Parker: The Wine Advocate Issue 155 Oztralia

Introduction

Love him or hate him, Robert Parker is the worlds most influential wine critic. With a few words he can make, or just about break a wineries reputation. In the latest issue of The Wine Advocate, is a forty-five page section titled “AUSTRALIA: THUNDER FROM DOWNUNDER” (I thought that was Kostya Tszu) with tasting notes and wine ratings from about 795 Australian wines as well as his comments and findings.

This lengthy article takes a critical in-depth look at Issue 155, analyses what Parker has to say and presents my picture of his views and impact on Australian wine.

Prior to going any further, it is important for readers to understand the Parker 100 point system. 80-89 represents “a barely average to very good wine”, 90-95 is an “outstanding wine of exceptional complexity and character” whilst 96-100 is an extraordinary wine of profound and complex character. 

Firstly, if Parker is nothing else he is a prodigious taster. Those 795 wines reviewed represent only thirty percent of the Australian wines he tasted in the previous twelve months; the other seventy percent were not up to standard. Eighty-four points seems to be about the cut-off point but there are precious few of them listed around that level. According to Parker, there are three main reasons they did not make the grade:-

1. too much American oak,
2. chemistry-class wines with so much added acidity they are undrinkable
3. industrial, manufactured wines of no depth, character, or soul.

The fact that only 30% makes the grade is not an issue in itself but what is at issue is that readers have no idea what was tasted that did not made the grade. In this, Parker may be looking after himself here (more on this later), but he is doing his readers a disservice by keeping them in the dark. When looking at what has been rated the following names are missing, Brokenwood, Orlando, Charles Melton, Hardy, Tim Adams, Blass, Seppelt, Lindemans, Cullen, Leasingham, Wynns and  Houghton to name just a few.  Is it because the wines do not measure up to Parker’s standards or because he didn’t taste them? Readers have no idea of knowing if wines have been tasted or not.

When you knock back 70% of all wines reviewed, it is just as important for a ‘consumer advocate’ who, by definition, is meant to be looking after his customers’ interests, to let them know what should be avoided as well as what they should be looking to purchase. But is Parker all about being a ‘consumer advocate’ or looking after himself first and foremost? I would hazard a guess that his number one priority is selling his publications and being a ‘consumer advocate’ comes a distant second.

Prior to going any further, it will be worth putting Parker and his experience in perspective. Parker is regarded by many in the USA as THE wine Guru and there is no doubt he has a phenomenal palate which is backed by over a quarter of a century of professional tasting experience. That experience is diverse, he tastes wines from all around the world, but in some areas his expertise is better than others. For example, he is not as well regarded on Burgundy as other writers and has someone else doing the Burgundy reviews for the Wine Advocate. His Australian experience is not very lengthy. It only really surfaced and came to readers’ attention with the fabled 1998 vintage so he has only been reviewing Australian wines for about six years. As good as his palate may be, it does not provide a huge depth of experience which can enable him to look back and see how particular wines and styles in the Australian category have aged in the longer term.

And then there is the “Parker palate.” When it comes to Australian wine, most readers of this article will appreciate that Parker likes them big and sweet. That is not a criticism just a fact of life, but it needs to be remembered and will help put these comments into context. By the same token, the man has huge experience and has tasted many of the best the world has to offer from Bordeaux, Rhone, the US, and other wine regions, and this needs to be considered too.

Parkers Comments

In the introduction to the Issue 155, Parker summarises the findings of a year of tasting of Australian wine with a number of comments, some of these will be examined in this article.

Parker opens his review by saying “…. (producers in the ) wine industry are frightened of the potential that exists in Australia, not only for the limited production, world-class reds, but for their industrial farming techniques, which to the chagrin of Australia’s more established competitors, has resulted in easy-going, quaffable consumer-friendly offerings ….. etc.” Parker then proceeds to wax lyrical on Yellow Tail, how good the wine is for the price and even uses terms like “cleverly fashioned, palatable offering” and “consumers enjoy it because it offers easy drinking and is fairly priced.” 

Parker later goes on to state 70% of wines tasted were not included in the issue “due to a multitude of sins.” One of those sins was stated as being “industrial, manufactured wines of no depth, character, or soul.” So on one hand we have a situation where Yellow Tail is lauded yet on the other, the industry is given a caning for trying to achieve the same thing.  

In the next paragraph, Parker states, “The real glories are the classic old vine, South Australian cuvées of Shiraz, Grenache and occasionally blends of those two varietals with Cabernet Sauvignon. ….. There is no other place in the world that can match the kind of wines being produced from old vine Shiraz and Grenache McLaren Vale and Barossa vineyards. Yet, these offerings are often in the crosshairs of Eurocentric oenophiles who mock them as too rich, thick, alcoholic, woody and flamboyant. Whilst some wines are guilty as charged, the finest of these efforts, even though they begin life incredibly rich, powerful, intense, are capable of maturing into far more graceful and civilized wines after 10-15 years in the bottle.”

From this, readers will glean that Parker has an obvious preference and fondness for (big) Barossa and McLaren Vale Shiraz and Grenache wines but that is just stating the blindingly obvious. In reality, all reviewers have styles they like and dislike. Jancis Robinson and James Halliday both like more elegant wines than Parker. None of these professionals are right or wrong in their stylistic preferences. We all have different tastes in wine, and it is up to the reader to try and align their palate to a reviewer who they can relate to, and one whose palate allows calibration.

As far as the rest of Australia is concerned, Parker goes on to state, “In Western Australia, classic wines emerge from the Margaret River area. These offerings come closest in spirit and style to the finest Bordeaux, but make no mistake about it, they are not Bordeaux, and even at their finest, they rarely compete with the best of Bordeaux.” Parker also goes on to mention some of the elegant wines that are produced in Victoria and WA.

Parker’s comments on Western Australia, whist looking complimentary on one hand, are damning with faint praise on the other. This is especially so when you have a look at the scores, or lack of them on many of these wines. The latest edition of the Wine Advocate reviewed the following WA wineries, Alkoomi (4), Gralyn (2), Leeuwin (6), Mad Fish (2), Moss Wood (5) Pierro (3), Vasse Felix (7) and The Wishing Tree (2). That’s a grand total of eight wineries, twenty red wines, and eleven whites. The Moss Wood 2001 Cabernet Sauvignon gets 92 points and there is no mention of Cullen so one can arguably question Parkers expertise and experience on WA.

Many wine lovers would argue that Australian Cabernet should be rated and compared to Australian Cabernet and not Bordeaux, but that is a whole other can of worms. As far as the quality of Bordeaux blends made in Australia is concerned, Parker may, and I stress may have a point in that our best is not as good as the best the French can produce. However, even in the case of top Bordeaux, only a tiny percentage of production is at the pinnacle. The rest ranges from damn good to pedestrian. Certainly, some of our Bordeaux blends can compete in the damn good category at a fraction of the cost of many of the top Bordeaux labels, yet Parker has reviewed very few of them. His conclusions are “interesting” in light of those numbers

If you ignore the fortified wines, less than 9% of the wines reviewed come from Victoria so in essence, almost 90% of the wines reviewed are South Australian and most of those from the Barossa and McLaren Vale.

Coonawarra and the surrounding areas certainly did not get much exposure. By my count, eighteen red wines from nine different wineries were tried, and of those, the only well known names were Leconfield (5), Penley Estate (4), Petaluma (1), Yalumba (1), Pipers Brook (1), the rest are virtually unknown to me.   

To his credit, Parker then goes onto say, “Anyone who believes that Australia is some sort of monolithic wine monster producing only one style of wine is badly uninformed.” (Shouldn’t that be badly informed – it’s a double negative.-J  ) “In short, there are many divergent styles of Australian wines, even within the same sub-viticultural regions.

One can only hope that Parker’s readers actually take note of this comment but in light of the wines that are the highest rated by him, I doubt they will and the notion of Australia wine being all ooze monsters will continue. Whilst the “divergent styles” have been recognized by Parker, he is paying lip service to it. Remember, about nine percent of wines reviewed came from Victoria, twenty-six wines out of a total seven hundred and ninety five reviewed were from WA and only twenty-one wines from Coonawarra and surrounding areas. This means almost ninety percent of the wines reviewed are mainstream SA and most of those from McLaren Vale and the Barossa. Also, very few of the wines outside the mainstream areas rated highly (with the exceptions of the fortified wines) and as long as they continue to score mediocre Parker points, they will get lost in the wash. The style Parker likes has a big impact on his scores, this is not criticism, it is just the way it is, and as long as that is the case, the other regions and styles will be overlooked by Parker followers because they are almost being overlooked by Parker himself.

Still on the introduction, Parker has a shot at our local wine writers when he says, "One of the ironies about Australian wines is that the homegrown critics seem to exhibit a bias/prejudice against many of the old vine cuvees of Grenache and Shiraz because of their power and potency. This is unfortunate since nowhere else in the world can these wines be duplicated, and there seems to be considerable sentiment among the Aussie wine press that the Barossa, Eden Valley, and McLaren Vale wineries should put on the brakes, and produce wines that do little more than imitate French, Spanish or Italian efforts. This would be a disaster since no country has demonstrated the ability to compete with the great classics of France, Spain or Italy. To go against the fundamental climatic conditions that are not conducive to making elegant, finesse-styled wines is fraught with disaster, and those wineries that believe they can outperform Europe in terms of finesse and elegance frequently turn out innocuous, manipulated wines with little soul or character."

Campbell Mattinson from WineFront Monthly went onto answer that brilliantly (and much better than I could) on Auswine. “If Australian wine writers were arguing that we should plant more pinot in the Barossa, then Parker would have a point. If Australian wine writers were arguing that Penfolds Grange should be toned down, then he'd have two points. If Australian wine writers were arguing that Torbreck RunRig, Chris Ringland Shiraz, Saltram 8th Maker and Peter Lehmann Stonewall are anything other than great ambassadors of Australian shiraz - then he'd have three points. The fact is though that Australian wine writers, in general, are arguing none of those things - put a glass of any of those wines, from good vintages, in front of your average Australian wine writer and s/he'd sing its praises ‘til the cows came in. Personally, I can love all those wines. Australia does that style of wine particularly well and god how I love that fact. In fact, where's the damn corkscrew, I could go one now!

All Australian wine writers are arguing, in general is a) as good as these wines are, and as much as we should be proud of them, there are other wine types of merit that can be produced in other areas of Australia that drink equally well on other nights of the week, and b) Australia is a big country, and we shouldn't try to make Barossa shiraz out of the Yarra Valley - but we should still make wine out of the Yarra (I think . )

Australian drinkers, and wine writers alike, tend to love the beautifully beefy Barossan shiraz wines - because, when made well, they can be great wines, and great to have swirling around your glass. The funny thing is though - and here is the only fault in what Parker is saying - is that you can like this style of wine, and ALSO like cooler spicier styles. It's not a competition.”

As Tim Shaw would say, “Wait, there’s more” and Parker was not finished with Australian Journalists. In the Rosemount write up, which was a scathing criticism of their wines (more of that later) Parker said, I’ll leave it to some of the Australian wine journalists to rave about these “chemistry class” wines, but it’s not winemaking, and it’s not natural.”

Here is the second instance in one issue of The Wine Advocate that has Parker attacking Australian wine journalists and this time, belittling them as a group. Why, you may well ask? Knowledge is power and Parker is using this effectively in two ways. The first revolves around self-promotion. It looks as if he is trying to set himself up as the “only credible expert” on wine that matters. There have been a number of public slanging matches between Parker and Jancis Robinson as well as a number of other wine journalists. Secondly, by not providing a complete listing of wines tasted (and better still their point scores) Parker is keeping useful knowledge to himself. This refusal to share that knowledge increases his power, as consumers are left wondering, rather than having the whole picture.

Parker’s answer to not publishing what did not make the grade would be to say it is important to concentrate on the recommendations he makes and avoid wines he has not published. That keeps the power of knowledge with him and not his customers.

On to the points

Regular readers will know I intensely dislike the 100-point system so it was interesting to see how Parker rated the wines in comparison to the way I had seen them. The relatively of ranking between wines (from a particular winery) was what I was looking at rather than being concerned with the individual point scores. I must admit it was a bit of a revelation and I was quite surprised at how with many instances our relative rankings agreed. This is certainly a big change since the last close look I had at the Australian section of the WA a number of years ago. Whilst there were a number of exceptions, this time, in many cases the preferred rankings (within a specific winery) were the same. I may completely disagree with many of his ratings but he is consistent, and that is one of the major reasons so many people follow him.

Where I noticed the biggest change with Parker was with the fortified wines. The last time I looked, in most instances where I had thought the Tokay from a particular winery was better, invariably Parker had higher points for the Muscat. Not this time, on many occasions the Tokay out-pointed the Muscat.

Parker scores always generate a huge amount of interest when each edition comes out. As I respect the value of copyright it would be wrong to post a heap of scores, but I will comment on some of the big winners and losers.

Firstly the winners. Clarendon Hill gets almost two pages of coverage and clearly, Parker loves these wines and is impressed with the range. However, some of the 2003 wines did not do as well as the 2002’s although they were bloody close. Only one wine from this winery scored less than 90 and fourteen of them scored 95 or above. Greenock Creek did well, all scoring over 93 and seven of their eight wines scoring 95 or above. Kaesler, deservedly did extremely well with seven of their nine wines scoring over 93. Noon’s were predictably 96-99 for their three 2002 offerings. Kalleske has a new fan with all five wines scoring 96 or above. Parker said “….magnificently concentrated, full throttle reds that are indigenous to the top echelon of South Australian producers. In fact, there is nothing like these wines anywhere else in the world.”

As an aside, I thought the wines were very credible and good, but not that good and this is a perfect example where Parker is awarding high points for his preferred style.

All of Kay’s scored over 90 with three out of five at 95 or more. Mitolo was in a similar position with a low of 90 and three of the five scoring above 95. Rick Burge must be over the moon, with five reds at 93 or more and four of his fortified wines at 95 or more. With one exception, the reds from Torbreck did very well with seven wines at 95 or over. Two Hands had six at 95 or over as well as another six between 90 and 95 so they must be happy. Veritas had seven above 90 (and nothing listed below that) so they had a good report card too.

As far as the losers are concerned, there were a few wineries that normally do well that dropped a bit this year that. Elderton got its highest mark for the 2000 Command at 92+. The Marquis Phillips 2003 range did not live up to previous vintages and their range scored from 87 to a high of 94 for the US$100 Integrity Shiraz.

The Big Boy Cops a Hiding 

The biggest caning was reserved for Southcorp with both its Penfold and Rosemount brands taking a hammering. Penfold only had four wines that made the grade and they ranged from 87 points for the 2001 RWT, Bin 707 and Magill whilst the 99 Grange received 92 points. The points would be a concern to retailers trying to sell the wine in the US, but Southcorp would be more concerned with Parkers scathing criticism. Amongst other things, he said, “These are formulaic wines where acid levels appear to be so unnaturally high as to compress the texture and kill the aromatics, making the wines taste like something from a surreal chemistry class.”

The only Rosemount wine that made the grade was the 2001 Traditional which received 86 points. Here Parker had another broad swipe at Southcorp, “Nevertheless, I would opt for drinking this 2001 (Traditional) over the next several years before the fruit fades and the acid level becomes more shrill. The other Rosemount wines I tasted, including some of their top Chardonnays, Shiraz and cabernet sauvignons, were all “wines by the numbers” where the acid and pH levels were obviously pre-calculated regardless of what it did to the wines texture and fruit flavors.

Southcorp reaction  

Very strong words indeed, so I contacted Southcorp and spoke to Peter Taylor (Executive General Manager, Winemaking) to get their reaction. Peter informed me that whilst they thought the review was “a bit rough” they were disappointed because of the influence that Parker wields but Peter was very quick to point out (and rightly so) it is basically the only bad review the Penfold range has received and all the rest have been positive.

We then discussed Parkers criticism in relation to the acidity in the wine, specifically two of the wines Parker mentioned, the 2000 St Henri and the 2002 Reserve Bin Riesling were he said “(they) could not be recommended because their acid levels were beyond acceptable ranges (for my palate).” 

Peter was confident the Riesling in question had no added acidity; it was all natural. As far as the 2000 St Henri was concerned, Peter thought it would have had a small addition of acid which was needed for balance and structure in the wine and to ensure the wine would be able to age. Peter said, “The 2000 St Henri was made no differently to any other previous vintage on this label and we have the runs on the board to prove it works well in the long term. It is also probable that most of the Australian wines Parker tasted have acid added.” 

Parker talked about Southcorp "making wine by the numbers" and I asked Peter for his comments on this point. He responded, “We make wines to a particular style and we make it by taste, not by numbers but I can understand where Parker is coming from. We know that Penfold wines age for 8-10 years (and some of them longer) and that is the style we intend to keep making. The buyers of our wines certainly seem to like the style and we are not going to change that style because one critic does not like it. What we need to do, and it’s something we could have done better, is to talk to Parker and explain what we are trying to achieve.

Parker also said that Rosemount used ‘pre-calculated acid levels’ which is not right. We think very carefully how much we are using and do not want to over acidify. We measure and adjust each wine as we make it.”

I asked Peter if he was happy with the wines Southcorp was making; and if not, what would the company do to improve them; this was his response. “We are never happy with the wines because we always want to improve them but that does not mean they are bad wines and we are dissatisfied with them either. What we do not want to do is build big, alcoholic blockbusters, even our wines using Barossa fruit will not be made in that style. We also do not want porty, dried raisoned, stewed or dead fruit characters in our wines. We do think it is important to maintain the clarity and quality of our fruit. We believe that even the Barossa can make well-balanced, more elegant wines than many of the big blockbusters that Parker seems to enjoy and that is what we are trying to achieve.

The quality of our fruit is good, but there is always room for improvement and we are looking at ways to get better fruit all the time. We will also continue to work on our oak treatment and try and achieve better integration over time. We are also working on improving our fermentation techniques.” 

In the Penfold criticism, Parkers stated, “industrial winemaking does not cut it unless you are selling the wines at bargain basement prices” and I asked Peter for Southcorp’s reaction to this statement. “We are relaxed about it! As a company, we have been the biggest Australian wine producer for some time and many people like to knock the big guys, and what can we do about that?

Should we cut our company up into lots of small, individual, separate company operations just so we are small again? That would not make sense! We focus on what we do as much as the boutique wines and that makes us bigger, not different; we just do it with much bigger volumes. We have the money in the bank to make sure we can do it well.

There is more than one style of wine being made in Australia and each consumer and wine writer is entitled to their opinion.”

Readers, who are familiar with Penfold and Rosemount wines, as always, can and will make up their own minds about Parker criticism of these brands but it is interesting to get both sides of the story.

TORB Comments 

One of my major concerns with Parker relates to the projected drinking windows of Australian wines. Many of the huge, high alcohol wines have recommendations around twelve to fifteen years (in some cases more.) Some are new brands with no track record and based on my experience and projections, many of them will be well past it in the recommended twelve to fifteen years. Reid Bosward of Kaesler has publicly stated he thinks his top wines will be best at about seven to eight years of age yet Parker say, “The 2002 Old Bastard should be cellared for 4-6 years, and consumed in the following 20-25.” My take on the peak window on the Old Bastard was 2010+. Parker gives the 2002 The Bogan a drinking window of 15-20+ years, that 2017-2022, my take was 2008-2012.  

At the other end, some of the more refined wines get shorter drinking windows. For example according to Parker, the 2001 Dalwhinnie Shiraz is best-drunk 2006-2009; I have it pegged to peak in 2009 and beyond. Jeremy Oliver’s window on this wine is 2009-13+. Parker has the 2001 Craiglee Shiraz best consumed around 2005-2006 and Oliver has it at 2009-13. Parker has the 2001 Grossett Gaia at 2007-2011 and Oliver has it listed as 2013-2021.

In some ways, it almost seems like the bigger the wine, the longer Parker thinks it will age.

So why does Parker have seemingly endless power to influence the market? The answer is simple. Parker has a huge customer base, much of it residing on the affluent East Cost of the US. Some of these people have high disposable incomes and make their purchasing decisions based on his high point recommendations. It is for this reason that as soon as Parker gives a high point rating, the wine flies off the shelf and the price rises. In many of these situations, it is a status thing with consumers wanting “the best” – meaning high points - and to hell with the cost. In the case of Australian wines, as Parker goes for the big Shiraz, so do his supporters. If they want Cabernet or a blend, they will go for Bordeaux. This is not a criticism of Parker, his supporters have bestowed that power upon him, and they are the ones who chase the points.

From an outsider analyzing Parker’s work, he has an excellent palate and fantastic memory which gives him the ability to be a first class taster, however he does have a fairly narrow and preferred focus when it comes to Australian wine. One of his greatest strengths is also his biggest Australian weakness.  

Finally, in the words of my mate Steve Norman (aka 707 in the Tour Diaries,) “RPJ bashing is popular. Let's not forget however the prosperity he's bought to many struggling grape growers, winemakers and whole wine communities here in Australia through his promotion (correct or otherwise) of our wines to the world.

The voracious appetite overseas buyers have also allowed a zillion new wineries to come to life to the ultimate good of us all. They would not be here now making all those interesting and sought after drops if it was not for the overseas markets.

So let's keep what RPJ says in perspective, don't get in a tizz about his points each year, make up your own mind about what to buy AND just hope RPJ doesn't give your chosen drops a big score!!”

Well said Steve and I hope this is not seen as Parker bashing but as a fair and accurate portrayal of Issue 155 of The Wine Advocate, which is worth reading and can be purchased for US$18 from the web site. 

Copyright © Ric Einstein 2004