Grape Gossip - Reserve 'Scores' Robert Parker

To view previous Grape Gossips, click here


Because we're a little geeky about wine, Kate and I have regular alerts from Google about recently posted web articles on the subject. Mostly these can be a bit mundane but one article entitled "Robert Parker's Bitch' on influence of the American critic caught my eye recently.

I found the article and the accompanying 25 minute film a little one-sided but it did prompt me to look into the Parker effect in more detail and here's what I found out.

Parker is a trained lawyer turned critic who started publishing a bi-monthly newsletter, 'The Wine Advocate' in 1978. He's been producing it ever since and now also has a successful, subscriber-funded website as well. The difference between Parker and other critics, and the key to his success and notoriety today is the controversial 100-point rating system that he uses to score wines. Wine is subjective, so scores tend to reflect a critic's preferences as much as the quality of the wine, yet Parker's points scoring system has become so influential that it is argued that it is effecting the way wines are made.

Although presented as a 100 point system, Parker only actually awards each wine a maximum of 50 points. Here's how it works:

Each wine is given a starting point of 50 points
5 points are awarded for colour and general appearance.
15 points are awarded for aroma and bouquet.
20 points are awarded for "flavour and finish", which includes the structure, balance and intensity of the wine.
10 points are awarded for the overall quality and longevity of the wine.

Scores can be interpreted as follows: 96-100 Extraordinary
90-95 Outstanding
80-89 an above average to good wine
70-79 Average
60-69 Below Average
50-59 Unacceptable.

Some commentators argue that wine is too subjective for such a specific rating and on his website, Parker himself emphasises that the score is only a small part of his reviews and that it's important to read the tasting notes accompanying to find out about the style of the wine. "<Actinic:Variable Name = 'Scores'/> do not reveal the important facts about a wine. The written commentary that accompanies the ratings is a better source of information regarding the wine's style and personality, its relative quality vis-à-vis its peers, and its value and aging potential than any score could ever indicate". He's also at pains to emphasise his impartiality and that he pays for "60 percent" of his samples.
It's the points that hit the headlines though, and the points that can make or break sales of a wine, especially in the US.

The popularity of the 100 point system means that the scores a wine gains are heavily used as a marketing device and merchants find it much easier to sell wines which gain 90plus points than those under 90 (I'd like to point out at this stage that we don't sell any of our wines based on Parker, although we may mention them in dispatches if relevant). This is self perpetuating to a degree - if marketers weren't so keen to exploit the scores, merchants would find it easier to sell on their own recommendations, and if retailers could be more vocal about their own opinions on the wine then marketers would find the points less relevant.

Parker effects sales, so of course he effects prices too. Highly rated wines can command higher prices, a phenomenon that has (until this year at least) been especially prominent in the pricing of Bordeaux. In the past Chateaux have waited for Parker's ratings before setting their prices, but this year's 'En Primeur' campaign for the 2008 vintage was an exception which may (or may not) point to a wider trend away from RP.

The knock on of all this is that winemakers (or their bosses) start to make wines which are designed to gain points. Parker and his team of tasters have shown a preference for wines with powerful concentration and often high alcohol, so winemakers adjust their vineyard and winery practices in an attempt to attain this style. The result can be that more elegant, delicate wines get overlooked. The term 'Parkerisation' is used to indicate an entire industry (or section of it) that has changed its practices in order to produce this style of wine. Whether this is a good or bad thing depends upon your point of view - and your palate - but some of the critic's detractors argue that these wines are 'Taste and Spit' wines which show brilliantly in tastings but are not enjoyable to drink.
Parkerisation is most pronounced in Parker's regions of expertise - Bordeaux, the Rhone and California - and some areas (for example Burgundy) in which he himself is not so strong are unaffected by his scores, if indeed he tastes the wine at all. We have also seen a trend at Reserve of customers asking for more elegant, lower alcohol wines.

Parker points effect prices, sales and wine styles world wide - and incredible feat (or burden) for one man.
It's essential to stress though that none of this is Parker's fault. He's had great success with his points system, and is simply presenting his opinion on the wines; indeed he feels the responsibility of his success as indicated in a defence of his writing, posted on his site following a spate of bad press. Is it Parker's fault if people listen to him? It's simply too easy for wineries (and wine merchants) to use his praise as publicity. Surely we can be more imaginative than that?
Other wine writers use points scoring and that they're pretty inconsistent in the formats they use. UK critic Jancis Robinson employes a 20 point system but admits that she tends to score wines comparatively rather than absolutely: "I know it would be much more convenient for everyone if there were a single objective quality scale against which every wine in the world could be measured, but I'm afraid I just don't believe such a scale exists given the myriad styles and archetypes of wine that, thank goodness, still exist. And even if such a single measuring stick did exist, adhering to it would not be very useful.
If we imagine for a moment that it did, then on a 20 point scale, practically every 1982 bordeaux would merit something above 18, every de luxe champagne perhaps something above 19, which would not make for very informative reporting on their relative merits."


The world of wine is awash with ratings and classifications which can be very confusing, so it's natural that a simple to understand scoring system which judges each bottle on its merits is popular. Sometimes you can't taste the wine you're buying, so a judgment from an expert is handy - just remember that whoever is awarding the points has a unique palate and personal opinions about wine that may not match your own experience.

My own practice when customers ask me to look for a special bottle or case of something I haven't tasted is to search out the opinions and scores of more than one critic. The easiest to obtain are Parker's, but it's fairly simple to track down Jancis' notes too - a good comparison as their palates (appear to be) quite different.

My conclusion? Look at Parker's scores but take them with a pinch of salt and ask someone (preferably Kate, Chris or Nick) what the wine actually tastes like!