… mega-star wine critic Robert Parker Jr., a man who has more influence on the taste and price of wine than anyone else has, or ever had had. Now in his seventies, Parker is retired. But back in 1975, the former lawyer, taking his lead from former presidential candidate, Ralph Nader — a consumer rights advocate — began to publish The Wine Advocate, a kind of consumer guide to fancy wine.
The world of wine had never seen anything like it. Parker was on a mission to demythologise all the snobby and obscure terminology under which fine wine was clouded and developed a simple 100 point scale on which wines could be judged.
As his influence grew, a Parker wine score in the 90s would pretty much guarantee considerable financial success to a vineyard. Inevitably, so the argument goes, those who made wine started to adjust the taste of their product so that it would suit the arbiter’s palate.
Parker generally likes big, dark, gutsy, jammy, tannic wines that can, his critics say, be engineered to taste that way in post-production, often by use of imported yeasts or through the use of young oak barrels. It’s more about clever chemistry than the particular charisma of the local terroir. Parker’s taste favours the muscular Californian Cabernet wines and the great Château wines of Bordeaux, yet has little appreciation for the lighter, less tannic, more subtle Pinot Noirs from Burgundy or Gamays from the Loire Valley. “Bad critics look at Pinot through Cabernet-tinted spectacles and so criticise it for being something it never set out to be,” writes Clive Coates, in a not so subtle dig at Parker, in his encyclopaedic The Wines of Burgundy.
Those who bewail Parker’s phenomenal influence speak of “parkerisation” as the wine equivalent of globalisation. The New York Times wine critic Alice Feiring writes that this is how “Rioja loses its Spanish accent”: parkerisation leads to an increasingly homogenised style of wine in which the diversity of grapes and wine tastes come to be submerged under the over powerful influence of Parker’s very particular palate. Those, like her, who prefer subtlety in their wine speak dismissively of Parker’s love for “jam bombs”.
Those who defend Parker, argue that his 100 point scale works as a kind of bullshit detector. It’s cutting through all the fancy talk and obscure (often) French classifications, to focus on the taste and the taste alone.
Giles Fraser, “Is wine starting to taste the same?”, UnHerd, 2020-10-14.
February 3, 2021
QotD: The “Parkerization” of wine
2 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Ms Feiring and her ilk need to replicate Parker’s efforts with their own system, and quit whinging.
Of course, whinging is ever so much easier.
Comment by John Donovan — February 3, 2021 @ 10:50
There are valid criticisms of Parker’s scoring system (you get 50 points just for being a wine, and the vast majority of wines that get a score are in the 80+ range, so it’s really more like a 20-point than a 100-point scale), but it really did help break up some of the more exclusive wine nonsense and democratized the market to some extent. The wineries and (even more) the middle men hated it at first, but it broadened the market and overall was an improvement for all wine consumers. It’s only human nature that once the Parker scale gained popularity, many winemakers started tailoring their wines to score well on the scale…
Comment by Nicholas — February 3, 2021 @ 11:08