Amazing Parker Rumor
Tom Reddick
I too have heard from reliable sources, i.e. regular visitors to
Burgundy cellars, that he is no longer welcome. This came about after the
most recent edition of the Buying Guide. As if the personal attacks he
made on many growers in the previous guide were not enough, this was the
only region where he did this, in the most recent guide he makes some
pretty odd remarks about producers he previously touted.
Most notably, he has reversed his stance on Faiveley and Rousseau
and made some pretty broadly damaging accusations. Read his book Burgundy
and the last 2 Buying Guides and you will see what I mean. The most recent
Buying Guide has been heavily boycotted and that seemed to be the last
straw.
Also note that the Guy Accad wines he highly praised are no more as
Mr. Accad has left the region as of 1992, thank goodness. After tasting
some Accad wines, I can see why Parker loved them so much- so very
Bordeaux like, but Accad's methods were highly detrimental to the quality
of Burgundy.
Leroy wines are sublime, but not the only good wines in Burgundy and
I find his obvious bias against the DRC since her departure to be more
personal in nature than anything else.
Even though his palate is not oriented toward appreciation of fine
Burgundy, his unneccesary personal attacks are what really ticked everyone
off. As big a fan of Parker as I am, I cannot understand why he is always
making so many off-topic remarks about Burgundy producers that have
nothing to do with the wine while he seems content with talking only about
wine with regards to other regions.
In short, he asked for it!
If you haven't already done so, buy Matt Kramer's Burgundy book; you
will find it a much better source than anything Parker writes.
bf...@aol.com
I was at a trade tasting this week with some of the major retailers from Southern
California. The hottest rumor was as follows. Parker is now persona non grata in
Burgundy so 2 issues back in the Wine Advocate he announced he was
deligating to a new assistant the job of doing the Burgundy barrel tastings. Well,
the rumor goes that the new assistant went to Burgundy, tasted lots of 95s
and couldn't separate the good from the bad--most got scores of 85 to 89. So
his notes are useless for the Wine Advocate-but Parker's stuck because he
already made the big public announcement about this guy.
As I said at the start of this note-this was presented as a rumor-I have no info
if it is true or not but it sure is interesting.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
>his unneccesary personal attacks are what really ticked everyone
>off.
Hardly surprising. Parker's method of operation when faced with criticism is
to ignore the issue raised and instead attack the ethics, morals, or motives
of the critic. It's an interesting dodge.
By the way, don't forget the lawsuit by the Burgundy negociant.
Bob Foster
Joe and Laura Spiteri
Meow, Meow. What is this thread, if not a personal attack? You feel
strongly about Parker and his approach to Burgundy, and you state your
opinion strongly, and articulately. That's a good thing.
It seems to me that Parker does the same. If that puts him out of favor
in Burgundy, fine. I'd rather have him, or anyone, state his views
plainly than curry favor with the Burgundy wine establishment. Could
you comment accurately on this situation if you were worried about
offending Parker? A strongly stated opinion makes for good reading and
an opportunity to learn something. Don't trash the man for being
forceful - trash him for being wrong about the wine.
With that in mind, it also seems to me that if his new assistant can't
taste or can't write, we'll all know soon enough. Let the guy publish
some tasting notes before you celebrate his utter failure as a wine
critic. Personal attack?
Among US retailers, and on this list, who absorbs more personal attacks
than Parker?
ke6...@loop.com
.........Are you the very same Bob Foster that I used to read several
years ago in the Prodigy Wines group? Based on discussions about RP
and WA vs WS. I would guess so? Please advise.
.......regards from Howard, West Los Angeles
bf...@aol.com
>Are you the very same Bob Foster that I used to read several
>years ago in the Prodigy Wines group?
Yes. Parker and I debated for a few years on Prodigy.
Bob Foster
Mr. Robert W. Callahan
Maybe the guy didn't rip enough '95 Burg for RP's liking. Taking the
more gentle damning-with-faint-praise approach (the twilight zone of
85-89 "points") might not have been sufficient for Angry Bob.
Stuart Yaniger
We're all praying that the rumor is true. I'd sure like to have the
world chasing after crap like Marcassin and Peter Michael, and leave the
(soon-to-be-discounted-if-the-scores-suck) '95 Chassagnes to you and me!
bf...@aol.com
>We're all praying that the rumor is true.
Well, I'm not sure about that- but in any event.....
Stuart-has this topic been raised over on Prodigy? Has the normally talkative
Mr Parker had anything to say about it?
bf...@aol.com
In article <333C8E...@ziplink.net>, Joe and Laura Spiteri <dol...@ziplink.net> writes:
> Let the [new] guy publish
>some tasting notes before you celebrate his utter failure as a wine critic.
Who celebrated the new guy's failure? I merely reported that aspect of this rumor
You asked who takes more shots than Parker; I'd have phrased it a bit differently
who gives out more personal attacks than Parker when faced with challenges
to his scores, notes or methodology (in other words he brings a lot of it on
himself)
Bob Foster
ke6...@loop.com
Based on the posts below my text.................I'm sorry to say that
it looks like the Prodigy Wine Bulletin Board from several years
ago.......all over again!!!!!!!!!!!
Bob Foster never let up on Robert Parker, who at that time (and maybe
even to this day because I dropped Prodigy several years ago) was the
Wine Bulletin Board expert. Constant criticism and sarcasm finally
made many Prodigy subscribers ignore Foster's posts.
It's NOT constructive criticism of RP that bothers me, it's the
constant bickering and challenging of Parker's competence that turned
me and most Prodigy subscribers away from Foster's obnoxious postings.
Foster obviously dislikes most of Parker's ratings and opinions. My
opinion is that Mr. Foster should concentrate on posting his own
opinions of WINE, and let the rest of us form our own opinions.
Personal attacks have no place in this newsgroup. What I want to read
is about personal opinions about wines, and related materials.
sincere regards from Howard, West Los Angeles
>> Hardly surprising. Parker's method of operation when faced with criticism is
>> to ignore the issue raised and instead attack the ethics, morals, or motives
>> of the critic. It's an interesting dodge.
>>
>> By the way, don't forget the lawsuit by the Burgundy negociant.
>>
>> Bob Foster
>
>Meow, Meow. What is this thread, if not a personal attack? You feel
>strongly about Parker and his approach to Burgundy, and you state your
>opinion strongly, and articulately. That's a good thing.
>
>It seems to me that Parker does the same. If that puts him out of favor
>in Burgundy, fine. I'd rather have him, or anyone, state his views
>plainly than curry favor with the Burgundy wine establishment. Could
>you comment accurately on this situation if you were worried about
>offending Parker? A strongly stated opinion makes for good reading and
>an opportunity to learn something. Don't trash the man for being
>forceful - trash him for being wrong about the wine.
>
>With that in mind, it also seems to me that if his new assistant can't
>taste or can't write, we'll all know soon enough. Let the guy publish
>some tasting notes before you celebrate his utter failure as a wine
bf...@aol.com
>Bob Foster never let up on Robert Parker
Absolutely not true. In fact there were times when I went to his defense when folks
would show up and go ater Parker and it turned out the poster hadn't even
tasted the wines. I guess you forget the long string of notes whenParker and
I were talking about Ports and pretty much agreed on all of it.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hj7ja$2...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>, UNV...@prodigy.com (Mr. Robert W. Callahan) writes:
>Maybe the guy didn't rip enough '95 Burg for RP's liking.
Why not post the rumor over on Prodigy and se if Parkr will comment (if he holds
true to form he'll ignore the central issue and instread turnit into an attack on
someone else.)
Bob Foster
eljefe
seme...@li.net
>I was at a trade tasting this week with some of the major retailers from Southern
>California. The hottest rumor was as follows. Parker is now persona non grata in
>Burgundy
Bob Parker has a reputation throughout Burgundy for
not understanding burgundy. He has had this reputation for years. I
have never been sure why "we" condemn him for it, and other opinions
as if he were a computer that either functions perfectly or it is
broken. He is a man. He has opinions. He expresses them well. It is
for us (each of us) to either value his opinions, reject his opinions,
or decide what we agree with and what we don't while enjoying his
effort anyway. That's what I've done for years.
The rest of your post is interesting. If what you say is true and I
were Parker, I'd get on a plane and go to Burgundy right now. Believe
me, he will find many hospitable hosts. He is hardly "stuck".
Carl
Rick Gregory
seme...@li.net wrote:
>
>
> Bob Parker has a reputation throughout Burgundy for
> not understanding burgundy. He has had this reputation for years. I
> have never been sure why "we" condemn him for it, and other opinions
> as if he were a computer that either functions perfectly or it is
> broken. He is a man. He has opinions. He expresses them well. It is
> for us (each of us) to either value his opinions, reject his opinions,
> or decide what we agree with and what we don't while enjoying his
> effort anyway. That's what I've done for years.
>
> The rest of your post is interesting. If what you say is true and I
> were Parker, I'd get on a plane and go to Burgundy right now. Believe
> me, he will find many hospitable hosts. He is hardly "stuck".
Of course Parker isn't just like you and I in the effect he can have on
a wine's price and success. Thought it's rather foolish, some (many?)
people purchase what Parker (and the Wine Spectator) rate highly, and
don't purchase as readily wines that have been rated lower by Parker.
Ed Jay
elj...@halcyon.com (eljefe) wrote:
>Besides you, who gives a ****
>
>Jef Jaisun
>
This is the second post of yours I've seen--both have been punctuated
with vulgarity. Please clean up your act, and try to refrain from
using foul language. Thanks in advance.
Ed c];^)
Bibo ergo sum, in vino veritas.
My return address is disguised. Remove the leading X to reply.
Joe and Laura Spiteri
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <333C8E...@ziplink.net>, Joe and Laura Spiteri <dol...@ziplink.net> writes:
>
> >some tasting notes before you celebrate his utter failure as a wine critic.
>
>"Merely Reported" implies an objectivity that you did not convey on this issue.
> You asked who takes more shots than Parker; I'd have phrased it a bit differently
> who gives out more personal attacks than Parker when faced with challenges
> to his scores, notes or methodology (in other words he brings a lot of it on
> himself)
>
He clearly does - but he's to be applauded, in my view, for pointing out
the inconsistency and price-absurdity of Burgundy in a strong fashion.
Advocating (or at least celebrating) his expulsion from Burgundy on the
basis of HIS bias isn't called for. Accusing him of avoiding the issue
when he points out he clear financial interest of his critics (in this
case, at least) is less than fair. Criticize him all you want - I'll
join you on the right issue - but I hear a knee-jerk establishment
reaction, with the focus on the messenger, not the issue, whenever
Parker even hints that these Burgundies aren't what they ought to be.
Stuart Yaniger
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Stuart-has this topic been raised over on Prodigy? Has the normally talkative
> Mr Parker had anything to say about it?
No. Parker is currently in Bordeaux. To be honest, I would bring it up
on Prodigy if anyone but you had raised it; next time, whisper in Bob
Thompson's ear or something ;-) . But for better or for worse, whether
true or false, the discussion would be immediately tainted by the fact
that Bob Foster raised the issue. And the fact that I ask the question
would immediately put (the other) Bob and his flock into immediate
Indignation mode, since I am (for some reason) perceived as
"anti-Parker".
It's sad that many people can't discuss issues as issues, but rather,
take things immediately to feelings and politics, don't you think?
In any case, when the WA does its Burgundy reviews, it will succeed or
fail on its merits, not on rumors, dirty laundry, or what you or I say.
If Pierre is perceived by the readership as unreliable or uninformative,
the bleating will be quite loud. If he does well, he and Parker profit.
Free market economics at its best.
Care to divulge the source of the rumor?
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hk02j$fnp$2...@news2.halcyon.com>, elj...@halcyon.com (eljefe) writes:
>Besides you, who gives a fuck?
Given the number of folks who have replied to this note, apparently several
people in this group do.
I'm sorry you lack the skills, abilities or manners to have a polite discussion
about this. Like my Grandmother used to say, class always shows.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
>but I hear a knee-jerk establishment
>reaction, with the focus on the messenger, not the issue, whenever
>Parker even hints that these Burgundies aren't what they ought to be.
Huh? Are we in the same thread. I never commented on why he was unwelcome
in Burgundy. What I was talking about was his pattern of ducking ALL criticism
on any topic with this attack the moral and ethics of the questioner. I don't think
he got his staus in Burgundy for complaining about price--I thought it was for
implying that the ethics of some shippers was open to doubt (the old bait
and switch game)
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
> put (the other) Bob and his flock into immediate
>Indignation mode, since I am (for some reason) perceived as
>"anti-Parker".
Standard operating procedure for that group. Ignore the issue go for the
questioner. Sort of like my review of Parker's book. Nobody
talked about the wineries he dropped and his failure to explain--
all the notes I saw were about my motives, morals, ethics etc etc. yawn
> Care to divulge the source of the rumor?
I was at a trade tasting and was talking to a group of three wine buyers for
MAJOR Southern California chains/stores. All three had heard the rumor
I can't honestly say who first mentioned it. I think I ought not to go any further.
We know how vindictive Parker and his sheep can be. (BTW have you had
the joy of getting pleasant notes from Parker on the board and nasty e mail on the
same topic from him?? I finally stopped him by telling him that as of a certain
date I would consider any E mail from him public and would post it. Voila
the nasty e mail stopped. The image must be protected...)
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
>>Jef Jaisun
>>
>This is the second post of yours I've seen--both have been punctuated
>with vulgarity. Please clean up your act, and try to refrain from
>using foul language. Thanks in advance.
Ed-having gone and read some of his other posts in other usenet groups
I think the chacnes of that happening are slim and zero. But I share your
setiments. I always figrue when someone drops to that level it's an inherent
admission they have nothing of value to say.(There is a certain hypocracy of someone asking about the proper wines for a religious event-Passover-
and then using such foul language in the same forum.)
Bob Foster
Paul S Winalski
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I was at a trade tasting this week with some of the major retailers from Southern
> California. The hottest rumor was as follows. Parker is now persona non grata in
> deligating to a new assistant the job of doing the Burgundy barrel tastings. Well,
> the rumor goes that the new assistant went to Burgundy, tasted lots of 95s
> and couldn't separate the good from the bad--most got scores of 85 to 89. So
> his notes are useless for the Wine Advocate-but Parker's stuck because he
> already made the big public announcement about this guy.
I have heard from several independent sources that a significant number
of the principals at Burgundy domaines, including many of those held in
highest regard, consider both Parker and the tasters at The Wine
Spectator
to be clueless when it comes to evaluating Burgundy. Some of this is
simply because Parker and the WS don't play the game the way the
Burgundians
want it played. Parker and WS like to organize very large peer group
tastings of barrel samples. This works out well in Bordeaux where the
estates are all handled through negociants who will set up such things.
In Burgundy the proprietors prefer a more individual and hands-on
approach--you're expected to taste in situ in the cellars, where the
proprietor can tell you important facts about what your tasting such
as it's just been racked and is cranky, or he has the press wine in a
separate cuvee and hasn't blended it in yet. IMO, both sides have valid
points. I can fully understand Parker's desire to taste a group of
wines
blind and side-by-side. I can also see the producers' point about being
informed about what you're tasting.
Another thing that Parker has done that rubs the Burgundians the wrong
way
is to try to tell them how they should be making their wines, especially
inflammatory issues such as fining and filtration. By all reports
Burgundian
producers are traditionally a fiercely independent lot who resent anyone
telling them what to do, especially an American who has never made a
drop
of wine himself and who (in their opinion) hasn't a clue what Burgundy
is or should be about anyway. Again, boths sides of the argument have
merit. Without question, a lot of Burgundian producers could use
someone
telling them how to make decent wine. But Parker prefers to ignore
the dark side of wines made with no fining and filtration--their lack
of stability. Yes, you may get more character and concentration, but
you can also get rampant VA problems and bottle variation. Is it better
to have a case of grand cru Burgundy where 6 bottles turn out
spectacularly
good and the other 6 are undrinkable, versus a case all 12 bottles are
at an excellent (but not quite as spectacular) quality level?
Then of course there are some growers who will be angry at Parker, the
WS,
and other critics simply because the critics point out that they are
making poor wines and living off their (or their vineyards') reputation.
So it seems indeed that Parker has quite a few Burgundy producers upset
with him. And it appears some are retaliating. Some, including a
group of extremely notable and influential producers, refuse to let
Parker or WS taste at the domaines and decline to send barrel samples.
Others say that they make up a special "cuvee Robert Parker" out of
their
more forceful barrel samples, send that off to be tasted, and then
bottle
a different blend. One grower has even said that he's mixed 30% syrah
from the Rhone into his Burgundy barrel samples sent to Parker in order
to garner the necessary Parker points to get his wines imported into the
US. They consider it all part of the game--you get the Great Clueless
One
to give you a 90+ score, and that gets your wines into the US where the
non-clueless consumers and retailers have access to them.
IMO, Parker and WS should simply adopt a policy of not reviewing
Burgundy
until it's in the bottle and shipped to the US. Yes, it's nice to have
reviews ahead of time, but as a consumer the reviews are useless if
what I buy in the bottle isn't what the reviewer tasted from barrel.
This is the way Parker operated before he achieved his superstar status.
If anything, his reviews back then were the better for it.
--PSW
Chris Beacham
On 3/30/97 12:44AM, in message <333E0B...@lspace.zko.dec.com>, Paul S
Winalski <wina...@lspace.zko.dec.com> wrote:
> IMO, Parker and WS should simply adopt a policy of not reviewing
> Burgundy
> until it's in the bottle and shipped to the US. Yes, it's nice to have
> reviews ahead of time, but as a consumer the reviews are useless if
> what I buy in the bottle isn't what the reviewer tasted from barrel.
> This is the way Parker operated before he achieved his superstar status.
> If anything, his reviews back then were the better for it.
>
Finally some sense written amongst all the mess! Thanks Paul.
Mr. Robert W. Callahan
Foster beats on the point that Parker likes to attack his critics
personally rather than actually discussing the issues they raise.
This much is true. I know.
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hlsv7$1b...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>, UNV...@prodigy.com (Mr. Robert W. Callahan) writes:
> The mass slaughters (200 wines
>lined up and shot at in a day, a 100 before lunch and a hundred more
>after a drinking lunch),
At least for the years when I was on Prodigy, before you arrived, Parker
always stated he did not do large peer group tastings while in Burgundy. I
have no information to the contrary.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
>MO, Parker and WS should simply adopt a policy of not reviewing
>Burgundy
>until it's in the bottle and shipped to the US
Amen-couldn't agree more! But the point of this note was not why Parker
was persona non grarta--but the alleged failure of his"solution" to the problem.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
>Parker and WS like to organize very large peer group
>tastings of barrel samples.
Parker always stated on Prodigy that he refused to do large peer group double
blind tastings. He claimed he preferred unblind tastings one shipper at a time.
It was this policy that created the terrible conflict of interest for him when he
accepted the gift from Jadot of attending the Hospices de Beaune auction and
then tasted their wines unblind. (Of course, he thought there was no problem
as he has convicned himself he can taste just as acuurately unblind--and
if you believe that then you believe there's a spaceship hiding in the tale of
the Hale Bopp comet.)
Bob Foster
Stuart Yaniger
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> (BTW have you had
> the joy of getting pleasant notes from Parker on the board and nasty e mail on the
> same topic from him?? I finally stopped him by telling him that as of a certain
> date I would consider any E mail from him public and would post it. Voila
> the nasty e mail stopped. The image must be protected...)
>
No, Bob has been very consistent in what he says to me in public and in
private. In person, he was considerably friendlier than the irritated
tone of his notes would suggest. But I've never (nor would I ever)
questioned his ethics or competence, but rather, his methodology and the
goofy things he says about winemaking and Davis.
lje...@aol.com
Have you guys considered petitioning for a new newsgroup? Perhaps alt.food.wine.hate_Parker_whine? We've seen civilized discourse about good food and wine degenerate over the last few weeks.
Today, we were spammed by a degenerate. Can we get back on topic?
LJ
bf...@aol.com
>Another thing that Parker has done that rubs the Burgundians the wrong
>way
>is to try to tell them how they should be making their wines, especially
>inflammatory issues such as fining and filtration.
So what else is new? He does this to every winemaker, every wine region.
bf...@aol.com
>Can we get back on topic?
Sorry, but it seems to me that in a wine discussion group, comments about the
single most influential wine critic in the world are "on topic." If it is a topic
that does not interest you, please simply skip the notes. But given the number
of responses on this subject it is clear that large numbers of folks in this
newsgroup are interested in the issue. (I do agree that the profanity filled notes
have no place in alt.food.wine)
Bob Foster
Rick Gregory
Bob and other Parker fans/haters,
I think the larger point is that personal disagreements of the "Parker
knows nothing about X," "No, Parker's a god on the subject of X" nature
are boring to those of us who don't know the participants as well as
being pretty much off the topic of the news group unless X ir real
specific (a particular wine review, say). I've seen newsgroups
deteriorate into nothing but personal arguments with little in the way
of useful information - I hope alt.food.wine doesn't go that way.
Rick
Mr. Robert W. Callahan
The Spiteris write that the reaction against Parker in Burgundy sounds
like a "knee-jerk establishment reaction". No doubt it sounds that
way, but it isn't so. The reaction against Parker in Burgundy has to
do with his bad work in the region. The mass slaughters (200 wines
were finished, the constantly negative tone since the Faiveley suit,
the rating of wines based on one tasting, the grading of vintages for
the charts before the wines are tasted - all this annoys people,
particularly when they compare this with what Parker does in Bordeaux,
where he's much more responsible.
Tom Humphreys
|> IMO, Parker and WS should simply adopt a policy of not reviewing
|> Burgundy
|> until it's in the bottle and shipped to the US. Yes, it's nice to have
I thought he had made this his policy several years ago, back when he
noticed differences (and got in sued for writing about it) between the
barrel samples he tasted and what he tasted from the bottle later on.
Tom
lje...@aol.com
Personally, I'm more interested in what the contributors to this list have to say about their own sensory experiences than in the opinions of a professional critic. But you're correct, I should hit
the delete key on any thread with the words "Parker" or even "Gallo" in it.
LJ
Clive Gibbons
Here's a suggestion to everyone who has contributed to this thread
(including myself, from now on!):
When you see *any* thread started by Bob Foster which mentions Robert
Parker, do yourself a favour and *ignore* it.
I'm not taking sides, but it's obvious that there's much personal
animosity involved between both parties and there's no point in anyone
else getting involved in the feud.
Just some friendly advice...
--
Clive Gibbons "Building excellence through empowerment
Technician, in a World Class Quality paradigm."
McMaster University. with apologies to S. Adams.
Joe and Laura Spiteri
Gentlemen: I honestly had no idea that so many of you had personal history with Mr. Parker. Although I consider Parker to be an
important and positive force in wine criticism, and find his published work to be consistent, painstaking, and very ethical, I am in
no position to question anyone on his more personal conduct or response to individual criticism.
That said, I'd sincerely like to hear more analysis and opinion on Burgundy and what makes it so contreversial. I challenge you to
address this wihtout using the word "Parker." I really would like to hear what you have to say about the wine.
Joe and Laura Spiteri
Thank you for a cogent and informative post.
Try to sneak a few insults in next time, so I'll know I'm on the right
thread! (Only kidding....)
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hlt3v$1b...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>, UNV...@prodigy.com (Mr. Robert W. Callahan) writes:
>Foster beats on the point that Parker likes to attack his critics
>personally rather than actually discussing the issues they raise.
>
>This much is true. I know.
It's his approach to EVERY critic. I remember once when someone quoted
a comment of Clive Coates that was in disagreement with something Parker
had written. Parker went off on a long attack on Coates-the sheep on Prodigy
respondend with attacks on Coates and Parker NEVER did respond to the
central question. He has honed it to a fine art and when you call him on it
publicly he gets very irate. (I guess I was the first to point it out to him to his
face..erh his electronic face...and you should have seen the nasty e mail I
got.. wow!)
Bob Foster
Peter R. Livingston, Jr.
> Mr. Robert W. Callahan wrote:
> >
> > Maybe the guy didn't rip enough '95 Burg for RP's liking. Taking the
> >
> > more gentle damning-with-faint-praise approach (the twilight zone of
> >
> > 85-89 "points") might not have been sufficient for Angry Bob.
>
> We're all praying that the rumor is true. I'd sure like to have the
> world chasing after crap like Marcassin and Peter Michael, and leave the
> (soon-to-be-discounted-if-the-scores-suck) '95 Chassagnes to you and me!
"CRAP like Marcassin"?!? Please. So silly. There is simply no way you
can suggest such a thing and pretend to know anything about California
Chardonnay. Period. In case you're not aware, "crap" says: horribly
flawed, a mess, without redeeming qualities. Marcassin wines are no such
thing. Not your cup of tea? Fine. Rather drink '95 Chassagnes? Sounds good.
But "crap"? These kinds of words only succeed in hurting your credibility --
such as it is. But maybe it's all just a "Parker thing" ...
Peter Livingston, Jr.
--
NOTE: Please remove the "x" from my address to reply.
Tom Reddick
Amen! I was not around at the time, but I have heard over and over
again about the rave reviews given to the 1983s before they were bottled
and began to show signs of the rot that plagued many bottles.
As for Parker, I find his book Burgundy quite interesting. It has
been an invaluable resource mainly becuase he has more notes on more
Domaines than anyone. My only confusion, and the subject of my
confirmation of the rumor first posted, is wondering why he makes so many
unkind remarks about individual growers, even if he gives rave reviews to
the wines.
As an individual taster, Parker's opinions can be "taken with a grain
of salt" and still be useful for those of us who know what he likes and
how that will translate into our own preferences.
My main regret now is that this post occupies about 50% of my
discussion screen and seems, like Parker's off-handed comments about many
Burgundy producers, to have nothing to do with wine.
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hmv45$f...@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA>, gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Clive Gibbons) writes:
>When you see *any* thread started by Bob Foster which mentions Robert
>Parker, do yourself a favour and *ignore* it.
>
>I'm not taking sides,
Gosh I'd hate to see what you DO write when you do take sides.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
In article <peterlx-ya0230600...@news.inch.com>, pet...@inch.com (Peter R. Livingston, Jr.) writes:
>Callahan wrote....."crap like Marcassin"
I am told by regulars on Prodigy that Mr Callahan has an extreme dislike for anything Californian esp.
the Chardonnays.In fact, I'm told he and Mr Parker had a double blind taste off on this issue.
While the Marcassin is not my style of Chard., by no means can it be called crap.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
< hear more analysis and opinion on Burgundy and what makes it so contreversial. I challenge you to
address this wihtout using the word "Parker." >>
The man whose name is the last word in your quote likes Burgudies that have high
extract, dark color and lots of new oak. (and perhaps a hint of an off odor) As
one of the earlier contributors to this thread notes-some producers reportdly add
Syrah to the samples sent to him. Regardless this critic's penchant for such big
wines has caused some (many?) proiducers to alter their style so as to get good
scores. Moreover, not all great Burgs need to be massive-but this critic seems not
to recognize this fact. For this I find his scores on Port and Rhone far more
reliable because in those areas one expects big massive wines.
Bob (You said the P word, I didn't) Foster
Paul S Winalski
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <333E0B...@lspace.zko.dec.com>, Paul S Winalski <wina...@lspace.zko.dec.com> writes:
>
> >tastings of barrel samples.
>
> Parker always stated on Prodigy that he refused to do large peer group double
> blind tastings. He claimed he preferred unblind tastings one shipper at a time.
> It was this policy that created the terrible conflict of interest for him when he
> accepted the gift from Jadot of attending the Hospices de Beaune auction and
> then tasted their wines unblind. (Of course, he thought there was no problem
> as he has convicned himself he can taste just as acuurately unblind--and
> if you believe that then you believe there's a spaceship hiding in the tale of
> the Hale Bopp comet.)
One *shipper* at a time, yes--and a shipper generally represents several
domaines each of which has 5-10 wines. So we're talking about tastings
involving 30-50 wines. That in my book consitutes a large peer group
tasting.
But the real problem Parker faces is that he has no way of knowing
whether
producers are sending him honest barrel samples, and it's a fact that
many are not. I think this is the cause of the problem Parker has
repeatedly commented on, where the wine tastes very different from
bottle
in the States than it did when he tasted the barrel samples in France
(it was his ambiguous reference to this problem, with its possible
veiled
accusation of fraud, that triggered the Faiveley lawsuit).
What Parker finally seems to be facing up to, and what the Wine
Spectator
is being forced to confront, is that fact that their barrel tastings in
Burgundy are pretty useless to their readers because of their
unreliability. From our standpoint, as consumers of their reviews, it
doesn't really matter who or what is to blame for the inconsistencies.
--PSW
Paul S Winalski
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> At least for the years when I was on Prodigy, before you arrived, Parker
> always stated he did not do large peer group tastings while in Burgundy. I
> have no information to the contrary.
This isn't the word from the growers. While he does taste in situ at
the domaines, he also requests barrel samples to be sent to him for
evaluation in peer tastings. What he's sent sometimes bears no
relationship to what the producer intends to bottle.
--PSW
Paul S Winalski
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <333E0B...@lspace.zko.dec.com>, Paul S Winalski <wina...@lspace.zko.dec.com> writes:
>
> >way
> >is to try to tell them how they should be making their wines, especially
> >inflammatory issues such as fining and filtration.
>
> So what else is new? He does this to every winemaker, every wine region.
True enough. But whereas the Bordelais or Californian winemakers
will smile and nod and politely ignore him, and possibly roll on the
floor laughing at him after he leaves, the Burgundians go into an
apoplectic rage. It seems to be a highly-ingrained part of their
nature. The younger generation seems more open-minded, but they
still dislike anyone, however qualified, trying to tell them how
to make their wine.
--PSW
Paul S Winalski
bf...@aol.com wrote:
!>
!> The man whose name is the last word in your quote likes Burgudies
that have high
!> extract, dark color and lots of new oak. (and perhaps a hint of an
off odor) As
!> one of the earlier contributors to this thread notes-some producers
reportdly add
!> Syrah to the samples sent to him. Regardless this critic's penchant
for such big
!> wines has caused some (many?) proiducers to alter their style so as
to get good
!> scores. Moreover, not all great Burgs need to be massive-but this
critic seems not
!> to recognize this fact. For this I find his scores on Port and Rhone
far more
!> reliable because in those areas one expects big massive wines.
Amen. This paragraph states precisely and succintly my problem with
RMP's reviews of Burgundies. Pinot noir simply does not often produce
the
sort of blockbuster wines that Parker loves; its forte is grace rather
than pure power. Now to be fair the Burgundians have tried to excuse
lots of insipid, overcropped, anemic wines under the guise of "finesse."
Parker is right to criticize them for it. But he also slams lots of
other wines that are delightfully complex and subtle, but which lack
the "oodles of fruit" and "boatloads of tannins" that get the 90+
scores.
--PSW
Mr. Robert W. Callahan
Parker always does large group tastings in Burgundy.
At least he did, when he tasted there. Now his people handle that.
Mr. Robert W. Callahan
There's another interesting feature of Parker's work on Burgundy, in
that Burgundy book specifically: his bits on domaines Michel Bettane
had some small experience with, but at which Bob - according to reports
I've heard (I have no way of knowing whether this is so, but the
sources are good ones) - never tasted and examples of which Bob likely
never had. It's an old issue, so there's no need to go back to recall
which those might have been, but if you look at the book and find a
"promising" small domaine rated three stars with only a sketchy
description, you may well be dealing with an estate with which Parker
had no experience.
This would appear to have been the case several times. That's no
epidemic, and it's no worse than grading a vintage for a chart based on
hearsay, but it's interesting.
Mr. Robert W. Callahan
Spiteri asks for analysis and opinion on Burgundy. We do that
elsewhere. This isn't the appropriate string, I think.
You made a defense of Parker on ethical and professional grounds
regarding Burgundy. I pointed out some interesting facts about his
approach to Burgundy that seem to me (and to these Burgundians you
implicitly accuse of being unfair with Parker) less than admirable. In
reply, you state you find his work to be painstaking and ethical.
Okay. But I think you haven't addressed the issue. If what I've said
is so - which you needn't grant but which you might consider for the
sake of the current discussion - would the approach implied be a
painstaking or ethical one? That's the issue here - not whether
Burgundy the region is controversial (they've got their problems, but
that's another issue).
KATEWHITMO
Bob,
You hit it right on the nose with "massive." I have been lamenting Mr. P's
(no, I won't utter the name, either!) influence on California wine and
have observed it becoming more homegenous and "HUGE" over the years. Since
I lived abroad from for the past six years, with little access to
California wines except for the seven cases of excellent 85s and 87s I had
smuggled out, I could really see the evolution in sharp relief upon my
return. But I am really concerned that this could be happening elsewhere.
Is no part of the world safe?
What will those of us who enjoy subtle, elegantly nuanced wines do?
Kate
Mark Squires
Stuart Yaniger <Cote...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
> Care to divulge the source of the rumor?>>
How about a little discussion, Stu, on the appropriateness of publishing
unattributed rumors that are this serious and nasty?
Does someone in Burgundy not like Robert Parker? Big whoop. No kidding.
Parker disses the region with regularity for being overcropped and
overpriced, and under-qualitied. Are we surprised that someone in
Burgundy likes to stick it to him? But on that basis some jackass like
Foster is going to print a "rumor" as vile as this.
Maybe we can just get Foster to take a vow of silence on Parker. Of
course, that might mean he no longer has anything to say.
Mark Squires
> (I guess I was the first to point it out to him to his
>face..erh his electronic face...and you should have seen the nasty e
mail I
>got.. wow!)
>
Please don't rewrite history. Perhaps you can share with everyone else
the vicious posts you directed at Parker's way that may have generated
email.
For years you launched one vitriolic attack at him after another. You
questioned his ethics, his competence, everything about him, and always
in the most condescending, insulting tone possible. You never tried to
ask questions or just discuss issues; they would always be phrased as
insults. Then you play victim.
Actually, I'll take one thing back. You needn't inform anyone here about
what you did to provoke .... your posts in the short time you have been
here have already made clear the level of personal animosity and
unreasoning hatred you have for Parker, and for a fairly simple reason.
The two of you have had similar careers and backgrounds. But he
succeeded and became world famous.
Give it up, Bob. Jealously will eat you into the grave.
Mark Squires
gibb...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA (Clive Gibbons) wrote:
>
>
>Here's a suggestion to everyone who has contributed to this thread
>(including myself, from now on!):
>
>Parker, do yourself a favour and *ignore* it.
>
Not a bad idea.
Tom Reddick
You raise another major point here that bears mentioning. I cannot
remember where, but I think it was in Kermit Lynch's book Adventures on
the Wine Route, where a produer mentions that he makes a "special" barrel
that is in new oak and specially made for Parker to taste with the hopes
of eliciting a high score.
Even if this were not true, it is important to remember the
complaints the DRC used to get about bottle variation. Since 1985 they
have blended 6 barrels at a time before bottling to alleviate this
problem, so even if there is no attempt to deceive the critic with a
"special barrel", tasting from a single barrel is a practice fraught with
the potential for misleading information.
Mark Squires
Joe and Laura Spiteri <dol...@ziplink.net> wrote:
> and on this list, who absorbs more personal attacks
>than Parker?
>
The more proper question is who absorbs more personal attacks from Bob
Foster.
If Parker didn't exist, Foster wouldn't have a reason to live.
Stuart Yaniger
Peter R. Livingston, Jr. wrote:
>
>
> "CRAP like Marcassin"?!? Please. So silly. There is simply no way you
> can suggest such a thing and pretend to know anything about California
> Chardonnay. Period. In case you're not aware, "crap" says: horribly
> flawed, a mess, without redeeming qualities. Marcassin wines are no such
> thing. Not your cup of tea? Fine. Rather drink '95 Chassagnes? Sounds good.
> But "crap"? These kinds of words only succeed in hurting your credibility --
> such as it is. But maybe it's all just a "Parker thing" ...
>
> Peter Livingston, Jr.
>
I'm happy with my experience tasting California chardonnays, both as a
hobby and professionally. But if one defines "crap" the way you do,
Marcassin qualifies. It's far more of a walking advertisement for the
barrel maker than any kind of varietally-true chardonnay. And let's not
even TRY to find a hint of terroir about it. My feelings about Bob
Parker (I consider him a friend, and we tend to like the same white Burg
producers) have nothing to do with it. You like Marcassin? Fine. Lots of
people love KJ's oak-sugar juice, too. That doesn't change what it is: a
horribly woody wine which collapses after a few years of aging.
Mark Squires
UNV...@prodigy.com (Mr. Robert W. Callahan) wrote:
>
>Foster beats on the point that Parker likes to attack his critics
>personally rather than actually discussing the issues they raise.
>
>This much is true. I know.>>
Truth is a relative thing sometimes. In this you have your own biases.
Mark Squires
Stuart Yaniger <Cote...@prodigy.com> wrote:
>
>bf...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> (BTW have you had
>> the joy of getting pleasant notes from Parker on the board and nasty e
mail on the
>> same topic from him?? I finally stopped him by telling him that as of
a certain
>> date I would consider any E mail from him public and would post it.
Voila
>> the nasty e mail stopped. The image must be protected...)
>>
>
>No, Bob has been very consistent in what he says to me in public and in
>private. In person, he was considerably friendlier than the irritated
>tone of his notes would suggest. But I've never (nor would I ever)
>questioned his ethics or competence........>>>
Unlike Foster.......
Stuart Yaniger
Mark Squires wrote:
>
> Stuart Yaniger <Cote...@prodigy.com> wrote:
> >
> > Care to divulge the source of the rumor?>>
>
> How about a little discussion, Stu, on the appropriateness of publishing
> unattributed rumors that are this serious and nasty?
>
That's exactly why I asked the question. And that's why I get all over
Parker when he tries starting rumors about the dishonesty of his
competing critics. I think it's wrong, wrong, wrong, regardless of
whether it's Bob I, Bob II, or Bob III publishing statements like this,
unattributed.
Sasha Katsman
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> In article <333c923c...@news.loop.com>, ke6...@loop.com writes:
>
> >Are you the very same Bob Foster that I used to read several
> >years ago in the Prodigy Wines group?
>
> Yes. Parker and I debated for a few years on Prodigy.
>
> Bob Foster
Pardon me for such a general question, but what
did you debate about ? I am only asking because,
if it's been a few years, as you say, a number
of wines should have evolved enough to prove
one of you wrong by now.
.sasha (The Curious)
Paul S Winalski
Joe and Laura Spiteri wrote:
>
> That said, I'd sincerely like to hear more analysis and opinion on > Burgundy and what makes it so contreversial. I challenge you to
> address this wihtout using the word "Parker." I really would like to > hear what you have to say about the wine.
OK, here goes. Burgundy is the most vexing for the consumer of
the world's great wine regions. It indisputably produces the
greatest pinot-noir- and chardonnay-based wines in the world (there
are some who would say it produces the ONLY great pinot-noir-based
wines in the world). It also indisputably produces a lot of mediocre
wines. If Burgundy were inexpensive, there would be little
controversy, but it's not. Due to the tiny quantities produced,
Burgundy is nearly always an expensive proposition. The vexation
and controversy occur because there is often a big disconnect
between price and quality. Just about every experienced wine
connoisseur counts at least one red or white Burgundy amongst
his or her greatest wine experiences. The same connoisseurs can
recount distressingly many other experiences with Burgundies
that were dreadful wines for which a fortune was paid.
There are many factors at work to produce the price/quality
discrepancies:
- Vineyard ownership is very fragmented. An appellation name
or vineyard name is no guide to the quality of what's in the
bottle--you must know who produced the wine as well.
- Burgundy is the most northerly of the world's great red wine
growing regions. Climate conditions are such that great
years are relatively infrequent and in many years even the
best winemaker has extreme difficulties turning out good wine.
So even knowing the producer often doesn't help.
- The scarcity of the wine, and the undisputed quality and
uniqueness of the good stuff, guarantees that even
incompetant or uncaring producers can demand a high price
for their product.
There's a separate set of controversies surrounding what
style Burgundy should have. Pinot noir inherently produces
wine that is less darkly colored than syrah or cabernet/merlot.
For many, the glory of the wine is its finesse and complexity,
not its brute force. Of course, many greedy Burgundy producers
have excused away overcropped, insipid wines in the name of
finesse. Those who prefer blockbuster, forceful wines tend to
be very critical of the finesse-styled Burgundies. There
was one stage, before the appellation laws, where Burgundians
catered to such tastes by illegally blending their wine with
syrah from the Rhone. It is also possible to get some rather
deeply-colored and forceful wines legitimately out of Burgundian
pinot; those who are on the finesse side of the fence would
claim such wines are clumsy and counter to the whole purpose
of what Burgundy is all about. There are some very influential
wine critics, mainly from the New World, who prefer the
blockbuster style of wines, including Burgundy. Their reviews
have considerable influence on the wine trade and thus many
American importers have started leaning on their growers to
produce wines more in the forceful style. This of course has
angered those on the finesse side of the fence, both producers
and consumers.
So this is what the controversy is all about.
--PSW
Paul S Winalski
Joe and Laura Spiteri wrote:
>
> important and positive force in wine criticism, and find his published > work to be consistent, painstaking, and very ethical, I am in
> no position to question anyone on his more personal conduct or response to > individual criticism.
Indisputably Parker is an important force in wine criticism. I
also agree that he has behaved in an ethical and painstaking manner.
His passion for wine and for influencing the production of good
quality wine is unquestionable. For the most part, he's been
consistent, although he at times will not admit when he's made
mistakes, instead quietly backpedalling from previously-stated
opinions. But hey, the guy's human, and nobody likes to admit
they've been badly wrong about something. To his credit, he has
many times admitted in print that a previous evaluation was
wrong (e.g., Pichon Lalande 1982, Mark Sorrel's winemaking).
Also to his credit, he has strong opinions and is not afraid
to state them and to stand by them, even if they earn him
enmity in some circles.
It's less clear that he's a positive force. Wine appreciation is
a highly subjective experience. Parker writes his opinions in
a forceful fashion; it is easy to forget that they ARE opinions
and not fact. He also offers these opinions even on wines that
stylistically he doesn't like; this is what has triggered all
the controversy surrounding his reviews of Burgundy, Germany,
and to a lesser extent Italy. His reviews have a great
following and therefore his personal opinions have tremendous
impact on the marketplace. In my opinion, it's not healthy
for one man's tastes to influence the world's winemaking in this
way.
Parker also in his early days marketed himself as the consumer's
wine critic--someone outside the trade looking in on it. And
so he was when he started out. He cultivated distrust of
consumers for wine merchants and those critics more closely
connected than he with the trade, pointing out the possible
conflicts of interest. These days, of course, Parker is an
integral part of the world wine trade and cannot claim in any
way to be a disinterested outsider. Recently he's been advising
his Wine Advocate readership to seek out reputable retail
merchants that they can trust, a 180-degree shift from his
stance in the early days.
For these two reasons, I consider his influence to be a mixed
bag.
--PSW
Peter R. Livingston, Jr.
In article <19970331165...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
katew...@aol.com (KATEWHITMO) wrote:
To suggest that Parker only likes/appreciates/gives high scores to
"huge" wines is absurd, and, frankly, reflects an ignorance of his
wine writings over the years. But rather than getting into the mud
here, I'll just repost the following. I suggest y'all give it some thought ...
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 1996 14:48:15 -0500
Parker is only as influential as he is because people care to
take seriously what he has to say. PERIOD. His power is not
divinely given, for goodness sake! People (such as myself)
subscribe to the Wine Advocate because we have found, over
the years, that his palate is consistent and his own and one
with which I often (but not always) agree. If people, based
on a Parker review, go shuffling off like lemmings to buy a
wine (or ignore it) -- this is not Parker's fault. I hope no one
is suggesting that Mr. Parker should "factor in" the marketplace's
reaction to his reviews when writng them, hmmm? Frankly,
this is a man who could have, had he been less than maniacally
concerned with charges of conflict of interest, made huge amounts
more money hawking his expertise. I think it is precisely because
Mr. Parker chooses to maintain a relatively modest presence that
so many people find his words compelling reading.
But in the end, even with Mr. Parker's imprimatur, taste a wine
yourself ... if you like it, wonderful. If not, that's fine too. Robert
Parker is simply a trustworthy guide, with whom many wine
appreciators have imbued great power.
With good reason (in my opinion), and through no fault of his own.
bjka...@aol.com
Enough's enough already! I respect all of those who've participated in this thread for their wine knowledge, their notes, and on occasion, they're help regarding a particular wine. But this topic
is getting out of hand. If you guys want to continue to blast each other, do it in private e-mails. Take it off the newsgroup!!!
Brad
eljefe
Apologies to the group. I thought Mr. Ed X had taken this to private
e-mail, but now I see he can't contain his self-righteousness.
Hey Eddie! Like I told you in private: Vulgarity is in the mind of the
beholder, which gives me a pretty clear indication of where you're
coming from. If thine eye offends thee, pluck it out!
Free speech is a bitch, pal. The censorship office is down the dark
corridor on the far right. Say hi to Coats and Helms for me.
Jef Jaisun
Xe...@ix.netcom.com (Ed Jay) wrote:
>elj...@halcyon.com (eljefe) wrote:
>>Besides you, who gives a ****
>>
>>Jef Jaisun
>>
>This is the second post of yours I've seen--both have been punctuated
>with vulgarity. Please clean up your act, and try to refrain from
>using foul language. Thanks in advance.
>Ed c];^)
>Bibo ergo sum, in vino veritas.
>My return address is disguised. Remove the leading X to reply.
bf...@aol.com
>Give it up, Bob. Jealously will eat you into the grave
Mark-thaks for letting me win a bet. I remarked to a friend that you han't jumped
in with the normal unhappy vitriol. He said perahps you were learning discretion
with age. I told him my bet was you couldn't keep from jumping in with
more personal attacks. Thanks so much for proving me right.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
>But I've never (nor would I ever)
>>questioned his ethics or competence........>>>
Of course not--your a devoted follower. we'd expect nothing less from you.
Not to mention the conflict of interest since you work for Prodigy.
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hosp5$50...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>, ECD...@prodigy.com (Mark Squires) writes:
>jackass like
>Foster
Way to go Mark-yet another example of how well you use the English language.
No wonder folks complain the board is getting nasty.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
> a "rumor" as vile as this
Vile? Vile? ROTFLMFAO
You post all of these notes with personal epithets and profanity but my note is
"vile" Thanks Mark for a classic example of how an enraged member of the
Parker sheep behaves. Intereting you've done a Parker- you've ducked the topic
but go after me.
The proof will be in the next issue or two of the WA. Will there
be a Burgundy issue or will it mysteriously be cancelled?. This is a rumor that
will be confirmed or be proven wrong. (Unlike say Paker's attacks on Coates for
where he stays while in Burugndy)
Bob (best laugh of the day-way to go) Foster
zzz
Dear Bob,
I've never heard of you and I bet you can say the same for me. What
most people in this newsgroup are reacting to, IMHO, is your
condescending, sassy, "love me cuz I'm so smart" attitude that you seem
to present (eg. references to your wine retailer being in the business
for 25+ years..so what! and putting your title in your sign off..who
cares? And you said Wine for Dummies had mumbo jumbo, who cares about
GM and 1960's cable cars).
Try a little more.. "I don't know everything BUT..." attitude and you
probably won't see the overiding negative reaction to many of your
posts (eg. "Who gives a fuck but you?", and the one below). Or you
could take Mark Squires' advise and beat tail back to the last
newsgroup you got kicked out of. Either way, you are welcome here but
the attitude isn't. If it's a package deal...bye-bye..if not, welcome
to the group.
Love and kisses,
Keith
PS. If you want to bash Parker, drop him a dime and do it mano a mano.
Let's talk wine.
>Bob and other Parker fans/haters,
>
>I think the larger point is that personal disagreements of the "Parker
>knows nothing about X," "No, Parker's a god on the subject of X"
nature
>are boring to those of us who don't know the participants as well as
>being pretty much off the topic of the news group unless X ir real
>specific (a particular wine review, say). I've seen newsgroups
>deteriorate into nothing but personal arguments with little in the
way
>of useful information - I hope alt.food.wine doesn't go that way.
>
>
>
>Rick
bf...@aol.com
>I've never heard of you and I bet you can say the same for me
Since I went back a did a scan of this newsgroup back to 1-1-97 and can't find
a single note that you've posted-I don't believe you are who you say you are. I
suspect your another one of Squires' pals asked to come here and drop in on the
mudslinging. Given this analysis you will, I'm sure, understanfd why I will ignore
your note.
Hugs
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hpnnh$7fs$2...@news2.halcyon.com>, elj...@halcyon.com (eljefe) writes:
>define that "hypocrisy"
You come to the group asking for wines to use to celebrate the holy days and
having gotten your answers start posting profanity. That's hypocrisy for me.
You confuse your constitutional right to use profanity with the propriety of using
it in a particular situation. Your response to the two notes that were critical of
your off color language, is simply further proof of the point the two crticis were
making.
Bob Foster
eljefe
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>Ed-having gone and read some of his other posts in other usenet groups
>I think the chacnes of that happening are slim and zero. But I share your
>setiments. I always figrue when someone drops to that level it's an inherent
>admission they have nothing of value to say.(There is a certain hypocracy of someone asking about the proper wines for a religious event-Passover-
>and then using such foul language in the same forum.)
>Bob Foster
Ooh, Bobbie-boobie-baby!
Would you care to define that "hypocrisy" in terms of your own
self-righteousness?
Btw, thanks for reading my posts "in other Usenet groups." I used to
think maybe you had too much time on your hands, but now I no longer
worry. At least you're not out painting swastikas on synagogues. I
hope.
Jef Jaisun
bf...@aol.com
>What will those of us who enjoy subtle, elegantly nuanced wines do
Taste the wines Parker gives low scores to as they will not have disappeared from
the marketplace.
Bob Foster
RovaniP
My report on the 1995 White Burgundies will be published in The Wine
Advocate later this month and my report on the '95 reds will appear in the
June and August issues. I stand behind my work.
I'm not surprised to find Foster quoting "rumors" here, I'm just surprsed
he didn't show more imagination. His reputation and credibility precede
him.
To those of you who have suggested that I be judged on the quality of my
work I say thank you. To those of you who respond to Foster's notes as
tough they were based on fact or reasoned thought, I say think again.
I will not respond again to notes posted by Bob Foster. I tried a few
years ago, on Prodigy, and learned my lesson.
Pierre Rovani
Jarrett Paschel
rov...@aol.com (RovaniP) writes:
>My report on the 1995 White Burgundies will be published in The Wine
>Advocate later this month and my report on the '95 reds will appear in the
>June and August issues. I stand behind my work.
Thanks for your honesty. I look forward to reading this
much-overanalyzed-before-publication report.
>I'm not surprised to find Foster quoting "rumors" here, I'm just surprsed
>he didn't show more imagination. His reputation and credibility precede
>him.
>To those of you who have suggested that I be judged on the quality of my
>work I say thank you. To those of you who respond to Foster's notes as
>tough they were based on fact or reasoned thought, I say think again.
>I will not respond again to notes posted by Bob Foster. I tried a few
>years ago, on Prodigy, and learned my lesson.
>Pierre Rovani
Well put.
--
--=={{ big...@u.washington.edu }}==--
Peter R. Livingston, Jr.
To whose post does the following message respond? FWIW, it's very
bad form to post something without also posting its antecedent(s).
Thanks.
PETER
In article <5hoj9a$5c...@newssvr02-int.news.prodigy.com>,
UNV...@prodigy.com (Mr. Robert W. Callahan) wrote:
> Spiteri asks for analysis and opinion on Burgundy. We do that
>
> elsewhere. This isn't the appropriate string, I think.
>
> You made a defense of Parker on ethical and professional grounds
>
> regarding Burgundy. I pointed out some interesting facts about his
>
> approach to Burgundy that seem to me (and to these Burgundians you
>
> implicitly accuse of being unfair with Parker) less than admirable. In
>
> reply, you state you find his work to be painstaking and ethical.
>
> Okay. But I think you haven't addressed the issue. If what I've said
>
> is so - which you needn't grant but which you might consider for the
>
> sake of the current discussion - would the approach implied be a
>
> painstaking or ethical one? That's the issue here - not whether
>
> Burgundy the region is controversial (they've got their problems, but
>
> that's another issue).
Joe and Laura Spiteri
Peter R. Livingston, Jr. wrote:
>
> bad form to post something without also posting its antecedent(s).
>
> Thanks.
> PETER
an antecedent snip in the future.
Mark Neustadt
RovaniP wrote:
>
> My report on the 1995 White Burgundies will be published in The Wine
> Advocate later this month and my report on the '95 reds will appear in the
> June and August issues. I stand behind my work.
> he didn't show more imagination. His reputation and credibility precede
> him.
> To those of you who have suggested that I be judged on the quality of my
> work I say thank you. To those of you who respond to Foster's notes as
> tough they were based on fact or reasoned thought, I say think again.
> I will not respond again to notes posted by Bob Foster. I tried a few
> years ago, on Prodigy, and learned my lesson.
> Pierre Rovani
Thank you for your posting, however, I would suggest for the time
being that you not waste your time with this newsgroup since
it seems to have a great deal of trouble accepting that anyone
associated with Robert Parker might simply be trying to
enjoy and edify when it comes to wine.
To the group:
Please, *I beg,* when Mr. Foster responds to the above post, as he most
certainly will, let’s all simply ignore him. Any response simply fuels
the flames.
Let’s all try to follow recent suggestions and post a series of tasting
notes over the next few days to try to get the newgroup back on track.
Mark (ma...@virtagency.com)
bf...@aol.com
>I'm not surprised to find Foster quoting "rumors" here, I'm just surprsed
>he didn't show more imagination.
Oh Pierre-how silly. I remember on Prodigy asking Parker about a quote from
Clive Coates. Coates had given a wine about 20 points different than Parker
Instead of talking about the wine-Parker says he's heard the rumor that Coates
stays at Becky Wasserman's and then attacks him for this.
I love it. Parker posts a rumor and the flock all nod their head. I post a rumor and
it's one step short of a crime. Thanks for classic example of the Parker double standard.
Bob Foster
zzz
In <19970401053...@ladder01.news.aol.com> bf...@aol.com
writes:
>In article <5hpskm$h...@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>,
pi...@ix.netcom.com(zzz) writes:
>
>>I've never heard of you and I bet you can say the same for me
>
>Since I went back a did a scan of this newsgroup back to 1-1-97 and
can't find
>a single note that you've posted-
Better to remain silent and thought a fool than to speak (post) and
remove all doubt. (Search back further, I've been around.)
I don't believe you are who you say you are.
I don't know who else I could be????
I
>suspect your another one of Squires' pals asked to come here and drop
in on the
>mudslinging.
Paranoia will destroy ya!
I've been following this group for years and never saw much for
mudslinging until your recent arrival. Sure a few trolls here and there
but not many bites. As for Mark, never met, conversed, emailed or
otherwise communicated with him except to read his posts here.
Given this analysis you will, I'm sure, understanfd why I will ignore
>your note.
What you do is of no concern to me. I only ask/hope that you post
responsibly or go away. The only chance for one of these to happen is
to collectively ignore irresponsible posts, a policy I'm adopting now.
Later.
>
>Hugs
>
>Bob Foster
Peter Watkins
Where I stand...
1. I have never read a copy of "Wine Spectator".
2. I have never read anything Robert Parker has written.
3. I have never tasted a bordeaux or a burgundy, although I would like
to very much. In Australia, French wines are scarce, and ridiculously
expensive.
4. Because of the above, I find most of the discussions on Robert
Parker arcane and esoteric.
5. I have never heard of Bob Foster, but he has the best trolling style
I have ever seen. Trollers are like crank phone calls. A response,
preferably emotional, is all they want. Ignore trollers and crank phone
callers and they will lose interest and go elsewhere. This group was
ignoring trollers nicely until Mr Foster showed up. Obviously a bit of
history in this.
6. I read this newsgroup for articles and opinions on wine. I will
keep posting and reading articles on wine.
7. In line with No. 6, my recommendations this week are two budget
Australian wines that are great value.
a. McWilliams Mount Pleasant Philip Hermitage $A12.00
------------------------------------------------------
Huon Hooke reminded me of this wine in last week's Sydney Morning
Herald. So I bought a bottle for last Saturday night. As you can tell
from the name (hermitage), this is an older wine. McWilliams age it
before release. The current release is a 1991. It is an excellent aged
Hunter shiraz, with lots of Hunter saddle leather character. At $12.00
for a wine at its peak, it's an absolute steal.
b. Seppelt Great Western Grande Reserve Champagne $A6.00.
----------------------------------------------------------
Despite the fancy name, this is a $A6.00 NV sparkler. It has a light
yeasty flavour, nice fruit, and is slightly sweet. Just the thing for a
warm summer evening barbecue. The cork on this bottle was fairly
compressed. This, the "champagne" label and the nice rounded taste
makes me suspect the current release has a few years on it. Considering
Seppelt's Great Western vineyard has a huge stock of sparkling wine,
that seems reasonable. Anyway, try it if you can.
In vino veritas and cheers.
Paul S Winalski
bf...@aol.com wrote:
>
> I love it. Parker posts a rumor and the flock all nod their head.
> I post a rumor and it's one step short of a crime. Thanks for classic
> example of the Parker double standard.
Frankly, I'd prefer nobody post rumors. Let's stick to facts.
And whatever may have gone down on Prodigy, this is a different time
and a different forum. Let's keep personalities out of the discussion
and focus on wine.
--PSW
chris.a...@dinosaur.com
Amen to THAT! The 'kids' around here lately are perhaps demonstrating the real
saving grace of a basic FidoNet echo. One can control the s/n ratio.
To Bob Foster:
Whatever the merits of your arguments, you have been both a "natural target"
for wasted bandwidth, and insisting in responding to all of it, a contributor
ot the problem.
What can I say. Some folks just have a way of pissing other folks off, and
start shooting matches by their very presence. I really DID like this
newsgroup a lot better before you arrived here, even though I tend to agree
with much of what you have to say when it's not ad hominem in disguise
(thinly). Which is to say, I suppose, that I'd really prefer it if you'd
either keep a lower profile here, stick to tasting notes, or bugger off. Your
arrival didn't do the mood around here any good.
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| Chris Anderson chris.a...@dinosaur.com |
| Sysop, The Dinosaur Board Niwot, Colorado |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Mike Wolinski
>Oh Pierre-how silly. I remember on Prodigy asking Parker about a quote from
>Clive Coates. Coates had given a wine about 20 points different than Parker
>Instead of talking about the wine-Parker says he's heard the rumor that Coates
>stays at Becky Wasserman's and then attacks him for this.
>
Just for the record Clive does stay with Becky Wasserman when he is
in Burgundy. I meet with him at Becky's and he bragged about it while
we discussed the web.
-mike
bf...@aol.com
>Just for the record Clive does stay with Becky Wasserman when he is
>in Burgundy.
But at the time Parker reported it on Prodigy it was only a rumor and Parker used
it to attack Coates's integrity and honesty.
Bob Foster
bf...@aol.com
In article <5hukrr$a...@cherry.news.easynet.net>, jdem...@easynet.co.uk (James Dempster) writes:
>Well I've heard of Bob Foster now, and I know his views - he defends
>Gallo
That's not fair at all. What I said was that one cannot rely on Blood into Wine as
an accurate source of facts about the Gallo empire given the bias of the author.
But I also went on to say again and again that similalry the Gallo's own autobigraphy was so biased the other way that it couldn't be trusted either.
That's NOT defending Gallo. (I have also said that some of the wines, when
judged in double blind competitions have done well on my panels. I don't
thanik that's defending Gallo either)
Bob Foster
Arthur P. Johnson
Just found time to drop in and skim through this thread. The amount of
bytes getting spilled on this silly rumor is a tribute to RPs (and now
P-Air's) influence, I guess. Those dropping in here to spit venom are
simply adding to the legend.
But you know, folks, it really amazes me how otherwise intelligent people
could be so gullible as to believe that any critic -- Parker, Rovani,
Suckling, Laube, or anyone else -- would tell retailers and growers what
their point scores are going to be in advance. The rumor is transparently
frivolous and vicious.
Peter Berger
In article <19970401053...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
<bf...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <5hpnnh$7fs$2...@news2.halcyon.com>, elj...@halcyon.com (eljefe) writes:
>
>>define that "hypocrisy"
>
>You come to the group asking for wines to use to celebrate the holy days and
>having gotten your answers start posting profanity. That's hypocrisy for me.
What sort of hypocritical jackass thinks that the word "jackass"
is "profanity?"
--
Pete Berger, Esq.
Coordinator, Regional Information Infrastructure
Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center
pet...@psc.edu http://www.psc.edu/~peterb
I don't speak for my employers, nor they for me.
HowardSherry
Peter Watkins wrote:
>
> Where I stand...
>
> 1.
Bravo, Great response. Foster obviously is in this for the reactions he
arouses.
Mike Wolinski
Newsgroups: alt.food.wine
Subject: Re: Amazing Parker Rumor
Organization: AccessOne
>Oh Pierre-how silly. I remember on Prodigy asking Parker about a quote from
>Clive Coates. Coates had given a wine about 20 points different than Parker
>Instead of talking about the wine-Parker says he's heard the rumor that
Coates
>stays at Becky Wasserman's and then attacks him for this.
>
Just for the record Clive does stay with Becky Wasserman when he is
Mike Wolinski
On 3 Apr 1997 05:05:11 GMT, bf...@aol.com wrote:
>In article <33430f06...@news.accessone.com>, mi...@bourgogne.com (Mike Wolinski) writes:
>
>>Just for the record Clive does stay with Becky Wasserman when he is
>>in Burgundy.
>
>But at the time Parker reported it on Prodigy it was only a rumor and Parker used
>it to attack Coates's integrity and honesty.
>
Well Bob, I was just reporting the facts. Personally I think the
Barrister of Baltimore to put it nicely, is a jerk. When we were
tasting in Burgundy in the spring of '95 the good barrister was openly
ridiculed by a number of growers. The contempt was quite amazing.
-mike
bf...@aol.com
In article <3343EE...@prodigy.net>, HowardSherry <Howard...@prodigy.net> writes:
>obviously is in
Howard-WOW all of the Parker loyalists are suddenly showing up from Prodigy!
I guess Squires' E mail call to arms urging folks to come her and help him
out worked. Nice to see you jump when he snaps his fingers.
Bob Foster
Peter R. Livingston, Jr.
Oh c'mon!!! Will you let up already? Please explain how the above use of
bandwidth helps this group? The frivilous nature of posts such as yours
does nothing to improve your standing among the a.f.w. faithful. Perhaps
I make a terrible mistake even taking your bait. (troll, troll, troll)
So ...
What nice wines have you had lately? Had an Alderbrook 1995 Old Vines
Zinfandel a few nights ago. Quite nice for not much money. How about you?
Peter Livingston, Jr.
bf...@aol.com
>Alderbrook 1995 Old Vines
>Zinfandel
Peter-nice juice. For years Alderbrook's theme was "we only make white wine"
When they went back to making reds it was very impressive. Last year when
I was in Sonoma judging for the Harvest Fair Wine Competition this wine, and the
more hard to find Gamboa Reserve, was the talk of the judges.
Bob Foster
Tom Reddick
There are some areas where the disagreements are huge. The best two
examples are Parker versus Kramer on Burgundy, and Parker versus the Wine
Spectator on older vintages of California Cabernet.
You are right to read avidly what all the critics have to say and
compare your opinions to theirs. In this way you will be able to use their
reviews to anticipate how you like future wines. The point scores mean
very little, but how you respond to what they say means a lot.
For example, when the Spectator gives a California Chardonnay a high
rating and says there is lots of new oak in the nose and taste, I avoid
the wine because I dislike wines that are oaky. When Parker says an older
Bordeaux is too soft, I will often try it becuase I like old finessed
wines as much as powerhouses.
Use the numbers as a general guide, but avoid the trap of setting a
threshold. I did this early on and missed out on some good wines. Things
like 1989 Latour and 1994 Lynch-Bages ( both rated 89-90 at various times
by Parker ) were things I would pass up when I first started, but having
had those wines recently, I see the error of ignoring such wines because
of the assigned number.
Remember that the 100 point scale includes 10 point for overall
character and ability to age well, so wines like the above mentioned will
lose points right there because they will not last as long as, say, a 1990
or 1982. Personally I do not care about aging as a part of a wine's score
and I purposely ignore it when I use the 100 point scale. My concern is
one of quality. If the 1994 Lynch-Bages won't outlive the 1990 or 1989, so
be it. But that fact tells you little about the quality of the wine itself
from a drinking for pleasure standpoint. It is not as concentrated as the
1990, 1985 and 1982, but the 1994 Lynch-Bages is a tremendous wine, a fact
that can be inferred from the textual evaluation of the wine by the
Spectator and Parker, but not by the score it receives.
Read Michael Broadbent's Great Vintage Wine Book. He uses a five star
evaluation, but describes the wines incredibly well. Also note that he
puts the review first, and the rating after whereas with Parker and WS,
you are confronted with a boldfaced number followed by a small type
review. Whether intentional or no, the different arrangement of the notes
and ratings here speaks volumes about the different approaches involved.