<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<item>
  <id>10997</id>
  <title>Robert Parker&amp;#8217;s Wine Ratings Creep</title>
  <published_at>Wed Mar 19 15:29:00 -0700 2008</published_at>
  <link>http://www.chow.com/stories/10997</link>
  <pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 22:29:00 GMT</pubDate>
  <short_description>As the numbers edge up, their relevance goes down</short_description>
  <long_description>The numbers are edging up, but their relevance is going down.</long_description>
  <img>http://www.chow.com/assets/2006/12/juice_290x210.jpg</img>
  <author>Jordan Mackay</author>
  <category>
    <id>74</id>
    <name>The Juice</name>
  </category>
  <pages>
    <page>
      <page_number>1</page_number>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[<p><span class="dropcap">I</span>s 93 the new 90? I don&#8217;t put much weight in <A HREF="http://www.erobertparker.com/info/rparker.asp">Robert Parker</a>&#8217;s wine scores; my palate doesn&#8217;t coincide with Parker&#8217;s much, and I don&#8217;t like to read tasting notes. But flipping through an issue of his newsletter <a href="http://www.erobertparker.com/info/WineAdvocate.asp"><em>The Wine Advocate</em></a> can be casually entertaining in the way a gossip rag is: It&#8217;s fun to see which wineries will be riding high or down in the dumps. After perusing the current issue&#8212;and several other issues over the past year&#8212;there seems to be a definite creep toward higher ratings.</p>


	<p>It used to be said that, while technically just one point apart, the difference between an 89- and a 90-point score for a wine was huge. One retailer <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/13/business/yourmoney/13rate.html?_r=1&#38;pagewanted=all&#38;oref=slogin">told the <em>New York Times</em></a> that if a certain wine had scored an 89, &#8220;we would have sold a tiny fraction of what we&#8217;ll end up moving.&#8221; But because it got a 90-point rating in <a href="http://www.winespectator.com/Wine/Home/"><em>Wine Spectator</em></a> (which also uses Parker&#8217;s 100-point system) he was confident he&#8217;d sell out his entire stock. The difference between an A and a B is drummed into us from school age, and there has always been speculation that the 100-point wine rating scale mirrors that grading system a little too closely.</p>


	<p>The <em>Advocate</em>&#8217;s ratings explanation says: &#8220;As you will note through the text, there are few wines that actually make it into this top category [90–100] because there are not many great wines.&#8221; But a cursory tally of scores in the three biggest sections of the most recent issue showed that 68 percent of the wines scored 90 or higher. In Jay Miller&#8217;s survey of Spanish wines, which rated approximately 640 bottles, not counting the &#8220;best buy&#8221; list, a whopping 90 percent scored over 90 points, with half of those scoring 93 or above. Now, there have been some good vintages in Spain lately, but that&#8217;s a lot of &#8220;great wines.&#8221;</p>


	<p>Greg Linn, owner-winemaker of <a href="http://www.ambullneovineyards.com">Ambullneo Vineyards</a>, told me: &#8220;Ninety-three doesn&#8217;t mean shit anymore. You&#8217;ve got to get a 96 for the phone to ring.&#8221; The <em>Advocate</em> rains acclaim down on a wine, and the world answers with a big, fat yawn.</p>


	<p>The end of 2006 brought several <a href="http://www.jancisrobinson.com/articles/winenews060901">changes to Parker&#8217;s staff of critics</a>, with two well-known writers being replaced with relative unknowns. In issue number 175, the two new critics seem rather ratings-happy, giving the highest percentage of 90-plus scores. By comparison, Parker&#8217;s reviews seem restrained. And on many wines, Parker gives a range (e.g., &#8220;90–92&#8221;), whereas the new critics give solid, absolute numbers almost all the time. Because of this, Parker&#8217;s reviews seem somehow more human&#8212;it is actually very difficult to assign a number to a wine. Simply because of these lower, less specific scores I find myself instinctively believing more in Parker than his colleagues.</p>


	<p>I take all this as a sign of the end of the tyranny of wine scores. They&#8217;re inconsistent, reductive, misleading, and one-dimensional. And the less the numbers matter, the less superficial and more independent the world of wine becomes.</p>]]>
      </content>
    </page>
  </pages>
  <tags>
    <tag>
      <id>5993</id>
      <name>jordan mackay</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>1</id>
      <name>chow</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>9796</id>
      <name>robert parker</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>16245</id>
      <name>wine advocate</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>3182</id>
      <name>parker</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>2494</id>
      <name>ratings</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>1134</id>
      <name>new york times</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>9794</id>
      <name>wine spectator</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>16249</id>
      <name>jay miller</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>16250</id>
      <name>greg linn</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>16251</id>
      <name>ambullneo vineyards</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>8494</id>
      <name>tasting notes</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>10</id>
      <name>wine</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>16307</id>
      <name>wine ratings</name>
    </tag>
    <tag>
      <id>16308</id>
      <name>wine scores</name>
    </tag>
  </tags>
</item>
