A Vinofreak Defends Robert Parker

Posted by | Posted in Wine News | Posted on 11-10-2010

Robert Parker is bombastic. Most everyone agrees that his palate is monochromatic. Parker’s preference, as Eric Asimov has explained, is for “powerfully concentrated fruity wines “

Uploaded to flickr by winestem.

Seeing how palates are subjective, his criticisms of those who disagree are senseless and needlessly inflammatory. Witness Parker’s recent review of Philadelphia BYO Bibou. In a blog post, he decided to lash out at “vinofreaks” who prefer wines “made by some sheep farmer” that are “better fed to wild boar than the human species.”

Indeed, many oenophiles now take great pride in describing themselves as card-carrying members of the “anti-flavor wine elite” (AFWE), a phrase that Parker has used to describe those with palates that differ from his own.

His eagerness to dismiss his critics so quickly and so harshly is better suited to cable news. It’s as if Sean Hannity now inhabits the body of the world’s most influential wine critic. That Robert Parker is divisive, though, is nothing new.

His palate has been controversial for years. His rating system, too, is regularly criticized, as is his methodology and his ethics. Parker is a popular topic on the Wine Berserkers message board, where posters often discuss the shuttering of the eRobertParker.com forums. The move as was insanely annoying. And inane.

But in recent months, the Parker bashing has become just plain silly. These days, it seems as if every piece of wine writing has an obligatory line criticizing Parker and his palate. Witness Talia Baiocchi’s recent piece in the San Francisco Chronicle.

In the article, Baiocchi quotes Wells Guthrie, winemaker and partner at Copain Wine Cellars. In high-end New York wine shops, according to Guthrie, “there’s really no enthusiasm for the style of wine that (Robert) Parker and the (Wine) Spectator are advocates for.”

I love Guthrie’s wines. In fact, Copain represents 7 percent of my cellar — I only own more from two producers (Peay and Rudius). But when I read that quote, I instinctively rolled my eyes — of course a piece about “sophisticated” wine would include something critical of Robert Parker.

Love or loathe him, Robert Parker changed wine — for the better. Hate his 100-point scale? Without it, we wouldn’t have Burghound or CellarTracker! Without his Consumer Reports approach to wine criticism, a much higher percentage of bottles would be flawed. Famed British wine critic Jancis Robinson has stated as such.

Parker would likely call me a vinofreak. My favorite Syrahs are from Copain and Failla, and my favorite Pinots are from Peay, Hirsch, and Williams-Selyem. But just like most card-carrying members of the AFWE, I salivate when presented with a 95-100 point Napa cab. Like most vinofreaks, I think every Cabernet touched by Thomas Rivers Brown is worthy of 95 points or more.

The Parker bashing has gotten boring. One hopes if it’ll one day be as antiquated and absurd as an over-oaked Chardonnay. (For more on Parker, check out 1WineDude’s recent interview with him.)

Comments (4)

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Jim Clarke, David White. David White said: A vinofreak/card-carrying member of the AFWE DEFENDS Robert Parker. Kind of: http://blog.terroirist.com/?p=186. #VINOFREAKS […]

  2. I came across your blog through yahoo.
    I think your blog is very goodsome very interesting views in your blog. I’ve bookmarked this url and will come back again.

  3. I came across your blog through yahoo.
    I think your blog is very goodsome very interesting comments in your articles. I’ve bookmarked this url and will come back again.

  4. […] I wrote back in November (in a post about Parker-bashing), “Love or loathe him, Robert Parker changed […]