Pinot Envy........

The Emperor of Wine
The Rise of Robert M. Parker, JR
And the reign of American Taste

Elin McCoy
Ecco, 2005

Mondovino
A Film by Jonathan Nossiter
Think Film 2005

Both these vehicles of criticism are centered on wine writer, Robert M.
Parker, a lifetime resident of Monkton in Baltimore County and his
journey from the law to international notoriety and fame.

The book is a chronicle of Parker's life to date by a fellow wine
writer. The movie a lengthy discourse on the ills of modern winemaking
and marketing by a director whose objectivity and balance are
non-existent. The movie centers on Parker, his influence on the wine
market and people whose lives he has affected played out as a Marxist
piece of bad propaganda.

Before I continue, Time out for the an long disclaimer: From 1978 to
1985, I spent many Friday nights at Mr. Parker's house as part of a
sounding board he set up to calibrate the accuracy of his judgments. I
also spent other nights at the Parker's and Parker spent time at
winetastings I sponsored at my Woodlawn apartment, Dalesio's
restaurant, and Chez Fernand's and other venues. Parker introduced
me to people I eventually worked for in the wine business. I watched
him grow as person and saw how scrupulous he was in conducting his
business. Although I rarely see him these days, he is still a friend
even though he never reviewed one of my Winemayven Selections, (insert
smiley)

That said, Ms McCoy's 300 pages of biography has captured Parker,
generous, affable but wary of criticism, even before he scooped the
wine world on the high quality of the 1982 Bordeaux. To those not in
the wine world, Red wines from Bordeaux are the Rosetta stone of older
wine collectors and the baby-boomer yuppies anxious to own everything
worthwhile in the universe. So when Parker announced that the 1982
vintage was most collectable, a combination of demand fuelled by major
wine stores and nay saying from other writers led Parker to leave his
day job and begin work on his book on Bordeaux.
Parker was able to branch out from his Wine Advocate mailed every other
month to subscribers to other venues. Often he used the language of
his reviews in a magazine article edited to suit the articles theme.
This made it easier to expand quickly. He continually prefaced his
reviews with the words "As I told you in Vol 6 Number 4, the Chateau
Vonce estate is beginning to make........." "The As I told you",
reminded his readers that he found the wine first or at least early on.
As a businessman he wanted to be a wine geek's publication of
choice. Even his thin skinned responses to critical comments usually
had a David versus Goliath resonance.
Until Parker, wine criticism was a world of bull and avarice. Bob,
Finnegan and some of the early newsletter writers were champions of the
consumer and not lifestyle mavens. If you've ever tasted a wine in
Europe and then back in the USA you'd realize that the wine was
mishandled. By encouraging Kermit Lynch, Marc DeGrazia and other
importers who knew that reefer was not just another word for a joint,
Bob raised the level of how a wine was handled. When the Wine Advocate
started you could not find a rose in Maryland that was less than 3
years old; great vintages were not delivered to Maryland because
wholesalers still had mediocre vintages in inventory. Parker created
demand.

All in all for those unfamiliar to Parker's rise from drinking coke
at the feed store to downing Dom with Charlie Rose this book is a good
read. I would have like to see some more of our Friday night crew like
Geoff Connor, Steve Sheriff and Mitch Pressman mentioned .

On the other hand, Nossiter's screed is a mean spirited,
anti-American attack on Parker and celebrity winemaker Michel Rolland.
Nossiter had some valid points but his editing was so slanted I am
embarrassed we share some of the same political views. It's the
National Enquirer masquerading as the New Yorker. Parker and Rolland
have influence in the wine world because consumers like the wines
Parker praises and Rolland consults for. To me some consumers are
overly finicky and fanatical, not buying any wine scored below 95
points or wanting to buy the entire allocation a store is allotted; and
people in the trade don't try to acquire and then sell wines not
praised by either the Wine Advocate or the life-style oriented
commercial Wine Spectator. But most of the wine sales made in the USA
are not the artisan wines coveted by the Advocate or Spectator
subscribers, but everyday quaffs that make the day a bit brighter.
Thanks to Robert M. Parker, Jr those wines are fresher and more likely
to be devoid of spoilage then before he began his journey.

Thanks for those comments on the book and movie. (I've started reading the
book and found it interesting.) Of course, its account of online wine
discussion appears to start with Prodigy's commercial fora in 1988 and not,
for example, with net.wines in February 1982 (this newsgroup's predecessor,
and public), via which pros and cons of Parker's contributions were somewhat
old news online by 1988. (It's customary by the way, these days anyway, for
assertions of online history to limit themselves like this, to what the
author happens to've heard of, or been told by interviewees, rather than
what can be discovered by doing research.)

"da bep" in ups.com:

> Until Parker, wine criticism was a world of bull and avarice.
> Bob, Finnegan and some of the early newsletter writers were
> champions of the consumer

I have trouble reconciling those two sentences. The former is a
conventional sentiment lately among some people, more often repeated than
examined. For instance, on a regional forum a sincere but relatively new
wine enthusiast intoned that Parker got "the business of wine critiquing out
of the hands of the sometimes incestuous wine trade." I replied with a
desire to read the same enthusiast's comparative assessments of Robert
Finigan, Tilson, Olken/Singer, Vintage magazine (folded 1983, having pursued
a scrupulous no-ads policy for integrity), and the couple of other principal
independent US wine newsletters in the years before RP was nationally
popular. To what extent were these US critics in the "hands of the wine
trade?" In what particulars did their style or content fall short of what
came after them? (He responded, sincerely, that he was relatively new to
wine enthusiasm, but did not explain on what basis he nevertheless asserted
that Parker cleaned up a corrupt wine-criticism scene.) The ones I
mentioned here by the way appeared in the October 1984 summary of US wine
critics in ISBN 0520050851; Parker did not. (Parker quotes 1978 origins but
for some years seems to have been a largely regional, "Beltway" phenomenon,
another piece of context not always furnished nowadays.)

Since Robert Finigan was one of those critics with a national US following
before Parker, why is he grouped with the champions of the consumer rather
than those of "bull and avarice." Are likewise Tilson, O&S, et cetera, to be
credited as consumerists and if so, who exactly is meant by "pre-Parker"
wine critics? This is not a rhetorical question but a friendly one; the
logical conflict is built in to those juxtaposes assertions above.

> By encouraging Kermit Lynch ... and other importers who
> knew that reefer was not just another word for a joint,

I do appreciate the humor but I would appreciate even more a recognition
that Robert Finigan was extolling Lynch in writing, well before the point
when more US wine enthusiasts had heard of Parker than of Finigan. Lynch
began selling in 1976, before Parker was in print, and "The extraordinary
wines of Kermit Lynch" was a special issue of Finigan's newsletter in 1980
or so. (Again, this helps to place the sequencing.)

I do not mean here to address the comments about the book but rather these
context-setting assertions about US wine writers, which are typical by the
way of what I encounter in very recent years, tossed off as if well
established.

Cheers -- Max

I acknowledge the work done by Finegan, Jerry Mead,Connessiur*(sp) and
the San Diego Grapevine before Parker started. He did not create the
non-commercial newsletter format. But his 100 point scale got the
attention of the consuming public.

I know the 4 publications I mentioned were further advanced in the
knowledge of emerging California wine scene including Kermit Lynch. A
series in the LA Times a few years back discussed various wine writers
and their practices. Most of them accepted discounted airfare, meals,
lodging and "samples".Some had books published and brochures
distributed by wineries and commercial enterprises for which the writer
was paid. This follows the English pattern. I met Leon Adams and I am
sure that gentlemen accepted the geneorosity and still was fair in his
assesments. But Max, before Parker, no one I know of told consumers a
Bordeaux vintages quality in terms the consumer would understand.
Rather major wine shops would quote some Englishmen's assesment and
hand out vintage charts made up by importers.

To a winesalesman, the best vintage was the ones in your warehouse.
Weak vintages were great for immediate consumption, wines out of
balance would correct themselves in 3-5 years and leave the bottle open
a while and the smell would go away. All part of an industry buzz
fueled by newspaper writers anxious for copy.

You are right in one key way, we tend to judge past actions in terms of
today's climate. So we can't be too critical of writers who accepted
the largess of people in the business of selling wine.

In message . com>
"da bep" > wrote:

> before Parker, no one I know of told consumers a
> Bordeaux vintages quality in terms the consumer would understand.
> Rather major wine shops would quote some Englishmen's assesment ...

Oh dear! ”Two peoples divided by a common language ...•. I am bound
to say that I find a Broadbent assessment more meaningful — and
probably likely to reflect my own view - than a Parker one. I wonder
why that should be? The unkind might believe that the reason the
Englishmen were quoted was simply because there was no honest
homegrown US critic, if we believe what th Parker camp so often say,
or they might say something about the different perceptions of
subtlety or appreciation of history, tradition and terroir, or lack of
much subtlety or such appreciation, but there must be something less
simplistic than that. Why does a numerical rating so often seem to be
regarded with so much more favour by people in the USA who are serious
about wine than it is in Europe? Who is missing what?


Timothy Hartley

Joe, thanks for the reviews. I enjoyed Max's comments and your answers
also. My impression was that Mondovino was less-centered on Parker, but
I haven't seen yer myself.

I am slightly perplexed by your Rosetta stone comment- do you mean
people have to drink Bordeaux to understand/decode wine? Even a
Bordophile like me wouldn't claim that!

Yes the movie is more the Parker/Rolland but why does he ask only big
companies about Mussolini/Hitler. Why does he stay on the
Lawyer-winery owner thrrough out the film. Parker is his target much
as GM was Michael Moore's.

As for the Rosetta. My memory about wines goes back to 1965 when
mother kept the books for liquor store and asked salemen for material,
almost all of it was about Bordeaux and thge different vintages. Not
one knew anything about Burgundy, much less Rhone. Same when at the
Cholon PX in Saigon 1967-1968, all the Brits came in and bought
Bordeaux with the occasional Chateauneuf & Bojo. Hardly any wine shop
in the East until the Paris tasting had much to say about California.
A few stores in Northern NJ & LI specialized in Italian and. If John Q.
Public came into a shop for a special bottle 9 times out of 10 the
recommendation would be a Bordeaux if not Champagne. Novice wine geeks
like me with Parker or Finnegan of Cal Grapevinbe in hand asked for the
latest new releases from the left coast but salespeoplke who understand
what it was was rare.

Good rerstaurants, those with surf & turf had bordeaux on the wine list
with Mateus, Lancers and Almaden. In other words in the US merchants
depended on Bordeaux to make a big sale. Only people with lots of
disponsable income would delve into Burgundy, usually DRC.

Yes the movie is more the Parker/Rolland but why does he ask only big
companies about Mussolini/Hitler. Why does he stay on the
Lawyer-winery owner thrrough out the film. Parker is his target much
as GM was Michael Moore's.

As for the Rosetta. My memory about wines goes back to 1965 when
mother kept the books for liquor store and asked salemen for material,
almost all of it was about Bordeaux and thge different vintages. Not
one knew anything about Burgundy, much less Rhone. Same when at the
Cholon PX in Saigon 1967-1968, all the Brits came in and bought
Bordeaux with the occasional Chateauneuf & Bojo. Hardly any wine shop
in the East until the Paris tasting had much to say about California.
A few stores in Northern NJ & LI specialized in Italian and. If John Q.
Public came into a shop for a special bottle 9 times out of 10 the
recommendation would be a Bordeaux if not Champagne. Novice wine geeks
like me with Parker or Finnegan of Cal Grapevinbe in hand asked for the
latest new releases from the left coast but salespeoplke who understand
what it was was rare.

Good rerstaurants, those with surf & turf had bordeaux on the wine list
with Mateus, Lancers and Almaden. In other words in the US merchants
depended on Bordeaux to make a big sale. Only people with lots of
disponsable income would delve into Burgundy, usually DRC.

I don't give a shit what Parker or anyone else thinks about wine. I
trust only my own judgement, and I spell it that way, not 'judgment'.

****ing fart-faced moronic American assholes...

da bep wrote:
> Pinot Envy........
>
> The Emperor of Wine
> The Rise of Robert M. Parker, JR
> And the reign of American Taste
>
> Elin McCoy
> Ecco, 2005
>
> Mondovino
> A Film by Jonathan Nossiter
> Think Film 2005
>
> Both these vehicles of criticism are centered on wine writer, Robert M.
> Parker, a lifetime resident of Monkton in Baltimore County and his
> journey from the law to international notoriety and fame.
>
> The book is a chronicle of Parker's life to date by a fellow wine
> writer. The movie a lengthy discourse on the ills of modern winemaking
> and marketing by a director whose objectivity and balance are
> non-existent. The movie centers on Parker, his influence on the wine
> market and people whose lives he has affected played out as a Marxist
> piece of bad propaganda.
>
> Before I continue, Time out for the an long disclaimer: From 1978 to
> 1985, I spent many Friday nights at Mr. Parker's house as part of a
> sounding board he set up to calibrate the accuracy of his judgments. I
> also spent other nights at the Parker's and Parker spent time at
> winetastings I sponsored at my Woodlawn apartment, Dalesio's
> restaurant, and Chez Fernand's and other venues. Parker introduced
> me to people I eventually worked for in the wine business. I watched
> him grow as person and saw how scrupulous he was in conducting his
> business. Although I rarely see him these days, he is still a friend
> even though he never reviewed one of my Winemayven Selections, (insert
> smiley)
>
> That said, Ms McCoy's 300 pages of biography has captured Parker,
> generous, affable but wary of criticism, even before he scooped the
> wine world on the high quality of the 1982 Bordeaux. To those not in
> the wine world, Red wines from Bordeaux are the Rosetta stone of older
> wine collectors and the baby-boomer yuppies anxious to own everything
> worthwhile in the universe. So when Parker announced that the 1982
> vintage was most collectable, a combination of demand fuelled by major
> wine stores and nay saying from other writers led Parker to leave his
> day job and begin work on his book on Bordeaux.
> Parker was able to branch out from his Wine Advocate mailed every other
> month to subscribers to other venues. Often he used the language of
> his reviews in a magazine article edited to suit the articles theme.
> This made it easier to expand quickly. He continually prefaced his
> reviews with the words "As I told you in Vol 6 Number 4, the Chateau
> Vonce estate is beginning to make........." "The As I told you",
> reminded his readers that he found the wine first or at least early on.
> As a businessman he wanted to be a wine geek's publication of
> choice. Even his thin skinned responses to critical comments usually
> had a David versus Goliath resonance.
> Until Parker, wine criticism was a world of bull and avarice. Bob,
> Finnegan and some of the early newsletter writers were champions of the
> consumer and not lifestyle mavens. If you've ever tasted a wine in
> Europe and then back in the USA you'd realize that the wine was
> mishandled. By encouraging Kermit Lynch, Marc DeGrazia and other
> importers who knew that reefer was not just another word for a joint,
> Bob raised the level of how a wine was handled. When the Wine Advocate
> started you could not find a rose in Maryland that was less than 3
> years old; great vintages were not delivered to Maryland because
> wholesalers still had mediocre vintages in inventory. Parker created
> demand.
>
> All in all for those unfamiliar to Parker's rise from drinking coke
> at the feed store to downing Dom with Charlie Rose this book is a good
> read. I would have like to see some more of our Friday night crew like
> Geoff Connor, Steve Sheriff and Mitch Pressman mentioned .
>
> On the other hand, Nossiter's screed is a mean spirited,
> anti-American attack on Parker and celebrity winemaker Michel Rolland.
> Nossiter had some valid points but his editing was so slanted I am
> embarrassed we share some of the same political views. It's the
> National Enquirer masquerading as the New Yorker. Parker and Rolland
> have influence in the wine world because consumers like the wines
> Parker praises and Rolland consults for. To me some consumers are
> overly finicky and fanatical, not buying any wine scored below 95
> points or wanting to buy the entire allocation a store is allotted; and
> people in the trade don't try to acquire and then sell wines not
> praised by either the Wine Advocate or the life-style oriented
> commercial Wine Spectator. But most of the wine sales made in the USA
> are not the artisan wines coveted by the Advocate or Spectator
> subscribers, but everyday quaffs that make the day a bit brighter.
> Thanks to Robert M. Parker, Jr those wines are fresher and more likely
> to be devoid of spoilage then before he began his journey.

"****ing fart-faced moronic American assholes"

Wow such erudition from some one within smelling distance of Lake Erie.
Are uranium or Uranis because the latter is the most distinctive part
of your anatomy. Next time please don't interfere with the adults on
this forum

And pray tell Uranium brain - just how do you spell "France" - you
****ing fart-faced moronic American asshole!