Robert Parker
Jul 27, 2009 | 6:35 pm
#61
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Portland
Programs: HH Gold, Alaska MVP Gold
Posts: 4,074
Jul 29, 2009 | 8:22 am
#62
Moderator, Argentina and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: MIA / EZE
Programs: Lord of Malbec & all Wines Argentine. AA EXP / Marriott Lifetime Gold / Hyatt Explorist / Hertz PC
Posts: 36,201
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; Series60/5.0 NokiaN97-3/10.2.012; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; en-us) AppleWebKit/525 (KHTML, like Gecko) WicKed/7.1.12344)
haha well I'd have picked a slightly different word, but to each his own
which one...?
Originally Posted by UCBeau
Aug 1, 2009 | 11:01 pm
#63
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto
Programs: AA; AC; HHonors; SPG; BA
Posts: 129
For those who have a copy of Parker's first edition of Bordeaux, have a look at his reviews for Chateau Boyd-Cantenac and Chateau Pouget for the years 1982 and earlier. They were not vinified separately until the 1983. Translation they were the same wine, as noted by Hubrecht Duijker and Hugh Johnson. Some of Parker's tasting notes were from the same month for the same vintages of these two wines, (presumably at the chateau) but his score and descriptions are different. Subsequent editions got around this problem by eliminating reviews of Pouget from this period.
Parker should be regarded as a guide NOT gospel.
As far as his praise of the 2003 vintage in Bordeaux goes, call it what you want but that isn't Bordeaux. There are other professional tasters who have advocated 2003 but Parker is the most notorious and influential. After over 25 years collecting and tasting I have come to the conclusion that people's palates are different. I also happen to believe that there are horses for courses and that certain tasters are better in some regions than in other regions. What always spoke volumes to me were the regions that received very little coverage by Parker himself in the Wine Advocate, e.g. Germany and Champagne.
Parker should be regarded as a guide NOT gospel.
As far as his praise of the 2003 vintage in Bordeaux goes, call it what you want but that isn't Bordeaux. There are other professional tasters who have advocated 2003 but Parker is the most notorious and influential. After over 25 years collecting and tasting I have come to the conclusion that people's palates are different. I also happen to believe that there are horses for courses and that certain tasters are better in some regions than in other regions. What always spoke volumes to me were the regions that received very little coverage by Parker himself in the Wine Advocate, e.g. Germany and Champagne.
Aug 2, 2009 | 5:00 am
#64
Moderator, Argentina and FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: MIA / EZE
Programs: Lord of Malbec & all Wines Argentine. AA EXP / Marriott Lifetime Gold / Hyatt Explorist / Hertz PC
Posts: 36,201
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; Series60/5.0 NokiaN97-3/10.2.012; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; en-us) AppleWebKit/525 (KHTML, like Gecko) WicKed/7.1.12344)
Agreed... Parker is of no use for Champagne.
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; Series60/5.0 NokiaN97-3/10.2.012; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; en-us) AppleWebKit/525 (KHTML, like Gecko) WicKed/7.1.12344)
Stevenson is my critic for bubbly... ^
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D050; Blazer/4.3) 16;320x448)
The mess over at the Parker boards seems to continue...
Originally Posted by FMH1964
For those who have a copy of Parker's first edition of Bordeaux, have a look at his reviews for Chateau Boyd-Cantenac and Chateau Pouget for the years 1982 and earlier. They were not vinified separately until the 1983. Translation they were the same wine, as noted by Hubrecht Duijker and Hugh Johnson. Some of Parker's tasting notes were from the same month for the same vintages of these two wines, (presumably at the chateau) but his score and descriptions are different. Subsequent editions got around this problem by eliminating reviews of Pouget from this period.
Parker should be regarded as a guide NOT gospel.
As far as his praise of the 2003 vintage in Bordeaux goes, call it what you want but that isn't Bordeaux. There are other professional tasters who have advocated 2003 but Parker is the most notorious and influential. After over 25 years collecting and tasting I have come to the conclusion that people's palates are different. I also happen to believe that there are horses for courses and that certain tasters are better in some regions than in other regions. What always spoke volumes to me were the regions that received very little coverage by Parker himself in the Wine Advocate, e.g. Germany and Champagne.
Parker should be regarded as a guide NOT gospel.
As far as his praise of the 2003 vintage in Bordeaux goes, call it what you want but that isn't Bordeaux. There are other professional tasters who have advocated 2003 but Parker is the most notorious and influential. After over 25 years collecting and tasting I have come to the conclusion that people's palates are different. I also happen to believe that there are horses for courses and that certain tasters are better in some regions than in other regions. What always spoke volumes to me were the regions that received very little coverage by Parker himself in the Wine Advocate, e.g. Germany and Champagne.
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.4; Series60/5.0 NokiaN97-3/10.2.012; Profile/MIDP-2.1 Configuration/CLDC-1.1; en-us) AppleWebKit/525 (KHTML, like Gecko) WicKed/7.1.12344)
Stevenson is my critic for bubbly... ^
Wirelessly posted (Nokia N97 / Palm TX: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; PalmSource/Palm-D050; Blazer/4.3) 16;320x448)
The mess over at the Parker boards seems to continue...
Last edited by cblaisd; Aug 11, 2009 at 7:27 pm Reason: Merged poster's three consecutive posts