The Emperor of Wine and the 100 Point System

I recently finished Elin McCoy's The Emperor of Wine, a chronicle of the rise and influence of wine critic Robert Parker, Jr.

I can't recommend this book enough to those of you who are passionate about wine and familiar with Parker and The Wine Advocate.  I personally wouldn't recommend it to those of you who don't know much about Parker, as I can imagine the book could be considered boring otherwise.  I say this because the book takes a very granular look at his life and therefore could be uninteresting to those without a well developed interest in Parker.

The Emperor of Wine was revealing to me because I had been indoctrinated into being a serious wine drinker after Parker had already achieved major influence over the wine market.  By the late 90's, after I stopped drinking Old Swill and started caring about wine, Parker had already reached the pinnacle of his influence. 

When I began researching wines that I should consider buying or tasting, the 100 point system for rating wines was already firmly established as the major method for wine critics.  I have never known anything but the 100 point system.  Parker's system had become so ubiquitous that by the time I began consuming wines regularly, retail shops, wine retailer websites, and even other wine publications like The Wine Spectator were using the 100 point system full stop.  In fact, it is so ingrained into the wine marketplace that I barely even knew the 100 point system was developed by Parker.  This book does an excellent job taking you through how Parker started The Wine Advocate and how the 100 pt system became adopted within the wine marketplace.

As you probably know, once Parker gives a wine a great score, sales jump and the wine not only sells out almost immediately, but its value and price usually increases as well. There are a host of  consequences to such power, and the book does an excellent job outlining them for the reader by providing many sides of the issues - from the winemakers, importers and even Parker's point of view.

There are a few issues that struck me, but rather than write for days on end about them, I'll just stick to the issue of the 100 point system.

There are a lot of opinions as to whether the 100 point system is an effective way to judge wines.  The naysayers argue that a taster cannot tell the difference between a 92 point wine and a 93 point wine. 

Fair enough.   But as a consumer who notices and is influenced by Parker's scores, I could care less if the wine has a 90, 91 or 92 point rating.  What I take from a 90 ish score is that Parker thinks a particular wine is something I should taste.  That's it.   Do I buy a 93 pt wine over a 91 solely because of the 2 point difference? Absolutely not.  At the same time, when I see scores of 95 or higher, I conclude that Parker thinks this is a special wine that most likely everyone will find to be special as well. Which is usually the case.  I find it pretty rare that a 95 pt (or higher) wine is determined by anyone to be absolute crap.  In fact, they tend to be excellent wines and worthy of being special. 

Critics of the 100 pt system argue that wines shouldn't be rated.  They are subjective to the taster, so the tasting notes should be the focus of reviews. This is an age old rebate, really.  Movies, restaurants, computer buying guides - they all rate on a point or star scale. 

Wine lovers seem to have a different relationship with wine, however.  I don't know quite how to explain it, but the personal, leisurely, romantic nature of enjoying wine, along with the intense investment riding on a single vintage seems to make a 100 point system a crude measurement of such a personal and consuming process.

But to me, this all comes to down wine consumers understanding the role a critic like Parker should play in their decision making process.

If a movie critic tells me that a movie is fantastic, will I go and see it? Maybe.  But at the minimum it suddenly becomes a movie that I include in my consideration set or at the minimum look to find more information about.  But even if critics pan a movie, will I still see it? Absolutely.  There are many juvenile movies that I like that surely Robert Ebert or the NY Times reviewers will find sophomoric.  Of course,  sometimes people go to movies or drink wines just to experience them for what they are, regardless of critical evaluation.  Will people be more likely to grab a wine off the shelf that is backed by a high score? Sure.  Will they continue to buy their everyday Chardonnay that they know is good and perfect for a quite night at home? Will they trust their local retailer opinion? Will they just try a wine because they like the label? Yes, yes and yes.

The naysayers of the 100 pt system say that scores are representative of Parker's personal tastes and therefore flawed.  Parker has biases and preferences, just like all of us do. They argue that wine is a personal experience.  Parker seems to enjoy overripe, highly alcoholic wines with huge finishes.  But what about those people who enjoy finesse wines with subtleties that Parker would likely gloss over? How can his 95 pts possibly be 95 pts for tasters with different preferences? 

Personally, I think this argument makes a lot of sense. Parker does have theories about how wines should be made and how perfect wines taste (all of which are outlined in the book).  I generally happen to agree with them.  However, the theory that Parker's system shouldn't have the weight it does because of his personal preferences may not be representative of the wine producer/critic community doesn't make sense to me. 

It's all about understanding the role a critical plays in your life.  I enjoy evaluating critical opinions, whether restaurant opinions, movies or wines.  It gives me a benchmark in which I came evaluate an "expert" opinion in relation to my own.  After seeing movies that Roger Ebert recommends for years, I can tell you that we have similar opinions on certain genres of movies, but not on all movies in general.  Same goes for Parker.  I know that I have similar tastes within certain regions of the wine spectrum, but not all. 

Rather than occupy my time thinking about 92 pts or 94 pts, I have developed a relationship with Parker's 100 point scale.  I take notice of his scores within regions that I know that we have similar tastes and pay less attention to those in which we differ.  Do I taste 90 something point wines that I don't think are worthy? Absolutely.   But isn't that part of the fun?

Do I think shopping by score is ridiculous? Certainly.  But having a critical opinion describing a wine as a 92 pt "fruit bomb" is breathe of fresh air compared to the alternative - a pretentious, overwritten wine note that is vague and anything but definitive.  "Fragrences of honeysuckle linger through your nose, as if you were lounging in a meadow on a warm, summer day."   Fuck off. Do you like the wine? If so, how much in comparison to the other wines you taste within the same style?  Isn't that what we want to know from a critic?

Whether I agree with Parker's rating is one thing, but having a definitive opinion that you can develop a relationship with is nothing but welcome for me in a market over-saturated with (expensive) average wine choices.

Comments

[RTinfow]

I agree.

I consider Parker like a vino handicapper. If he gives a high rating to a wine and it's priced for significantly less than similar wines with the same rating, it's an immediate buy.

This is not a surefire way to reaching vino heaven, but it's a far better system than buying blind.

[laptop battery]

I find the website laptop batteries,laptop AC adapters. All our products are brand new, with the excellent service from our laptop battery http://www.batteryfast.co.uk of customer service team.