Amusing, yet scary...

[T Comp]

Okay my last post on the subject but I'm with David D and Bruce's title word "scary". Who knows the long tem effect. I feel American whiskey is ultimately too difficult to remain uber popular but for the man who made wine the massively popular drink it is today, to now endorse Bourbon and so strongly...pre Parker and post Parker are terms we may get to know well.

[smknjoe]

I feel American whiskey is ultimately too difficult to remain uber popular

Thad, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

[WAINWRIGHT]

More madness and blind directed reviews towards the upper eschelon of the bourbon world:rolleyes:..... it will effect us in no such way that I see as invasive,oh and when did Henry Rollins release his own label?

[MyOldKyDram]

Black Maple Flag.

[smknjoe]

...and Jello Biafra has a wine called "Fresh Fruit for Rotting Grapes" :grin:

[P&MLiquorsEric]

I agree with David D. Parker has more power within the booze industry than any other person.

I can't believe he didn't run his post by someone more familiar with whiskey.

Let's see how much press gets before we jump to conclusions or declare martial law.

[T Comp]

Thad, I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Can you please elaborate?

Bourbon (and other wood aged and drunk neat spirits) are difficult for even the more knowlegable American alcohol drink consumer because of its higher proof, lesser amount of liquid per serving and those persisting congener or wood flavor components we love. I expect many will be intrigued by what Parker wrote but after an initial bottle or two they will delegate it to sit besides the Bailey's as an after dinner pour following a special dinner. No different in some respects to the fact that no matter how popular craft beers or double IPAs have become the last stat I saw is that they still make up only 5% of the beer market.

[BigBoldBully]

The sky is falling. The baby sharks are circling.

I may have swum into the deep end of bourbon post-SW, but at least I managed to build a modest bunker pre-Parker!

[Lazer]

I didn't read the post, just scanned the scores and saw that everything was in the 90's and decided I didn't want to puke tonight, so I'm not reading it.

[HighHorse]

Before we crown Mr. Parker God of all things poured into a tulip glass .. peruse an amusing and, IMO, accurate response to his stumbling entry into bourbon: http://www.scotchandicecream.com/

What am I drinking tonight? A dram of Rollins and I'll give it a 99!

[compliance]

This news is really bringing out the worst in our hobby today. Between here and the blogs that have been posting about it there's been nothing but contempt and snark for Parker. As much fun as it is to poke holes in his reviews, and yes he should have researched and got his facts straight, I'm going to welcome him and those he brings with. I didn't know crap when I started drinking bourbon either. If he turns some people onto bourbon and they find something they like because of it that's great news. It's not a secret society any more. The critical mass of public awareness has already passed and this was only a matter of time. We should get ready to welcome some new members.

[GaryT]

This news is really bringing out the worst in our hobby today. Between here and the blogs that have been posting about it there's been nothing but contempt and snark for Parker. As much fun as it is to poke holes in his reviews, and yes he should have researched and got his facts straight, I'm going to welcome him and those he brings with. I didn't know crap when I started drinking bourbon either. If he turns some people onto bourbon and they find something they like because of it that's great news. It's not a secret society any more. The critical mass of public awareness has already passed and this was only a matter of time. We should get ready to welcome some new members.

I welcome all of the sheeple he brings in his wake of nonsense. I'm always glad to meet a bourbon fan, but from what I read - he isn't. What I saw (YMMV) is someone with an inflated opinion of their own self importance selling out to certain labels. I honestly got the impression that he seemed slighted that more people might be aware of PVW than some of the wines he raves about, so he felt the need to "get in the game". I personally think PVW is over-hyped, so that part doesn't bother me. Again - I'd love to have folks walk by the 20120 FRSmBLE in order to grab that last Noah's Mill on the shelf as they sing the high praises of Parker the Great. If their research into the matter is to take his word as gospel, they get what they deserve.

[joboyd]

"George T. Stagg

A tall, narrow bottle is striking as is the vibrant stag horn label. I forgot to write down the alcohol of this bourbon, but I assume it is pushing 100 proof given its powerful, rustic and rugged style."

Wow.

[compliance]

"George T. Stagg

A tall, narrow bottle is striking as is the vibrant stag horn label. I forgot to write down the alcohol of this bourbon, but I assume it is pushing 100 proof given its powerful, rustic and rugged style."

Wow.

That was the highlight for me too. I wonder if he realized it was around 140 if his rating would have been higher. It's a velvet bazooka.

[HighHorse]

This news is really bringing out the worst in our hobby today. Between here and the blogs that have been posting about it there's been nothing but contempt and snark for Parker. As much fun as it is to poke holes in his reviews, and yes he should have researched and got his facts straight, I'm going to welcome him and those he brings with. I didn't know crap when I started drinking bourbon either. If he turns some people onto bourbon and they find something they like because of it that's great news. It's not a secret society any more. The critical mass of public awareness has already passed and this was only a matter of time. We should get ready to welcome some new members.

So you're surprised that a board that is home to people who make every attempt to expand our knowledge of this spirit would rail against some arrogant guy attempting to parade himself as an expert. He got little right, compliance. So it's not the "news" that brings out the worst in our "hobby" .. it's misinformation from a purported expert. We don't hesitate to call each other out when one of us makes some sort of a mistake. We are quick to point out facts. None of us is free of being criticized so why should Parker be given a pass?

We're always ready to welcome new members and we do it daily. One thing's for sure though .. those new members coming on to SB will not see a mistake-riddled review of bourbons posted on this board without prompt and well-intended corrections and/or criticism.

Give Parker a big hug and welcome and a pass if you like. I think he owes his readership an apology. No pass here.

[Lazer]

This news is really bringing out the worst in our hobby today. Between here and the blogs that have been posting about it there's been nothing but contempt and snark for Parker. As much fun as it is to poke holes in his reviews, and yes he should have researched and got his facts straight, I'm going to welcome him and those he brings with. I didn't know crap when I started drinking bourbon either. If he turns some people onto bourbon and they find something they like because of it that's great news. It's not a secret society any more. The critical mass of public awareness has already passed and this was only a matter of time. We should get ready to welcome some new members.

I also welcome people being misinformed about bourbon. Why should they taste it and make their own opinions when they can just read about it. Sometimes when I don't have time to take a ski vacation, I just read skiing magazines. Its just as exhilarating.

[Danger]

Parker stepped in it. It's irritating that he wouldn't spend a bit more energy getting it right. Perhaps he still views whisky drinkers as second-class to wine drinkers and therefore does not warrant a more careful review, or maybe it's just arrogance. Either way, though, I think the PR and infusion of new drinkers will only benefit the bourbon ecosystem in the long run.

[miller542]

This news is really bringing out the worst in our hobby today.... yes he should have researched and got his facts straight, I'm going to welcome him and those he brings with.

I can see both sides of this, but one of the problems here is the type of people he brings with him and the misinformation they will bring courtesy of his article. If the scotch&icecream rebuttal is correct in that Parker's readers take him at gospel, then HighHorse is right, he owe's his readers an apology. We're already competing with other bourbon lovers for limited supply items enough as it is, we don't need additional competition from people who will be storing their bourbon horizontally in their wine cellar as an investment. Lots of mention of the appearance of the bottle itself and 'image' which I will admit is part of it, but for someone who drinks the stuff inside, taste is what matters most, not how it dresses up your wine cellar.

The review so littered with problems, its hard to know where to start. Another example: "High West Whiskey Campfire I threw this in because this distillery in, of all places, Park City, Utah (better known for skiing than high quality spirits), is apparently a fascinating operation. They make a pre-blended Manhattan that is a killer, but the two whiskies I tried included their least expensive, Campfire....Just about everything I have tasted from High West in Park City, Utah is impressive. "

It is a facinating operation, too bad what you are drinking is not a product of that operation. As with many of the examples in his review, zero mention of the actual source of the product in the bottle. And Campfire is not the least expensive High West product, as if price was relevant in his article.

"Buffalo Trace Eagle Rare Single Barrel Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey 10-Years Old; 45% alcohol; 90 proof

..... has 45% alcohol, which makes it 90 proof." For the 13th bourbon on the list, I think we've figured out the whole proof thing by now, even without the redundency. But then there's "Buffalo Trace Distillery Experimental Collection 1993 .... alcohol 43.6%; 90 proof" Which is it??? Literally one minute on Google reveals evaporation was listed on the label as 43.6%, and it is 45% abv.

Amusing yet scary indeed.

Edited May 8, 2013 by miller542

[P&MLiquorsEric]

I can see both sides of this, but one of the problems here is the type of people he brings with him and the misinformation they will bring courtesy of his article. If the scotch&icecream rebuttal is correct in that Parker's readers take him at gospel, then HighHorse is right, he owe's his readers an apology. We're already competing with other bourbon lovers for limited supply items enough as it is, we don't need additional competition from people who will be storing their bourbon horizontally in their wine cellar as an investment. Lots of mention of the appearance of the bottle itself and 'image' which I will admit is part of it, but for someone who drinks the stuff inside, taste is what matters most, not how it dresses up your wine cellar.

The review so littered with problems, its hard to know where to start. Another example: "High West Whiskey Campfire I threw this in because this distillery in, of all places, Park City, Utah (better known for skiing than high quality spirits), is apparently a fascinating operation. They make a pre-blended Manhattan that is a killer, but the two whiskies I tried included their least expensive, Campfire....Just about everything I have tasted from High West in Park City, Utah is impressive. "

It is a facinating operation, too bad what you are drinking is not a product of that operation. As with many of the examples in his review, zero mention of the actual source of the product in the bottle. And Campfire is not the least expensive High West product, as if price was relevant in his article.

"Buffalo Trace Eagle Rare Single Barrel Kentucky Straight Bourbon Whiskey 10-Years Old; 45% alcohol; 90 proof

..... has 45% alcohol, which makes it 90 proof." For the 13th bourbon on the list, I think we've figured out the whole proof thing by now, even without the redundency. But then there's "Buffalo Trace Distillery Experimental Collection 1993 .... alcohol 43.6%; 90 proof" Which is it??? Literally one minute on Google reveals evaporation was listed on the label as 43.6%, and it is 45% abv.

Amusing yet scary indeed.

I dont mean to defend him but in coming from a wine point of view, many wines out there use grapes not grown at that particular winery. When they do and are proud of the results, they will almost always point out that it is a single vineyard wine. I know comparing sourced grapes to sourced whiskey is not apples to apples but it is also not apples to oranges.

[White Dog]

I dont mean to defend him but in coming from a wine point of view, many wines out there use grapes not grown at that particular winery. When they do and are proud of the results, they will almost always point out that it is a single vineyard wine. I know comparing sourced grapes to sourced whiskey is not apples to apples but it is also not apples to oranges.

I would say that it is apples to oranges. Grapes are not wine. You have to actually make the wine once you get the grapes. BT and WT don't grow their own corn, do they? They source their grain, but they have to actually distill the stuff, just as a winemaker has to make wine from the grapes they source.

(I'm not knocking Perkins, as he's upfront about his blends, but that's what he's doing: Blending finished whiskey.)

[miller542]

The point I was trying to make when I said "zero mention of the actual source of the product in the bottle" is the distiller. The list is overwhelmingly Buffalo Trace.

Another thing I noticed that scotch&icecream noted, if the article states "I highly encourage those who don't know how good a sip of bourbon, no ice, can be to check some of the following out." Why create a list filled with a lot of one-off products that aren't even offered anymore or items so limited they "seem to fly off retailers' shelves as quickly as they appear."? I can only get 4 items on the list, and even that is only because I can walk to the High West distillery. And the flavor profile of the items on the list is hardly a great introduction to bourbon, esp to someone who would normally drink wine. Why not start with Buffalo Trace and then move up to Eagle Rare SB/Blantons? Why not start with Makers or Bulleit and then move up to Makers 46 or Bulleit 10yr?

Edited May 8, 2013 by miller542

[LostBottle]

Before we crown Mr. Parker God of all things poured into a tulip glass .. peruse an amusing and, IMO, accurate response to his stumbling entry into bourbon: http://www.scotchandicecream.com/

What am I drinking tonight? A dram of Rollins and I'll give it a 99!

Edited May 8, 2013 by LostBottle

[RT Fan]

The fact remains that Robert Parker is the single most influential wine critic in the world today. His reviews move both prices & product. He has a slavish cult of minions who storm out to purchase cases of wine based on his reviews. The really scary thing is that bourbon is cheap by comparison to high end wines, unknown Napa Valley Cabs with no track record to speak of debut at $100 a bottle. Whereas, with the exception of certain limited production bourbons, the vast majority of high quality bourbon trades between $25 & $75 per bottle. If wine geeks start to realize the value represented in these bottles and acquire a taste for bourbon, well it will be Katy bar the door because the prices we know will be long gone. That's the aspect that worries me, I saw it happen to the Single Malt market & it is under way in the bourbon market as well.

I happen to like Mr. Parker's wine reviews, but usually limit my purchases to the under $15 per bottle realm. In this area Spain has been crushing it of late & 2 of his recent finds, Breca (94 pts /$14) & Besllum (93 pts & $13) are home runs & for that I have to give him his credit due. Most of the wines he reviews are way out of my price points.

[Josh]

Robert Parker on an average day has more of an impact on booze economics than the impact of every blog post ever written, taken from every single blogger since the invention of the internet, added together, and multiplied by 1,000.

Yes and we all know how worthless all those ego-driven bloggers are. The only blogs worth reading are the ones run by retailers.

[Josh]

That was a great article. I think Tim has one of the best booze blogs out there.

I completely agree, that's one of my favorites. To get back on topic, those notes are a complete joke and it's a testament to Parker's ego and how much everybody in the booze industry kisses his ass that those pathetic notes even got published.