Still Battling the British?
IT
HAS BEEN AWHILE since the British and the United States have
clashed in a violent fray. Since the 18OOs, England has been
our staunchest ally. Through thick and thin we have stood
side by side, until now. The bond between our two countries
is under threat, being torn asunder over egos and . . .
fermented grape juice.
Articles and
commentary have been written on both sides of the Atlantic
with hardly a stiff upper lip over the Parkerization of the
wine world. “Over-extraction!”, “Too much alcohol!”, “Too
much oak!”, and “Fruit bombs!” are the cries of some, with
the piece de resistance this year from Mr. Hugh Johnson
calling Robert Parker, “the dictator of taste”. As if
challenged to a duel, Parker was compelled to shoot back on
the battlefield of the new york times.
Until this much
ado about nothing started late last year, the difference in
the American and British palates always amused me and was
completely understandable. Comparing a review of the same
wine by two different critics in the same country can reveal
some interesting differences in taste, but between England
and the US, the variation can be quite humorous at times. I
truly respect the knowledge, experience and palate of the
many critics involved in the wine shooting war. They have
forgotten more about wine than I have (as of yet) learned.
Still, to read a review of, let’s say, California Cabernet
by Mr. Parker or the wine spectator versus the famous
English magazine decanter, you can’t help but wonder if the
winery shipped two different wines and slapped the same
label on both of them.
Case in point: a
certain winery made the wine spectator’s top 1OO for their
Cabernet. This is no mean feat. Yet in a review by decanter,
the same wine was given one star, or a rating of “poor”. And
this is not an isolated incident. Others would cite the
infamous tete-a-tete by Jancis Robertson and Mr. Parker over
the 2OO3 vintage of St. Emilion’s Chateau Pavie. For those
not familiar with the “l’affaire Pavie”, a quick summary of
the event: Mr. Parker gave Pavie 98 points out of 1OO, while
Ms. Robertson called it an aberration of St Emilion. It was
nearly a Celebrity Death Match. Fortunately, the humor of
both individuals prevailed in this case. Lately, though,
we’ve seen less graciousness. Why is this such a big deal?
Since when has Bacchus handed over his wreath of grapes to
someone else and pronounced a new god of wine? Since when
can’t two, or even two-dozen critics have different
opinions? We’ve all come from different backgrounds, have
experienced different things and even, gasp, like different
things. Personally, I think Monet couldn’t paint in focus to
save his life.
One of the first
things I do when conducting a wine tasting is almost hammer
it into the participants that they may not smell the same
aromas as the person next to them is picking up. I also
emphasize the importance of speaking up. If you like a wine
say so, don’t let everyone else in the room influence you.
Your nose and mouth are yours; they’re connected to the
brain in which your life experience is imbedded. For
example, I was speaking to a fairly sophisticated wine
aficionado whose colleagues gave him two wines in a blind
tasting: Screaming Eagle (a $1OOO-plus per bottle cabernet)
versus Two-buck Chuck Cabernet (the name says it all). He
preferred the latter, with far less tannin. To each their
own, I said.
Why have more
than a few of the notable wine critics forgotten this simple
unalienable truth? The individuals involved in this war and
you, the reader, are blessed to be involved in a luxury good
industry. We get to drink for a living! Does it get much
better than that? So in parting words to these very
knowledge men and women, I say, with all due respect, “agree
to disagree.” And for heaven sakes, remember: it’s fermented
grape juice already.
