Comments on: Apologies Robert Parker | My latest wine tasting experience.

By: Andre Ribeirinho

Andre Ribeirinho — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 14:13:04 +0000

“there’s no way a $1200 bottle of Chateau Lafite Rothschild can score a lower rating than a “lesser” wine”

If someone prefers the “lesser” wine than the expensive wine then it might have a (personal) score that is lower than it would receive from a wine critic like Parker. Different people like different wines and it does not help taking a wine critics word for granted.

Of course we can always argue on quality but other than that wine critics are basically telling other people what they should consume.

By: Craig Camp

Craig Camp — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:46:26 +0000

The “Wine Trials” is an incredably bunch of crap. At least it proves how statistics can be manipulated to reach predetermined conclusions. I can’t believe anywine pays any attention to it.

Price does not determine wine quality, the consumer does. Most people will hate the $1200 Lafite and prefer a $13 Kendall Jackson Merlot. Does that make the Kendall Jackson an equal of Lafite, of course not. Does that make Lafite a bad wine, of course not. QPR is a relationship based either on your experience or pocketbook, or, if you’re lucky, both.

By: Anna

Anna — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:16:50 +0000

Just have to agree…some wine merchants are so full off s**t.

By: Dave Tong

Dave Tong — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 18:17:22 +0000

$24 for Kim Crawford Sauvignon Blanc? That’s ridiculous. While it’s an excellent wine it’s readily available for almost half that price. I think the point that the merchant was trying to make was that he charges far higher prices for better wines.

There is no direct correlation between scores, points and how a wine tastes. For at least 90% of wines there exists a better wine which costs the same price or less.

By: cellarette

cellarette — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 17:18:28 +0000

I’m sure you saw the recent news that in blind tastings if the tasters knew the price of the wine and it was expensive they liked ti better. Here’s an article from the New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/07/dining/07pour.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=blind+wine+tasting&st=nyt&oref=slogin

But expensive usually means more care went into making the wine. Hand picking, new oak barrels, long aging periods, which means capital is tied up, all cost money. And this is what happens at harvest and after. Tending a vineyard to produce excellent fruit takes time and money.
But it doesn’t mean that someone can spend all that and still not mess it up.

By: Michele Goitein

Michele Goitein — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 14:40:39 +0000

Howard – Interesting experience. Well, one clear thing about North Jersey is that it’s quite an affluent area, and it’s obvious that the wine merchant bases all of his criteria on price above everything else. It’s a bit of a shame to see every wine experience as being a question of dollars and sense, rather than subjective taste.

In fact, he’s preaching to the choir with his attack on Parker, because he has been objectively shown to always rate more expensive wines higher than less expensive ones.

It is precisely this point that comes up often in a revolutionary book, “The Wine Trials,” where 600 wines were rated completely blind, and more experienced wine reviewer’s judgments were rated more highly than less experienced tasters. You can read about it here:

http://blogeatdrink.com/2008/05/22/review-of-the-wine-trials/