Amusing, yet scary...

[smknjoe]

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.

I'm suspicious as to whether or not he even tried some of them, if any. Maybe he had an "associate" throw that "information" together for him and he ran with it. Several pointed out the Rollin's Creek, but what about the wax topped Parker's Heritage? How could he have made these mistakes with the bottle right in front of him? This guy has no credibility with me. And yes, I too enjoyed Tim's take on the whole thing.

[squire]

I'm suspicious of any review that emphasizes the bottle design.

[White Dog]

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

Well played, sir.

[WhiskyRI]

For me the line that shows Parker's lack of knowledge on Whiskey is this one "...to be sipped, savored and like all the top bourbons, never diluted or served on ice." I might be able to agree with the blanket advice about ice but never diluted? Really? So someone should drink 140.0 proof whiskey without adding even the smallest drops of water to open it up? That advice on bourbon is about as sound as this advice on wine - uncork a Petrus and swig it straight from the bottle. As with most things this too shall pass. I'll chalk it up to an off-day by someone who probably had a staff member or a colleague put together a tasting of bourbons. Parker is to wine sales as Oprah was to book sale, and if he really sets his sights on regularly reviewing Bourbons and other whiskies than be prepared for the continued price hikes and shortages of your favorites, whatever they are.

[squire]

If he wants to push these sourced whisky brands fine with me, I don't buy 'em anyway.

[LostBottle]

Well played, sir.

+1

padpadpadpadpadpad

[weller_tex]

I am not too worried as the only thing on his list that I buy on his list on a regular basis is MM 46. I got out of the BTAC/PVW chase and I guess the Four Roses Limited Edition will involve a chase from now on, so scratch that also. As long as I can VOB/OGD/Weller 12 or Larceny and MM for a reasonable price I will be happy.

I hate wine, but most wine-only drinkers I know can't handle bourbon..so is this really a big worry??

[Josh]

Well played, sir.

+1

padpadpadpadpadpad

Thank you sirs. I was going to say something in the comments section of the K & L blog, but it doesn't exist.

[squire]

My wine drinking friends only have a casual interest in distilled spirits no matter what Parker or anyone else says.

[ILLfarmboy]

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.

So are you saying he should have an "encyclopedic" knowledge of bourbon before offering his opinion.

That doesn't sound like you.

[squire]

He should know enough not to make basic mistakes if he is offering an expert opinion.

[weller_tex]

My wine drinking friends only have a casual interest in distilled spirits no matter what Parker or anyone else says.

My observations as well..

[weller_tex]

He should know enough not to make basic mistakes if he is offering an expert opinion.

I guess this guy is in a celebrity in the world of wine so he thinks this makes him a f(*%$ expert on everything..just like the celebrities in Hollywood.

[qman22]

I'm suspicious of any review that emphasizes the bottle design.

I agree completely. Maybe his panning of the 2012 FRSmBLE bottle design will keep some Parker sheeple away

[VAGentleman]

I really don't understand all the harshness and hand wringing over this. I read the article and he never said he was an expert at bourbon. He was interested in it, gave it a try, liked it and wanted to share some thoughts. He admitted his reviews were off the cuff. Reading through them, they were actually pretty decent on their descriptions. Yes he mentioned the bottles and made some typos etc but he actually reviewed the taste. He did way better than most of my reviews and a lot of others I've seen on here. If his notes entice others to try bourbon why is that a bad thing? I may not agree with the scores he gave some of the bourbons but then again I don't agree witha lot of the reviews I see on here. As people note YMMV.

[Alden]

I guess this guy is in a celebrity in the world of wine so he thinks this makes him a f(*%$ expert on everything..just like the celebrities in Hollywood.

He is a HUGE celebrity in the wine world. It would behoove some of you to read more about him. Parker is no dummy.

[LostBottle]

This piece by Sku is hilarious. Between this and Tim's take on the issue, I'm inclined to think the LAWS guys are taking comedy writing lessons between whiskey tastings. Edited May 9, 2013 by LostBottle

[miller542]

This piece by Sku is hilarious.

This just made my day. Hilarious.

[LiveFromLou]

I really don't understand all the harshness and hand wringing over this.

Right, I read this article as having been written by someone who admits to being a bourbon outsider giving their opinion on their first experiences with bourbon. He never claims to be a bourbon expert, so we should cut him some slack. I also think he's used to having an editorial staff fix his typos and do some research for him. I imagine he did this himself at home without said staff. Granted, on my blog, I proofread 3 times before hitting publish, but not everyone is a grammar nazi like me.

[Alden]

That is pretty funny!

[berto]

The responses from the bourbonsphere are great.

It will be interesting to see if there's an influx of wine speculators trying to grab sought after bourbon for their portfolios. I'm sure they'll bug the hell out of shops that carry wine and spirits but will they make the effort at shops with no wine? I've found obtaining the hard to get is more building a relationship or luck than anything else. If someone wants to pay 3x retail they're welcome to whatever they can get from the d-bag profiteering on it. I guess I don't see myself competing for bottles with those willing to overspend as they're buying stuff I won't. I'm not thrilled that the wine speculator coming to bourbon might drive prices even higher but bourbon speculators have already done it. I welcome wine folks interested in giving bourbon a try. The more the merrier. Just don't be a d-bag.

[tanstaafl2]

I really don't understand all the harshness and hand wringing over this. I read the article and he never said he was an expert at bourbon. He was interested in it, gave it a try, liked it and wanted to share some thoughts. He admitted his reviews were off the cuff. Reading through them, they were actually pretty decent on their descriptions. Yes he mentioned the bottles and made some typos etc but he actually reviewed the taste. He did way better than most of my reviews and a lot of others I've seen on here. If his notes entice others to try bourbon why is that a bad thing? I may not agree with the scores he gave some of the bourbons but then again I don't agree witha lot of the reviews I see on here. As people note YMMV.

Right, I read this article as having been written by someone who admits to being a bourbon outsider giving their opinion on their first experiences with bourbon. He never claims to be a bourbon expert, so we should cut him some slack. I also think he's used to having an editorial staff fix his typos and do some research for him. I imagine he did this himself at home without said staff. Granted, on my blog, I proofread 3 times before hitting publish, but not everyone is a grammar nazi like me.

If he is a bourbon outsider then he should have shared it with his friends. As to harshness when he chose to publish it in his PAID subscription service, knowing full well what his level of influence is and that he would be perceived as providing expert commentary no matter how he chose to preface it (after all several people have noted he is not a fool, his bourbon post not with standing, and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then he should expect the scorn and ridicule being leveled at him when he shows he is out of his element (which he probably doesn't think is the case anyway). I pay little attention to either Parker or wine normally but I would not be at all surprised if he has hurled the occasional bit of ridicule and scorn upon someone he feels is not at his level in the wine industry that dares to try to speak about wine or contradicts him on that subject.

As to hand wringing, for me at least that is more the amusing part. it is tongue in cheek hand wringing at most. I can't change the direction the whiskey biz is currently headed and the impact this has is likely to be relatively minimal on me in the grand scheme of things anyway. At this point I don't really want more people to have to compete with for these scarce but desirable resources but it is certainly possible that this kind of thing will only add to the problem. It certainly isn't going to alleviate it! But there isn't much of anything I can do about it. I will just keep my head down and keep trying to make friends in useful places.

[Sasquatch]

If he is a bourbon outsider then he should have shared it with his friends. As to harshness when he chose to publish it in his PAID subscription service, knowing full well what his level of influence is and that he would be perceived as providing expert commentary no matter how he chose to preface it (after all several people have noted he is not a fool, his bourbon post not with standing, and I have no reason to believe otherwise) then he should expect the scorn and ridicule being leveled at him when he shows he is out of his element (which he probably doesn't think is the case anyway). I pay little attention to either Parker or wine normally but I would not be at all surprised if he has hurled the occasional bit of ridicule and scorn upon someone he feels is not at his level in the wine industry that dares to try to speak about wine or contradicts him on that subject.

I agree with you. It seems that the more popular bourbon and American whiskey gets, the more people have to weigh in with their opinion from guys like Parker all the way down to novices who it seems just discovered bourbon last fall. I'd say probably once a week I see a new website, blog, or YouTube review focusing on whiskey, most of them pretty bad. I do see potential sometimes, but maybe some folks are a little too eager to get in the game and could spend more time reading instead of writing.

[weller_tex]

He is a HUGE celebrity in the wine world. It would behoove some of you to read more about him. Parker is no dummy.

Writing what he wrote with zero research..I contend he is a dummy in many ways..and a lot of what he wrote doesn't even make sense. Unless he did it with a purpose, which is always a possibility. I suspect he is arrogant enough to think that he didn't need no stinking research. The U.S. is full of people like that, people who are successful and well known in one field (e.g.acting) and somehow think this makes them smarter than everyone on everything. You all see that with a lot of PhDs..they somehow think that the sheepskin in their field makes them an expert in everyone other field as well.

[Alden]

Writing what he wrote with zero research..I contend he is a dummy in many ways..and a lot of what he wrote doesn't even make sense. Unless he did it with a purpose, which is always a possibility. I suspect he is arrogant enough to think that he didn't need no stinking research. The U.S. is full of people like that, people who are successful and well known in one field (e.g.acting) and somehow think this makes them smarter than everyone on everything. You all see that with a lot of PhDs..they somehow think that the sheepskin in their field makes them an expert in everyone other field as well.

Oh I agree, he's as arrogant as they come, and just arrogant enough to do something like this, fully knowing that the wine afficianados who likewise know next to nothing about bourbons will follow him where ever he goes.