I have years of personal experience with him. I strongly disagree about his integrity, and I say that with first-hand knowledge.
Enlighten us all. Have we been duped? Oh give us a sign.
Should I throw my tomes of Parker's wisdom into the River Arno along with my shattered illusions of the fabled one? If what you say is true, how clever it was of him to make a career by exposing the established wine "experts" as frauds only to replace them by doing exactly the same thing himself.
Be warned though, there are those who lurk out there who would be only too happy to sue the pants off of those who make defamatory statements which cannot be substantiated with proof.
Anyway, I still like Dominus, a California wine he highly praised.
I talked about it in public before and didn't get sued... he faked the research for one of his books (maybe more, but certainly the one where I had personal knowledge), then lied about it.
Actually, as far as I know, he's never "exposed" another writer for dishonesty. He has said many times that dishonesty, incompetence, or jealousy are the only reasons that anyone can have serious disagreements with him, but as far as I know, he's never said, "Jancis Robinson takes cash bribes from Chateau Lezard Vert" or anything like that and backed it up with evidence.
Actually, as far as I know, he's never "exposed" another writer for dishonesty. He has said many times that dishonesty, incompetence, or jealousy are the only reasons that anyone can have serious disagreements with him, but as far as I know, he's never said, "Jancis Robinson takes cash bribes from Chateau Lezard Vert" or anything like that and backed it up with evidence.
Parker's claims against the prevailing wine experts was against the British establishment in particular. He never specifically mentioned Broadbent or Robinson or anyone else I recall specifically by name but the implications that the British were in cahoots with the French in selling poor quality wine at high prices by creating a kind of religion in which they were the high priests to whom the wine gods spoke was unmistakable. It should be known by those who do not know the history of Bordeaux that the English occupied the southwest of France called Aquataine for two hundred years. The city of Bordeaux was the port that was created as a shipping locale for sending "claret" as the British call red Bordeaux to England where they highly prized it. Interestingly, the communes of Saint Emillion and especially Pomerol were not known well to British merchants which is why Chateau Le Pin was a well kept secret to the Belgians until the early 1980s.
I view the high priests who pass judgment on audio equipment in the same way Parker viewed these wine merchants and producers and what I see as the incestuous relationship between some hobbyist magazine owners including blog sites and e-zines and some manufactures of high end audio equipment as an exact unmistakable analogy.
Actually, it's Aquitaine.
And largely swamp till Louis sunnyboy Quatorze (14) hired some civil engineering blokes to turn it into Dryland (© Waterworld, K. Costner) through drainage and spitting some sand over it.
In a virtual sense, same suckers who did Dubai World.
Under the Gironde-Garonne, 90% fake as can be, including the trees. (but hey, think i can find any bar, discothèque, and cathouse there blindfolded)
Last edited:
Parker's comments on Burgundy are less than worthless. In any case comparing food/wine with audio equipment is a waste of time. Maybe food and taste in music makes sense (aw, right now Zimmern is downing a big plate of bloodcake for breakfast).
Yes, but if you can't, they will find you. When I lived there, all you had to do was stop at a traffic light on Rue Ste Catherine after dark and they'd walk right up to your car and display their.....wares.
It seems to me that the price of fine Burgandy starts about where the price of most fine Bordeaux leaves off so I never bought much. I still have 5 bottles of 1990 Domaine Leroy Pomard les Vignots in my cellar and that's all. I regret that I didn't stock up on the 1990 DRCs when I had the opportunity. They were among the greatest steals despite their seemingly outrageous prices at the time. There were some other great opportunities in Burgandy and Bordeaux I passed up that I later regretted.
After the disasterous vintages of 1991 and 1992 and the weak vintages of 1993 and 1994, the prices of fine Bordeaux skyrocketed with the 1995 vintage. It was about the time they made their appearance en primeur that CBS aired its 60 Minutes program segment about the health benefit of red wine. That and WS increased circulation put great Bordeaux and Burgandy out of the price range I was willing to pay. I've bought a very small quantity of 95s and 00s but not much.
Now, in summation, I do NOT necessarily believe that all wines taste the same, of the same type. I am pretty sure of this from my direct experience, even though, unlike many of my critics, I do NOT tend to invest big-time into wine and its taste differences. This is WHY I brought attention to the test here for your discussion:
It was a scientifically conducted double blind test, with the designers of the test most likely predicting the outcome in advance. Sound familiar? They attempted to be 'objective' with the test procedure, and somehow got null results. Does that also sound, familiar? Now, why did they get the results that they got, how could they get more 'informative' results? That is the real question, not whether I know anything about testing or not.
It was a scientifically conducted double blind test, with the designers of the test most likely predicting the outcome in advance. Sound familiar? They attempted to be 'objective' with the test procedure, and somehow got null results. Does that also sound, familiar? Now, why did they get the results that they got, how could they get more 'informative' results? That is the real question, not whether I know anything about testing or not.
Problem is, no one has any idea of what "test" you're talking about, who did it, how it was controlled, what the conclusions were, and the relevance to your inability to tell one amplifier from another by ear alone.
here it is:
Expensive and inexpensive wines taste the same, research shows
Scant details in that article. You can't tell much about it at all.
Expensive and inexpensive wines taste the same, research shows
Scant details in that article. You can't tell much about it at all.
Unfortunately, the headline does not accurately reflect the story contents. What the research showed was that people couldn't sort two wines correctly as to cost, not that they taste the same. Thoroughly unsurprising.
It helps to actually have reading comprehension. And, again, irrelevant to John's inability to distinguish (much less sort) one amplifier from another by ear alone.
It helps to actually have reading comprehension. And, again, irrelevant to John's inability to distinguish (much less sort) one amplifier from another by ear alone.
Really, that was kind of 'strong' isn't it SY? I am only pointing out that other scientists run double-blind listening tests and come up with null results. This does NOT stop THEM from expanding on their results with their OWN conclusions.
When it comes to audio differences, I do pretty well, especially for my age. After all, I do it for a living, I don't advertise in magazines, and I have had some success in the marketplace over the decades. Did it come easy? Of course not. I am ALWAYS concerned that I have overlooked something, that someone else will discern and potentially discredit the product for it. It has happened to me, often enough. I just lack the 'confidence' that a measurement will tell me 'everything' that I need to know, and that listening is just as important. Kind of like bottling a wine, measuring its characteristics, and never tasting it carefully. How many successful winemakers do that? Maybe all of them. SY, why don't you tell us how 'real' winemakers do it?
When it comes to audio differences, I do pretty well, especially for my age. After all, I do it for a living, I don't advertise in magazines, and I have had some success in the marketplace over the decades. Did it come easy? Of course not. I am ALWAYS concerned that I have overlooked something, that someone else will discern and potentially discredit the product for it. It has happened to me, often enough. I just lack the 'confidence' that a measurement will tell me 'everything' that I need to know, and that listening is just as important. Kind of like bottling a wine, measuring its characteristics, and never tasting it carefully. How many successful winemakers do that? Maybe all of them. SY, why don't you tell us how 'real' winemakers do it?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.