Vintage

There was an interesting interview with Bob Parker in the New York Times on Wednesday, where he said he was fed up with being the brunt of criticism by British and European journalists for being "a dictator of tastes". He asks why Wine Spectator, or Stephen Tanzer, the two other "scorers" of wines are never up for equal criticism, and vehemently defends his methods and the "over simplistic" criticism that he only highly rates wines which are "big, over-extracted fruit bombs". There has long been brewing an almighty punch-up over what constitutes the best wine and taste preferences, and inevitably people have taken strongly entrenched positions. For me this is wonderful stuff, and much to be encouraged.

The whole fun of enjoying great wine is about debate and preference, about how wine evolves over dinner in the glass, and over time in the cellar. About how personal tastes change as one gets older, and about circumstances and occasions, and the accompanying food and company, all of which impinge on a tasting experience. I know all the characters involved and have tasted with them and discussed wine and preferences with them.

 

{mosgoogle}

So in the "red corner" we have Parker, what has he got going for him? Firstly, he and his publication, ‘The Wine Advocate’, are hugely successful- I don’t know any serious trader or collector of wine who doesn’t take it, unless of course they are particularly irritated by the scores and commentary. ‘Wine Advocate’ is without doubt the most thorough and extensive review of wines, and Parker's thorough methods and integrity as an unbiased critic are unquestionable. He is a good taster, and as he gets older he is prudent enough to have a partner to taste with, whom he respects as a taster, just as a check- he knows like all tasters that one can occasionally get it wrong. He also has focused his own activity on the Rhone, Bordeaux, California and recently Australia, realising that he can't do everything, and possibly Burgundy, for instance is not his thing! He has brought appreciation, understanding and enthusiasm to millions of mainly new to the subject drinkers, with huge influence in the USA and the East. He has made his assessment of quality very easy to understand by his scoring- 100 is the best, whilst 70 is very ordinary. He has done a huge amount to promote top wines around the World, and given young wineries great encouragement.

In the "blue corner", his critics: They are equally qualified and in some cases have a lifetime of experience of many wonderful old and young wines. They also have influence, but probably in a less definitive way than Parker's finite score has. Taking also Parker's very, and often over effusive commentaries, his European critics are more modest and understated in their appraisals. As arbiters of taste, different criteria are used and rate higher.

So why have we got such divergence?

First scoring. It is always useful to have a benchmark when comparing one wine with another, so scoring at any one moment in time at one tasting for instance seems fine. There are many different systems, from Parker and Wine spectator's 100 point system (in fact only 30 points are ever used as below a score of 70 wines are deemed to be faulty or unacceptably poor), to a 20 point system (which I use, and which again is in fact only a 10 point system as below 10 the wines are unacceptable), to a five star system. What I believe irritates the Parker critics is the fact that a score is only a snapshot in time, wine can and does change, and such a precise score can end up being highly misleading to the amateur. What has happened, I suppose inevitably, is that these scores have become the main drivers of prices. I prefer the five star system as it leaves room for the inevitable changes a top wine will go through, it is either an exceptional great wine or a very good wine, etcetera. The scores have become a bit of a monster and although Parker in particular, shies away from this and constantly reiterates that the scores should be taken in the context of his notes at the time, few consumers get that far. This is dangerous for a number of reasons, apart from the obvious and frequent commercial exploitation of these scores, some wine makers will create wines to ensure high scores, leading to changes in wine making which may not necessarily be to everyone’s taste, and could encourage a sameness of style, which is boring.

So we come onto taste and what or who is the arbiter of good taste. There are some fundamental ingredients in judging quality;- Fruit; complexing factors to do with where a wine comes from. Complexing factors to do with how a wine is made, and also complexity as a wine ages. Balance, but primarily of fruit, acidity, tannin and alcohol, and in some wines residual sugar. Persistence as opposed to weight. Length or persistence of the finish. Then some overall and much more judgmental and personal qualities like elegance, or finesse. From my experience tasting with all these commentators, they all register these aspects in a particular wine, but often give greater or lesser emphasis to different aspects.

It would be unfair to say Parker doesn't rate balance and persistence, but it could be fair to say he rated fruit and weight in the same wine more highly. I think most European tasters, myself included, would put fruit and weight far below beautifully balanced and elegantly persistent aspects of a wine. That is again not to say that European tasters like mean wines lacking fruit, it is simply a judgment of relative importance given to these aspects. I now declare my hand, as I get older my preference is for gentle elegant wines with persistence but not weight and preferably lower alcohol, or at least the acidity to balance the alcohol if that is the nature of the vintage. I also know my sons who are in their twenties, like more gutsy and generally younger wines. Whether this is a factor of youth or experience, or a factor of what they have grown to like at university where the choice (and hopefully the budget) might have been limited, I don't know. But for the debate to continue in an informed and constructive way, without tempers rising and too many punches being swung, what we really need is for a well produced and properly publicised counterbalance to Parker's quite legitimate views and preferences. Somebody, or some group is needed to be another voice, and another arbiter. We need and should encourage a big and ongoing debate, thats what is fun and challenging about wine. Who will pick up the challenge?