|More 100-point wines when the critic is lit!|
It turns out that perfection, for Robert Parker, is as fleeting as the beauty of cherry blossom leaves drifting softly to the ground. Today your wine is a pink blossom; tomorrow it's a bare branch, possibly covered in birdshit.
Parker gave an interview to Drinks Business earlier this year for an article that will appear in its June issue. The magazine published excerpts online last week. I find this section astonishing:
How often do I go back and re-taste a wine that I gave 100 points and repeat the score? Probably about 50% of the time.
-- Robert ParkerParker goes on to say that most -- not all -- of the time "I can understand why I did see it as perfect at that time."
Holy crap! How did this quote not roil the Internet?
In the same interview, Parker calls other critics "irresponsible" if they don't dole out 100-point scores. Seriously, he said that.
I understand that one's opinion changes on a wine. This is exactly why most of us don't give out 100 points like so many emoji on the tail end of Facebook posts. If a wine is really perfect, then it should be great today, next Tuesday and a year from now at the very least. That's what consumers expect.
When somebody shells out for a 100-point wine, they're not thinking, "It's a nice wine and the critic got a handjob just before tasting it." They're thinking, "Wow, this is one of the best wines I'll ever have in my life and is worth spending $500 and building a display case for it in my cellar." And yet there's a 50% chance that even the world's most
Many wine lovers have been bitching about the flaws in the 100-point scale for years. I give Parker 93 points for honesty, but still, all of those rants combined don't damage the concept as much as that quote from Parker above.