Skip to main content

41 replies

Parker Accused of Fraud in New Book

R rdcollinsMember
Robert Parker's former assistant has written a just-published book that accuses him of being error prone, careless, a fraud who never tasted many of the wines he has rated, and in the pocket of the big Bordeaux producers.

Click here for an article on the book from the London Times.

What do you think?
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

N nigelgroundwaterMember
All the excerpts I have read have been long on innuendo and very short [like zero specific] on evidence. And one of the few specific allegations e.g. that RP was godfather to Alain Raynaud's [of Chateau l'Enclos] daughter, made to boost the favouritism idea, is not true.
So it seems what we have here is a book written by a disaffected ex-employee being boosted by implying that RP has slipped on his claim of independence of view and the primacy of the customer over the producer and the trade e.g. that he actually had friends who were prominent winemakers and may have liked their wines a lot.
An initial claim that RP wrote notes on wines he hadn't tasted and/or the employee wrote some for him was made in a magazine promoting the book seemed to disappear although it may remain in the book.
Lots or people mentioned by name but no evidence presented in the excerpts of inconsistencies in his ratings.
It may also be significant that RP had to let her go when allegations of fraud against her including the misuse of his name wouldn't go away despite his attempts to find a resolution.
IMO this will be damp squib and deservedly so.
D davetongbbpMember
quote:
Originally posted by elmo:
It would not surprise me if it were true.

It would surprise me. Agostini is the one with the most questions to answer.

I agree with PH that his practice of not always tasting blind is an issue. I also have to wonder how objective he really is in those non-blind situations given that he awarded 100 points to an almost certainly fake 1921 Petrus.

At the end of the day, he's just another critic, no more no less. It's his worshippers that are the problem.
redhawkredhawkMember
I think everyone on this board has tasted enough wines, and compared with Parker's notes and scores, to have a sense of whether Parker is a valid critic or not.

If you don't like his ratings, don't subscribe to his news letter or website. It's that simple. I find it hard to believe that a "fraud" would rise to the level of fame and respect that he has, given the fact that his work is tested every time someone takes a sip of a wine he has rated.

As far as I'm concerned, he has introduced me to hundreds of good wines, and only a few dogs. So, even if the allegations have some truth to them, I really don't care.
S sydthesquidMember
Whatever you may think of him, or the parkerites licking his boots, the boy knows his wine, and no one has yet to disprove his integrity or commitment to wine. You might not like what he says or how he says it, but I can't believe he is a fraud. Some grasping clerk is supposed to sway me??? Gimmee a break.

"I don't like robert parker" is no excuse to automatically believe any charge levelled against him.
D davetongbbpMember
quote:
Originally posted by mike p:
quote:
Originally posted by Chilepepper:
It would be so much more interesting if you posted this over at epantload!

It was discussed over at erobertparker.com last week.

Some discussion.

A: This is a pack of lies. Parker is god!
B: Agreed.
C: Agreed.
D: Who cares what she says? Parker is god.
E: Agreed
F: I agree with all of you

etc...
M mikep 2Member
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Tong BBP:
quote:
Originally posted by mike p:
quote:
Originally posted by Chilepepper:
It would be so much more interesting if you posted this over at epantload!

It was discussed over at erobertparker.com last week.

Some discussion.

A: This is a pack of lies. Parker is god!
B: Agreed.
C: Agreed.
D: Who cares what she says? Parker is god.
E: Agreed
F: I agree with all of you

etc...


Dave, anyone who knows me, knows I am an apologist for anyone.

but

I have read all 169 posts in this as you almost refer to as a 'I agree with god' thread. You have simply boiled down the full discussion to 6 posts, while in truth there is some interesting perspectives to be dicovered in actually reading through the thread. Surely not the in depth discusion of 'now I understand why I don't like Mollydooker' as we find here, but in all fairness, any time a book comes out one needs to examine the reasoning behind it. In this case there sure seems to be a scorned feeling from the writer. Bottom line is I really don't care who did what, but I do care about everyone getting their fair shake, even if it is someone you despise.
L lizardkingMember
quote:
Originally posted by Redhawk:
I think everyone on this board has tasted enough wines, and compared with Parker's notes and scores, to have a sense of whether Parker is a valid critic or not.

If you don't like his ratings, don't subscribe to his news letter or website. It's that simple. I find it hard to believe that a "fraud" would rise to the level of fame and respect that he has, given the fact that his work is tested every time someone takes a sip of a wine he has rated.

As far as I'm concerned, he has introduced me to hundreds of good wines, and only a few dogs. So, even if the allegations have some truth to them, I really don't care.


It's so funny to see people react in this manner. So quick to defend Parker 6 posts into a discussion!! Here's a little better advice than the crap that you give: If you can't understand that other people's opinions may differ from yours, you might want to consider not participating in online discussions.
N nigelgroundwaterMember
quote:
Originally posted by lizardking:
quote:
Originally posted by Redhawk:
I think everyone on this board has tasted enough wines, and compared with Parker's notes and scores, to have a sense of whether Parker is a valid critic or not.

If you don't like his ratings, don't subscribe to his news letter or website. It's that simple. I find it hard to believe that a "fraud" would rise to the level of fame and respect that he has, given the fact that his work is tested every time someone takes a sip of a wine he has rated.

As far as I'm concerned, he has introduced me to hundreds of good wines, and only a few dogs. So, even if the allegations have some truth to them, I really don't care.


It's so funny to see people react in this manner. So quick to defend Parker 6 posts into a discussion!! Here's a little better advice than the crap that you give: If you can't understand that other people's opinions may differ from yours, you might want to consider not participating in online discussions.


Have I missed something?

He gave his opinion but I am not sure you have provided yours - other than some advice on how people should behave.
I am sure he will take it very seriously but it might be interesting to know what your views are on the subject of the thread.
redhawkredhawkMember
quote:
Originally posted by lizardking:


It's so funny to see people react in this manner. So quick to defend Parker 6 posts into a discussion!! Here's a little better advice than the crap that you give: If you can't understand that other people's opinions may differ from yours, you might want to consider not participating in online discussions.


Wow! Pretty aggressive there little lizard! Where in my post did I say that people can't have their own opinions? I would guess, despite your last post, that even YOU might have a valid one from time to time? So I'm curious, what exactly is your opinion, in regards to the original topic?
irwinirwinMember
Opinions are opinions. If you want to say that you disagree with his evaluation of a wine in particular, or wine in general, that's fine.
But, if you say that he rates things without tasting them, or that he gives high ratings to wineries that bribe him, then you are stating more than opinion. You are stating facts, which may well not be true.
I am quite sure that Mr. Parker is fully aware of his rights to sue for defamation, and that he knows whether it would be commercially useful for him to do so. (Maybe the defendant is impecunious, or, maybe the laws of the place where the suit would be brought are unfavorable).
I would just note that disgruntled former employees are not the best source for objective information about their former employers.
(Is there a thing called a "gruntled" employee? I mean, if you can be "disgruntled" don't you start off "gruntled" before you are dissed.)
S sydthesquidMember
quote:
Originally posted by lizardking:
quote:
Originally posted by Redhawk:
I think everyone on this board has tasted enough wines, and compared with Parker's notes and scores, to have a sense of whether Parker is a valid critic or not.

If you don't like his ratings, don't subscribe to his news letter or website. It's that simple. I find it hard to believe that a "fraud" would rise to the level of fame and respect that he has, given the fact that his work is tested every time someone takes a sip of a wine he has rated.

As far as I'm concerned, he has introduced me to hundreds of good wines, and only a few dogs. So, even if the allegations have some truth to them, I really don't care.


It's so funny to see people react in this manner. So quick to defend Parker 6 posts into a discussion!! Here's a little better advice than the crap that you give: If you can't understand that other people's opinions may differ from yours, you might want to consider not participating in online discussions.



Yessiree! You can have an opinion, as long as it agrees with Lizard. Although, we don't know what that is.
M montsantMember
I read some of the discussion on eBob and given that this is a fired employee and that it would seem (again from the discussion) there is little factual allegations and mostly a lot of innuendo, I don't think its worth the paper its printed on. The one post I found most insightful was if this is the best an angry former employee has to offer, he leads a pretty clean professional life.

That said, obviously all other things considered, that he doesn't taste blind is less than optimal. I really think even a professional can do their best to be objective, but if you know what you're drinking that will effect the review. That's not to say all of the effects will be negative for consumers. I prefer blind notes and scores, but it is more difficult to be consistent if you have to taste everything from Screw Kappa Napa to Screaming Eagle with no point of reference.

For me, I have rarely disagreed materially with Parker, save that while I do like Mollydooker, I don't like these wines as much as he does. I also don't love Spanish Monastrell/Mourvedre, but (before Board-O or others here get started) these are issues of preference. On the other hand, a $10 wine with a 90 pt. WA rating, whether Parker or another critic there, is something of a red flag for me. Root:1 Cabernet comes to mind. Blech.
purplehazepurplehazeMember
quote:
Originally posted by irwin:
(Is there a thing called a "gruntled" employee? I mean, if you can be "disgruntled" don't you start off "gruntled" before you are dissed.)


Good post irwin. On the "gruntle" issue, it's actually a term I've used when asking a staffer to deal with an unhappy client. "Hey Jim, Mrs. Stevenson is in your office and she's not too happy. Could you please gruntle her?"

PH
sd-wineauxsd-wineauxMember
quote:
Originally posted by PurpleHaze:
quote:
Originally posted by irwin:
(Is there a thing called a "gruntled" employee? I mean, if you can be "disgruntled" don't you start off "gruntled" before you are dissed.)


Good post irwin. On the "gruntle" issue, it's actually a term I've used when asking a staffer to deal with an unhappy client. "Hey Jim, Mrs. Stevenson is in your office and she's not too happy. Could you please gruntle her?"

PH

The dictionary is your friend. And here you thought you were making something up. I was especially pleased to see that PH still used the word properly. Smile
O offnotesMember
The M-W definition of "gruntle" mentions that it's a "back-formation". Etymologically, that's when a word is derived from an existing one by cutting off what are assumed to be prefixes or suffixes, yielding a new word that actually didn't exist--at least not with the same meaning.

Some good examples are "Burgle" (obviously what a "burgler" does, right?) and "pea" (the original Middle English word was "pease", which was presumed to be plural, even though it really wasn't).

Sometimes the backforming is done on purpose, with humorous intent, like saying that skilled person is "ept". From what I can tell, the M-W meaning of "gruntle" is more along those lines.

It turns out there's a much older "gruntle" mentioned in the OED. It's a verb meaning "to grumble, murmur, complain". It's the diminutive (or possibly frequentive) form of "grunt". That sense goes back a good 400 years, and it's where, a generation or so later, we eventually got the words "disgruntle" and "disgruntled".

In this case, the "dis-" prefix isn't used in the sense of removing or negating the root word (as in "displease"). Depending on whom you ask, it's either being used as an intensifier (which was not uncommon back then) or as a way to change the verb to the transitive sense.

So first came "gruntle", then "disgruntle", and then "gruntle" again... only this time it means more or less the opposite of what it originally did!

- Jeff
wineismylifewineismylifeMember
quote:
Originally posted by OffNotes:
The M-W definition of "gruntle" mentions that it's a "back-formation". Etymologically, that's when a word is derived from an existing one by cutting off what are assumed to be prefixes or suffixes, yielding a new word that actually didn't exist--at least not with the same meaning.

Some good examples are "Burgle" (obviously what a "burgler" does, right?) and "pea" (the original Middle English word was "pease", which was presumed to be plural, even though it really wasn't).

Sometimes the backforming is done on purpose, with humorous intent, like saying that skilled person is "ept". From what I can tell, the M-W meaning of "gruntle" is more along those lines.

It turns out there's a much older "gruntle" mentioned in the OED. It's a verb meaning "to grumble, murmur, complain". It's the diminutive (or possibly frequentive) form of "grunt". That sense goes back a good 400 years, and it's where, a generation or so later, we eventually got the words "disgruntle" and "disgruntled".

In this case, the "dis-" prefix isn't used in the sense of removing or negating the root word (as in "displease"). Depending on whom you ask, it's either being used as an intensifier (which was not uncommon back then) or as a way to change the verb to the transitive sense.

So first came "gruntle", then "disgruntle", and then "gruntle" again... only this time it means more or less the opposite of what it originally did!

- Jeff


Impressive, most impressive.
Y yhnMember
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
It may also be significant that RP had to let her go when allegations of fraud against her including the misuse of his name wouldn't go away despite his attempts to find a resolution.


I remember when that was going on. His remaining loyal to her for so long, despite all the allegations against her, seemed a bit ethically questionable. I guess it's hard to believe someone so close can betray you like that... Anyway, I don't see how she could have been disgruntled. She's just a scammer who's moved from one scam to another.

She's probably the type that would take the giving of a good gruntling as a sign of weakness.
M machineMember
quote:
Originally posted by yhn:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
It may also be significant that RP had to let her go when allegations of fraud against her including the misuse of his name wouldn't go away despite his attempts to find a resolution.


I remember when that was going on. His remaining loyal to her for so long, despite all the allegations against her, seemed a bit ethically questionable. I guess it's hard to believe someone so close can betray you like that... Anyway, I don't see how she could have been disgruntled. She's just a scammer who's moved from one scam to another.

She's probably the type that would take the giving of a good gruntling as a sign of weakness.


Or maybe Parker wanted to prevent her from getting canned because he knew that she knew something that he did not want others to know that she knew. I may not be terribly experienced in business, but I certainly have enough experience with completely unethical and unscrupulous employers to know that just because someone ends up in a dispute with management or ends up leaving a company does not mean that the person in question did something wrong. In fact I know a handful of people labelled as 'disgruntled' ex-employees merely because they became aware of unethical or illegal actions of management, and management got rid of them because they questioned (or just because they knew about) these actions. I know nothing about this person or about Parker's ethics so can't comment at all regarding these specific incidents...but I sure don't like the idea of tasting and rating wines non-blind. Does not make sense at all, way too much room for all types of influences that should not be present.
Next

Add Reply

Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×