Not that ones better quality over
the over. Just the styles are different. I prefer fruit forward wines
and CA seems to lean that way. There do seem to be far more upscale CA
wines than years ago.