Jamie Goode finds himself in a bit of dilemma
about Robert Parker's ratings, and has a close encounter with
insidious influence of the point-chasing mentality himself.
I'm in two minds about Robert Parker and his all-conquering 100
point scale for rating wines. One the one hand, kudos to him for
spotting a need (the consumer's, for guidance), devising an
easy-to-understand scale, and then implementing it so well. His palate
is pretty self-consistent (though it may differ from yours or mine),
and he has worked hard to rate a serious number of wines. No one other
critic has come close to touching the influence he has on the wine
world.
On the other hand, one of the ugliest facets of the modern wine
world is the rise of the point chaserspeople who buy wine solely on
the basis of Parker's ratings. And they certainly exist. I remember
the first time I encountered one of these individuals, an American
scientist I was sitting next to at a dinner. He quite proudly
announced that there wasn't a single wine in his cellar rated less
than 90 by Parker. Hmmm. You can guarantee that any wine that gets a
95+ rating from the big man will sell out in hours, and that the next
vintage will probably see a sizeable price hike.
It would be a bit unfair to blame Parker for the behaviour of his
little disciples, but his influence on the market is huge. It didn't
used to be quite as bad in the UK, but nowadays there are few
merchants that don't use his scores in promoting their wines. Phoning
up about some of the Bordeaux 2000 last week I had some merchants
breathlessly quoting Parker scores to encourage me to bite. Worse
still, some were quoting Wine Spectator scoresa similar 100 point
scale (derivative), but with less consistency and authority than
Parker. Uuugh!
However much we may dislike point scoring, the fact that everyone
else seems to be doing means that there's a danger it will get to us
all in the end. For a start, we have to live with the market
distortions that high scores bring. If a region is written up in
glowing terms, then American (and to be honest, also some European)
collectors who may have previously ignored these wines are suddenly
alerted to them. They then wade in and buy up all the top-rating
wines, pushing up prices rapidly. Aside from this, scores have an
insidious influence on how we view wine. I'm no fan of points, but I
had a moment of temporary insanity these week when I found out
Parker's score for the 1998 D'Arenberg Dead Arm Shiraz. He gave it
96/100, apparently, which is higher than his score for the current
release of Penfolds Grange (the 1996 vintage, a stunner, which scored
'just' 92/100). Now the Dead Arm, a wine I've bought in the past, is
positively cheap for a 96 Parker point wine, at just £18 a pop. It's
likely the price will rise substantially as the point chasers buy up
all the remaining stock. Should I get some now, while I still can? But
sanity prevailed. I tasted the 98 Dead Arm a few months back and,
while it’s a good wine, I wasn't tempted at the current price.
Parker's score has come out, but the wine hasn't changed at all. It is
still the same wine that I didn't want to buy. And I trust my own
palate, so I won't be buying any now.
Here's my plea. By all means take guidance from the well known
critics. But don't blindly chase scores. It's ugly behaviour. They
are, to a large degree, a bit of a nonsense (see