The Mollydooker Debate aint going away any time soon

The Mollydooker/Parker Debate aint going away any time soon (21 Sept)

The debate over Mollydooker wines has flared up again this time, on the Robert Parker/Mark Squires wine forum. In reality, this particular debate is actually indicative of not just a Mollydooker wines, but the way the Australian wines are perceived in the US by two different segments of wine drinkers, as well as Robert Parker's rating of many Australian wines.

By coincidence, in the summary of the 2007 South Australian Tour Diary which will go live on Wednesday next week the following comments are finish off the story.

"One fascinating observation I must share with you. When discussing their own wines, a few producers who had made wines that they were not overly happy with, openly commented that they thought the wines would probably be appreciated by Parker.

Robert Parker is highly respected for his Bordeaux analysis, but a number of the Australian winemakers I spoke to certainly do not have a high regard for his ability to judge Australian wines. Remarkably, it is not a case of “sour grapes” because their wines are not being reviewed by Parker; in many cases these producers’ wines are selling through without Parker’s reviews. In addition, a number of these comments came from producers whose wines have consistently been rated highly by Parker.

A classic example was at one highly-respected winery that has two labels of Shiraz at a similar price point. One was tight, showed excellent structure and a modicum of elegance. The other was more like a bombastic fruit bomb, had overt sweetness and was a little baggy. Parker rated the second wine higher than the first, and whilst the winemaker was left scratching his head in wonder, he was happy as the majority of the one highly rated by Parker is being exported, whilst the majority of the other stayed in Australia, where it is being well received.”

Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to enjoy whatever wine style they like; that is not at issue. There is also no issue in Australian wine makers producing wines to address different various market segments, be it sweet red wine, industrialised inexpensive MacPlonk, upmarket, blackberry laden vanilla oak-shakes, or elegant cool-climate reds.

No. The issue here is the judging and ratings of wine by professional reviewers; after all, rating wine by professionals is meant to be done to a predetermined standard. Whilst we all have different likes and dislikes, professional reviewers are meant to put those aside and rate the wines on their inherent attributes.

In the latest edition of the International Wine Cellar, according to this thread on the Squires/Parker website Josh Reynolds lambast some of the Mollydooker wines but defends Australian wine in general. According to Scott Stilton, the person who started the thread, “He (Josh Reynolds) also pretty much states that he thinks Mr. Parker and/or WS's palate for Australian wine is, um, not so good.”

He is where it gets interesting. There were quite a number of responses, the vast majority of which was actually in agreement with what Josh Reynolds was quoted as saying. This questioning of Parker’s scores and judgements on a certain category of Australian wine is becoming more pronounced, with many consumers, on a number of different wine forums, openly stating they find their palate is not line with Parker scores for Australian wine, and they find the scores in many cases too generous.

So, one has to ask oneself has the likes of Halliday, Oliver, Robinson, Mattinson, Reynolds et all, got it all wrong when it comes to Australian wine, or is Parker out of s step with the majority of reviewers of Australian wine. I think the answer to that question is as blindingly obvious as Dolly Parton's “assets.”

For what it's worth, I first broached the subject publicly in 2001, and since then my views have not changed, indeed as time has gone on they have been reinforced. The Emperor (of Australian wine) has lost his gloss and awe. It will be interesting to see how the new Wine Advocate reviewer, Jay Miller, is regarded in time.

In closing, two final comments. Firstly, why the Australian wine industry needs to rely on overseas reviewers to promote their wines locally when we have an excellent selection of professional, home-grown reviewers is beyond me. Secondly, it took less than nineteen hours for the thread to be locked, something which happens with regular monotony on the Parker/Squires Forum when this subject is raised.

Feel free to submit your comments!

From: Mothra

09/21/2007 06:24:58 I am not convinced Jay Miller's reviews will be any more accepted than Herr Parker. His reviews of Spanish and Washington wines have kicked up the same controversies, only they go to 11 (needed to insert gratuitous Spinal Tap reference). His palate preference seems to be roughly the same as Parker's, and his scores even higher.

From: TORB

09/21/2007 14:33:33 I was not aware of the Spanish and Washing reviews and readers reactions to them. If it comes to pass that you are right, the two things will happen. Firstly the Australian industry will be just about killing each other in the rush to get a high score. And speaking about "scoring" the industry will then prostitute themselves even further by pushing those scores down consumers throats, as fast and as far as possible.

But the situation will backfire on the industry. It will be the industry that will wind up choking on a problem of their own making. As they push higher scores, the whole score process will eventually wind up being meaningless and even less relevant. Than what will they do? Actually get out there and try and sell wine rather than being damn lazy.

Secondly, some of the Wine Advocate readership is already realised that they can&'t rely and don't agree with a fair whack of the Australian scores, so if Miller goes in the same direction as Parker, the publication will wind up with less credibility in this category.

In the long term, whilst it will cause the industry some pain, it could turn out to have positive repercussions. The industry will wind up being less reliant on scores, and the power vested in one man will be split amongst others as readers find new reviewers whose palates align more closely to their own..... That's providing they are not so lazy they need a consultant to tell them who their new wine guru should be!

From: Joe Segel

09/25/2007 18:09:07 Fully recognizing that there are two camps on this issue, I can tell you that I have conducted several BLIND tastings in the USA with a Mollydooker wine competing against the same varietal or similar blends, and every time Mollydooker has come out as the favorite.

For example, one tasting was of prestigious red blends that included 2002 Joseph Phelps "Insignia" (a WS Wine of the Year), 2004 Glaetzer "Godolphin", 2002 Yalumba "The Signature", 2002 Two Hands "The Bull and the Bear", and 2005 Mollydooker "Two Left Feet." The Mollydooker wine was clearly the favorite. And, I repeat, it was a BLIND tasting.

Of course, you can blame it on the unsophisticated taste of Americans. That may be the case, but that's what they like and that's the way it is. Since Parker's subscribers are probably mostly in the USA, his palate may not be out of sync with his primary audience.

To each his own. Or as they said in the olden days -- De Gustibus non est Disputandum.

From: Lennie

09/25/2007 19:24:20 Really nothing new to be gleaned here.

The critics who have rightly or wrongly annointed high scores to the 'oozemonster' styles obviously need to defend such scores to maintain credibility. A task I am sure must be becoming increasingly difficult.

Any debate that highlights the many brands we as Australian wine consumers might deem more worthy of such scores has to be a good thing.

And finally I thought the only disappointing (but hardly surprising) post of the entire thread was Squires' turdish comments on Mt Mary. It seems patently clear that he has thrown the first punch (or perhaps bitchslap is more appropriate?)in an attempt to lure a rebuttal, and create an excuse to shut down the thread. Smooth operator.

Cheers,

From: Winery Owner

09/26/2007 22:27:26 I think no matter who was going to be the Parker replacement - they would get bagged. The nature of us beasts is to look for faults. I think it would be the same in Australia for whoever takes over from Halliday.

Generally people do not like change especially when it seems to be "forced" on them. I think the major problem with all point systems is that they exist. The point system may work for Show entries (preferably where apples are compared to apples) but for the general wine tasting comments where people seek more wine information then the wine should be written up, criticised etc

To be given precise points for a wine that may be tasted along with many, many other wines (and at times those not the same region, variety and vintage) is well, pretty tough going and mistakes could be made (Especially when you've already started the day off badly with kids screaming, partner leaving, and burnt toast).

Even if you were only tasting same variety of one region but include in a few extra variables such as size of production, source of fruit and overall experience and amounts of experts involved, then it seems very hard to give a wine - or when it also includes an opinion of a winery - any form of rating especially when comparing, as the saying goes, apples with pears. Hence I think the only option that could offer the greatest weight would be when a tasting is done one-on-one and regularly then the opinion is accepted for what it is worth.

Basically we are all sheep and generally need the opinion of others "Does my bum look big in this?" When it comes to wine it's a fact - people need other people's opinion. First thing after a cork is pulled the host's question is "What do you think of this wine? I bought from... of... would you believe the price was..." adding "It score... it won.... and so and so wrote..." But generally no comment of commitment such as "I believe this wine is truly a great/crap/ordinary wine" We've sat down to dinner where some "truly great" wines were poured but sadly aged too long in the cellar, tainted or almost corked and as guests politely lingered over a glass that did not deserve the merits now but may once have enthused a judge all the way to heaven.

Visit most cellar doors and what happens? the wine is poured for tasting and along with it comes the lengthy sermon. "This wine will grab you... and be prepared for a long scenario of the makings from the planting of the vine through to winning at the ...Show beating well know wines such as ... blah, blah, blah. Good God, I wish they would just shut-up and leave me to my own opinion. If I like it I'd buy it no need to hear the hype.

Wine lovers should just learn to follow their own taste buds. If you can afford to buy a bottle of wine that costs more than forty bucks why not go all the way and commit your taste buds along with the experience. It's your own hard earned money so who cares what anyone else thinks of the wine?

Ah but Ric, you heard it all. You are one of the few that has not become cynical and can stay fresh and true with you comments. Your site is independent, doesn't cost the winemaker anything to participate except a bottle of tasting wine. The way you've got it running is very wise and I guess there are not too many rocks thrown on your roof by disgruntled wine makers.

It's the wine marketers who keep the wine forums active, they have to flog the wine and keep the bills paid and they will continue to worry, agonize and have nightmares about points. Remove the point system they they will create another because most of the ones that are busy on the forums are those that market wine and points makes it easy for them.

From: Ron Lacey

09/30/2007 18:46:47 I have a knock-down or up for most tasters:
parker - avg - 5 pts down except for Italian w/AG not yet determined
WS - avg 4 pts down
Tanzer - avg 0 pts

For me there wines since 2002 are just to flabby for the most part. I still find ones I think have good structure and lasting acidity but I am no longer on board.
As for the Mollydooker stuff yes stuff: flabby

From: Gerald Weisl

10/01/2007 04:04:46 Just had a read of your blurbs about Parker, etc. and Molly Dooker wines.

My associate in the shop, an old geezer, was surprised that we bought these wines...I told him "Watch the folks that come in to buy these...they'll be thrilled to find them here."

Sure enough, people wander in and find these and are delighted...we try to steer them to "wine" and wean them from the "candy."

But I'm thinking of no longer subscribing to The Wine Advocate, having seen reviews for wines from Paso Robles where wines that are hugely alcoholic and way out of balance get huge scores.

These journals seem to be more a measurement of "size" than anything else. I can look at the label and see the notation of 15% alcohol...that seems to equate to high numerical scores.

I have asked vintners, "Who's the winemaker of this stuff, Jack Daniels or Jim Beam?" I don't find many of these 95 point wines to be to my taste...

As a category, Australia is less interesting presently and we don't see the interest in "wines from Australia" that we'd seen three or four years ago. This is partly due to poor marketing strategies by your largest wine companies...and partly due to the ratings which spotlight "extreme" wines.

The big companies lost a lot of traction in the market and today you don't find their wines in "hand sell" or "independent" shops. And the Parkerized wines are huge, pushing-the-envelope sorts of wines, often with significant levels of residual sugar.

I understand the Aussies were here last week working on a strategy to bring more attention to the category of "Australian Wines"...we'll see.

Back to bashing Parker...sort of...
I was with an Italian winemaker and we were in Sonoma Valley. The fellow in one winery tasting room accompanied the pouring of a wine with the numerical score of Robert Parker.

I asked him "Who's Robert Parker?" and people laughed.

He poured another wine and told me the Parker score.

"Who the hell is this Robert Parker fellow and why should I care what he thinks of your wine?"

This totally disarmed the tasting room host...but he responded,
"Well, Parker is the world's most fussy wine critic and if he likes your wine, it must be good."

"Listen," I replied, "Robert Parker is not coming to dinner at my house any time soon, so I don't care what he thinks of your wines. I am here to taste your wines and assess them for MYSELF and see if I LIKE THEM."

This left the poor winery fellow with no "ammunition" to sell me their wines apart from pouring the wine into a glass...
As it should be...

Ciao and greetings from San Francisco...

Gerald

From: Chris Robinson

10/02/2007 20:51:06 Despite all the solid arguments for problems with Parker ratings of Australian wines any winemaker that gets a good rating will drop his knickers and bear the pain for the honour of such an illustrious rating. And that unfortunately is the problem.

Parker despite what we all think is the Emperor in the land with the biggest bucks, biggest egos and most insecurity. He is the thermometer that everyone somehow has agreed will take the temperature, no ifs or buts. I remember many years ago the proprietor of a second ranked top Bordeaux chateau saying to me that Parker would never influence him and that his tasting skill was "merde". Now who is the lapdog. This guy virtually drools over Parker now!

How do we break this incredible lock on the industry. Perhaps the only way is the Aussie way - take the piss. Parker is a legend in his own lunchtime that now actually believes his own publicity. We all need to knock the stuffing out of this icon and get the world of wine to think objectively again. Ric, keep up the onslaught!!!

	Snippet
Sydney Time Copyright © Ric Einstein 2008	The Mollydooker/Parker Debate aint going away any time soon (21 Sept) The debate over Mollydooker wines has flared up again this time, on the Robert Parker/Mark Squires wine forum. In reality, this particular debate is actually indicative of not just a Mollydooker wines, but the way the Australian wines are perceived in the US by two different segments of wine drinkers, as well as Robert Parker's rating of many Australian wines. By coincidence, in the summary of the 2007 South Australian Tour Diary which will go live on Wednesday next week the following comments are finish off the story. "One fascinating observation I must share with you. When discussing their own wines, a few producers who had made wines that they were not overly happy with, openly commented that they thought the wines would probably be appreciated by Parker. Robert Parker is highly respected for his Bordeaux analysis, but a number of the Australian winemakers I spoke to certainly do not have a high regard for his ability to judge Australian wines. Remarkably, it is not a case of “sour grapes” because their wines are not being reviewed by Parker; in many cases these producers’ wines are selling through without Parker’s reviews. In addition, a number of these comments came from producers whose wines have consistently been rated highly by Parker. A classic example was at one highly-respected winery that has two labels of Shiraz at a similar price point. One was tight, showed excellent structure and a modicum of elegance. The other was more like a bombastic fruit bomb, had overt sweetness and was a little baggy. Parker rated the second wine higher than the first, and whilst the winemaker was left scratching his head in wonder, he was happy as the majority of the one highly rated by Parker is being exported, whilst the majority of the other stayed in Australia, where it is being well received.” Don't get me wrong, everyone has the right to enjoy whatever wine style they like; that is not at issue. There is also no issue in Australian wine makers producing wines to address different various market segments, be it sweet red wine, industrialised inexpensive MacPlonk, upmarket, blackberry laden vanilla oak-shakes, or elegant cool-climate reds. No. The issue here is the judging and ratings of wine by professional reviewers; after all, rating wine by professionals is meant to be done to a predetermined standard. Whilst we all have different likes and dislikes, professional reviewers are meant to put those aside and rate the wines on their inherent attributes. In the latest edition of the International Wine Cellar, according to this thread on the Squires/Parker website Josh Reynolds lambast some of the Mollydooker wines but defends Australian wine in general. According to Scott Stilton, the person who started the thread, “He (Josh Reynolds) also pretty much states that he thinks Mr. Parker and/or WS's palate for Australian wine is, um, not so good.” He is where it gets interesting. There were quite a number of responses, the vast majority of which was actually in agreement with what Josh Reynolds was quoted as saying. This questioning of Parker’s scores and judgements on a certain category of Australian wine is becoming more pronounced, with many consumers, on a number of different wine forums, openly stating they find their palate is not line with Parker scores for Australian wine, and they find the scores in many cases too generous. So, one has to ask oneself has the likes of Halliday, Oliver, Robinson, Mattinson, Reynolds et all, got it all wrong when it comes to Australian wine, or is Parker out of s step with the majority of reviewers of Australian wine. I think the answer to that question is as blindingly obvious as Dolly Parton's “assets.” For what it's worth, I first broached the subject publicly in 2001, and since then my views have not changed, indeed as time has gone on they have been reinforced. The Emperor (of Australian wine) has lost his gloss and awe. It will be interesting to see how the new Wine Advocate reviewer, Jay Miller, is regarded in time. In closing, two final comments. Firstly, why the Australian wine industry needs to rely on overseas reviewers to promote their wines locally when we have an excellent selection of professional, home-grown reviewers is beyond me. Secondly, it took less than nineteen hours for the thread to be locked, something which happens with regular monotony on the Parker/Squires Forum when this subject is raised. Feel free to submit your comments! From: Mothra 09/21/2007 06:24:58 I am not convinced Jay Miller's reviews will be any more accepted than Herr Parker. His reviews of Spanish and Washington wines have kicked up the same controversies, only they go to 11 (needed to insert gratuitous Spinal Tap reference). His palate preference seems to be roughly the same as Parker's, and his scores even higher. From: TORB 09/21/2007 14:33:33 I was not aware of the Spanish and Washing reviews and readers reactions to them. If it comes to pass that you are right, the two things will happen. Firstly the Australian industry will be just about killing each other in the rush to get a high score. And speaking about "scoring" the industry will then prostitute themselves even further by pushing those scores down consumers throats, as fast and as far as possible. But the situation will backfire on the industry. It will be the industry that will wind up choking on a problem of their own making. As they push higher scores, the whole score process will eventually wind up being meaningless and even less relevant. Than what will they do? Actually get out there and try and sell wine rather than being damn lazy. Secondly, some of the Wine Advocate readership is already realised that they can&'t rely and don't agree with a fair whack of the Australian scores, so if Miller goes in the same direction as Parker, the publication will wind up with less credibility in this category. In the long term, whilst it will cause the industry some pain, it could turn out to have positive repercussions. The industry will wind up being less reliant on scores, and the power vested in one man will be split amongst others as readers find new reviewers whose palates align more closely to their own..... That's providing they are not so lazy they need a consultant to tell them who their new wine guru should be! From: Joe Segel 09/25/2007 18:09:07 Fully recognizing that there are two camps on this issue, I can tell you that I have conducted several BLIND tastings in the USA with a Mollydooker wine competing against the same varietal or similar blends, and every time Mollydooker has come out as the favorite. For example, one tasting was of prestigious red blends that included 2002 Joseph Phelps "Insignia" (a WS Wine of the Year), 2004 Glaetzer "Godolphin", 2002 Yalumba "The Signature", 2002 Two Hands "The Bull and the Bear", and 2005 Mollydooker "Two Left Feet." The Mollydooker wine was clearly the favorite. And, I repeat, it was a BLIND tasting. Of course, you can blame it on the unsophisticated taste of Americans. That may be the case, but that's what they like and that's the way it is. Since Parker's subscribers are probably mostly in the USA, his palate may not be out of sync with his primary audience. To each his own. Or as they said in the olden days -- De Gustibus non est Disputandum. From: Lennie 09/25/2007 19:24:20 Really nothing new to be gleaned here. The critics who have rightly or wrongly annointed high scores to the 'oozemonster' styles obviously need to defend such scores to maintain credibility. A task I am sure must be becoming increasingly difficult. Any debate that highlights the many brands we as Australian wine consumers might deem more worthy of such scores has to be a good thing. And finally I thought the only disappointing (but hardly surprising) post of the entire thread was Squires' turdish comments on Mt Mary. It seems patently clear that he has thrown the first punch (or perhaps bitchslap is more appropriate?)in an attempt to lure a rebuttal, and create an excuse to shut down the thread. Smooth operator. Cheers, LL From: Winery Owner 09/26/2007 22:27:26 I think no matter who was going to be the Parker replacement - they would get bagged. The nature of us beasts is to look for faults. I think it would be the same in Australia for whoever takes over from Halliday. Generally people do not like change especially when it seems to be "forced" on them. I think the major problem with all point systems is that they exist. The point system may work for Show entries (preferably where apples are compared to apples) but for the general wine tasting comments where people seek more wine information then the wine should be written up, criticised etc To be given precise points for a wine that may be tasted along with many, many other wines (and at times those not the same region, variety and vintage) is well, pretty tough going and mistakes could be made (Especially when you've already started the day off badly with kids screaming, partner leaving, and burnt toast). Even if you were only tasting same variety of one region but include in a few extra variables such as size of production, source of fruit and overall experience and amounts of experts involved, then it seems very hard to give a wine - or when it also includes an opinion of a winery - any form of rating especially when comparing, as the saying goes, apples with pears. Hence I think the only option that could offer the greatest weight would be when a tasting is done one-on-one and regularly then the opinion is accepted for what it is worth. Basically we are all sheep and generally need the opinion of others "Does my bum look big in this?" When it comes to wine it's a fact - people need other people's opinion. First thing after a cork is pulled the host's question is "What do you think of this wine? I bought from... of... would you believe the price was..." adding "It score... it won.... and so and so wrote..." But generally no comment of commitment such as "I believe this wine is truly a great/crap/ordinary wine" We've sat down to dinner where some "truly great" wines were poured but sadly aged too long in the cellar, tainted or almost corked and as guests politely lingered over a glass that did not deserve the merits now but may once have enthused a judge all the way to heaven. Visit most cellar doors and what happens? the wine is poured for tasting and along with it comes the lengthy sermon. "This wine will grab you... and be prepared for a long scenario of the makings from the planting of the vine through to winning at the ...Show beating well know wines such as ... blah, blah, blah. Good God, I wish they would just shut-up and leave me to my own opinion. If I like it I'd buy it no need to hear the hype. Wine lovers should just learn to follow their own taste buds. If you can afford to buy a bottle of wine that costs more than forty bucks why not go all the way and commit your taste buds along with the experience. It's your own hard earned money so who cares what anyone else thinks of the wine? Ah but Ric, you heard it all. You are one of the few that has not become cynical and can stay fresh and true with you comments. Your site is independent, doesn't cost the winemaker anything to participate except a bottle of tasting wine. The way you've got it running is very wise and I guess there are not too many rocks thrown on your roof by disgruntled wine makers. It's the wine marketers who keep the wine forums active, they have to flog the wine and keep the bills paid and they will continue to worry, agonize and have nightmares about points. Remove the point system they they will create another because most of the ones that are busy on the forums are those that market wine and points makes it easy for them. From: Ron Lacey 09/30/2007 18:46:47 I have a knock-down or up for most tasters: parker - avg - 5 pts down except for Italian w/AG not yet determined WS - avg 4 pts down Tanzer - avg 0 pts For me there wines since 2002 are just to flabby for the most part. I still find ones I think have good structure and lasting acidity but I am no longer on board. As for the Mollydooker stuff yes stuff: flabby From: Gerald Weisl 10/01/2007 04:04:46 Just had a read of your blurbs about Parker, etc. and Molly Dooker wines. My associate in the shop, an old geezer, was surprised that we bought these wines...I told him "Watch the folks that come in to buy these...they'll be thrilled to find them here." Sure enough, people wander in and find these and are delighted...we try to steer them to "wine" and wean them from the "candy." But I'm thinking of no longer subscribing to The Wine Advocate, having seen reviews for wines from Paso Robles where wines that are hugely alcoholic and way out of balance get huge scores. These journals seem to be more a measurement of "size" than anything else. I can look at the label and see the notation of 15% alcohol...that seems to equate to high numerical scores. I have asked vintners, "Who's the winemaker of this stuff, Jack Daniels or Jim Beam?" I don't find many of these 95 point wines to be to my taste... As a category, Australia is less interesting presently and we don't see the interest in "wines from Australia" that we'd seen three or four years ago. This is partly due to poor marketing strategies by your largest wine companies...and partly due to the ratings which spotlight "extreme" wines. The big companies lost a lot of traction in the market and today you don't find their wines in "hand sell" or "independent" shops. And the Parkerized wines are huge, pushing-the-envelope sorts of wines, often with significant levels of residual sugar. I understand the Aussies were here last week working on a strategy to bring more attention to the category of "Australian Wines"...we'll see. Back to bashing Parker...sort of... I was with an Italian winemaker and we were in Sonoma Valley. The fellow in one winery tasting room accompanied the pouring of a wine with the numerical score of Robert Parker. I asked him "Who's Robert Parker?" and people laughed. He poured another wine and told me the Parker score. "Who the hell is this Robert Parker fellow and why should I care what he thinks of your wine?" This totally disarmed the tasting room host...but he responded, "Well, Parker is the world's most fussy wine critic and if he likes your wine, it must be good." "Listen," I replied, "Robert Parker is not coming to dinner at my house any time soon, so I don't care what he thinks of your wines. I am here to taste your wines and assess them for MYSELF and see if I LIKE THEM." This left the poor winery fellow with no "ammunition" to sell me their wines apart from pouring the wine into a glass... As it should be... Ciao and greetings from San Francisco... Gerald From: Chris Robinson 10/02/2007 20:51:06 Despite all the solid arguments for problems with Parker ratings of Australian wines any winemaker that gets a good rating will drop his knickers and bear the pain for the honour of such an illustrious rating. And that unfortunately is the problem. Parker despite what we all think is the Emperor in the land with the biggest bucks, biggest egos and most insecurity. He is the thermometer that everyone somehow has agreed will take the temperature, no ifs or buts. I remember many years ago the proprietor of a second ranked top Bordeaux chateau saying to me that Parker would never influence him and that his tasting skill was "merde". Now who is the lapdog. This guy virtually drools over Parker now! How do we break this incredible lock on the industry. Perhaps the only way is the Aussie way - take the piss. Parker is a legend in his own lunchtime that now actually believes his own publicity. We all need to knock the stuffing out of this icon and get the world of wine to think objectively again. Ric, keep up the onslaught!!! Copyright © Ric Einstein 2007