Parker's Encomium

[Jake_Parrott]

I can't stand the way Parker writes about wine. And I'm not talking about the scores or what wines he likes (I'm not a huge fan of those either, but that's not what I'm getting at here). Too many of his tasting notes read like laundry lists of nebulously related aromas and flavors. There's no real attempt at providing context for the wine in question (other than his occasional and ludicrous "mythical blends"). What results is that Parker's readers' understanding of wine does not increase--his notes become nothing more than Google search keys for specific flavors.

By not offering this context, Parker builds a culture of dependency around his writing. While that is good for his circulation and sales, it panders to the Coca-Cola stereotype of Americans by not making a case for exploring the world of wine.

Below, I've linked a short essay on blind tasting from one of my favorite wine importers, Joe Dressner. He explores some of these same topics (and others). Words to live by.

http://www.datamantic.com/joedressner/?1674

[Gillman]

What are the mythical blends, Jake?

Gary

[Jake_Parrott]

Originally Posted by Gillman

What are the mythical blends, Jake?

Oh occasionally (and only for wines with extremely high scores), Parker'll attempt to find context by saying stuff like (not exact quote) "like a blend of Chateau Latour and Henri Bonneau Chateauneuf" or something like that. It happens very, very rarely, rarely enough (maybe once a year) that it comes across as a caricature. The rest of the time, his writing is devoid of substantive context.

[Gillman]

Jake, thanks.

Have you ever sampled these prestigious Harlan Estate Cabernet-based blends? I understand some have been made with all-Cabernet. Or if not these, probably you have tried other super-Cabs in that class.

What do you think of them? Do you think they would improve with long aging? Parker seems to minimise the importance of aging for many wines (not all), he'll often say, this wine doesn't change much with aging (especially about certain Californian premium wines).

Gary

[Jake_Parrott]

If anything, I think Parker drastically overestimates the aging potential of many wines, particularly the Aussie and Spanish ooze monsters that garner major points.

I don't think I've ever had Harlan, but I've had several other "cult" Cabernets, and many of them are over-extracted and confected. There's little transparency, little expression of soil and site, just full-full-full-throttle, often too low acid, and often out of balance alcohol. A few of them can be glorious. But even when I have one of those, I don't feel like I can make a connection to the wine.

A broader example--Mr. Parker waxed incredibly poetic about the 2000 vintage in Bordeaux. I had the opportunity to taste about 80 top 2000 Bordeaux in 2002, just after bottling. Sure, many of the wines were awkward from recent bottling. But I took that into account, and I still found over half of the wines confected, inexpressive, too New World-ish, lacking florality, minerality, and acid.