Arguably,
one of the biggest developments in the history of the wine industry was in
August 1978, when Robert M. Parker Jr., a lawyer from Baltimore, Maryland and amateur wine
enthusiast released a bi—monthly consumer report about wines available in the
U.S. The report included importer information and, most importantly, a score
out of 100. The publication was The Wine Advocate and the points became known
as “Parker Points”, and survive to this day as either a wines greatest
achievement, or biggest failure.
The UK was a little
ahead of the curve; Jancis Robinson became assistant editor of Wine and Spirit
magazine on the first of December 1975. Jancis now devotes much of her time to
her column in the Financial Times, as well to her website, where she scores
wines in the more “European” style; out of 20, rather than 100.
The reviews
In 2004, the two
writers had a bit of a disagreement with regards to a certain wine. The
2003 Château Pavie, a Premier Grand Cru Classé (A) Saint-Émilion, caused a great deal of
controversy, with the 2 critics giving vastly different write ups;
“An off the
chart effort from perfectionist proprietors Chantal and Gerard Perse, the 2003
Pavie was cropped at 30 hectolitres per hectare. A blend of 70% Merlot, 20%
Cabernet Franc, and 10% Cabernet Sauvignon, it is a wine of sublime richness,
minerality, delineation, and nobleness. Representing the essence of one of
St.-Emilion’s greatest terroirs, the limestone and clay soils were perfect for
handling the torrid heat of 2003. Inky/purple to the rim, it offers up
provocative aromas of minerals, black and red fruits, balsamic vinegar, liquorice,
and smoke. It traverses the palate with extraordinary richness as well as
remarkable freshness and definition.” (Robert M. Parker, Jr., Published 26th
of April, 2004)
“Deep blueish crimson. Completely unappetising overripe aromas. Why? Porty sweet. Oh REALLY! Port is best from the Douro not St Emilion. Ridiculous wine more reminiscent of a late harvest Zinfandel than a red Bordeaux with its unappetising green notes.” (Jancis Robinson, Tasted 23rd of August, 2005)
The Scores
Parker proceeded to award the wine 96-100 out
of 100 points, meaning it had the potential to become the perfect wine after
some time to age and develop in bottle. Robinson, on the other hand, gave the
wine 12/20. And here lies the difficulty with points, scores and wine criticism
on the whole. The Author Jim Harrison once stated;
“To rate either wine or literature as if we
were scientists is frivolous. Both are in the humanities, not the sciences…”
And while I cannot concur with this observation
whole heartedly, I do find it to be an astute point well made.
It is somewhat pointless (pardon the pun) to
discuss the impact of points on wine; we know that they have an impact on
sales. A Parker score of 90 and above more or less secures the sale of said
wine. Similarly, a score of 16 or above from Jancis has a similar outcome.
The issue arises when taste is involved,
specifically the personal taste of the wine critic. Parker is famous for
favouring “big” wines, while Jancis has always looked to elegance, structure
and “classic” profiles.
Find your guru
This is where the consumer has to do a bit of homework. This is
something that has taken many wine lovers (ourselves included) years upon
years; finding your Guru.
Wine critics are mere mortals, like the rest of
us, who like what they like and loathe what they loathe. If you choose to
follow scores and critics, it is much better to find one with likeminded views,
rather than someone who has blatantly different tastes to yourself.
So get reading, get tasting, find your wine
church or forge your own vinous path. And remember, we are always here to help.
Cheers!