Wine Advocate

Some of the reviews written here are quite comical. They are indicative not only of Parker's occupation of the pinnacle of wine evaluation and his tenacious hold thereon, but of the opinions and controversies that run through the entire wine world. Pinnacles are nicely suited to lightning rods, and that's what Parker is at times. But ONE STAR?!! For Parker? And on the basis that wine criticism is subjective (DUH). Destroying terroir? Please!

Parker's credibility rests on two things: the reviews themselves and his neutrality (to the market, that is, not that he isn't believed to have some biases). He is beholden to no-one but his readers. It is very, very difficult to name with a straight face more than a few reviewers who cover so much ground. And none of them do such with such consistency. Still, anyone may legitimately take issue with any given Parker review. Tastes vary. Some may prefer other reviewers for coverage of certain wines. And so it goes. I go elsewhere for Germany, for example, not even bothering with the odd Parker Riesling review.

As for the Advocate versus the Spectator sort of comments, I'd be willing to bet that nearly 100% of Advocate subscribers also subscribe to another wine publication, most likely the Spectator in fact (at least in the US). This is a false comparison. I believe multiple evaluations help the poor enthusiast and, of course, the general interest wine magazines cover much beyond tastings and ratings.

In the end, you cannot go wrong with the Wine Advocate. Agree or disagree, you will know more by reading it than by reading any other single wine-related publication as it relates to evaluation. The cost is modest and even when you do disagree, I bet the rating still isn't far off. Parker's reviews constitute one voice in the innermost circle of critics. If you wish to be fully informed, you should subscribe to the Advocate in addition to whatever other wine publications you like.

Robert Parker has done more damage to wine than phylloxera. Parker and his henchmen have been on a crusade to destroy terroir-driven wines; The Wine Advocate is their bully pulpit. For the love of wine; boycott Parker-rated wines!

The amount and detail of information on the wine areas and the wine itself if fantastic.Gives the reader a real sense of the wine and its quality.

There is new research by Linda Bartoshuk of Yale University that scientifically proves that there are 3 levels of peoples ability to taste. What type is Robert Parker?

Google "Do Taste Buds Make The Wine Critic?" and Linda Bartoshuk.

This wine is a 92 and this one is a 87 and this one is a 89.5....lol!

I've subscribed to "The Wine Advocate", "Wine Spectator" and "Wine Enthusiast" concurrently for several years now. I enjoy the "Wine Spectator" and "Wine Enthusiast" magazines for their articles and features, but I tend to be skeptical of both publications' wine reviews due to their reliance on advertising revenues from the wine industry. In contrast, Robert Parker's "Wine Advocate", newsletter doesn't rely on ad revenue and this presumably allows him to be more candid in his ratings. I also prefer Mr. Parker's (and Pierre Rovani's) evaluation and commentary in "The Wine Advocate", over the various other wine magazine critics.

Does this mean that I enjoy every wine rated highly by "The Wine Advocate"? Of course not. In fact, my wife and I recently drank a 2000 vintage Barbaresco that Mr. Parker rated 90 points (and "ready to drink"), yet we felt the wine was still overly tannic and tight. In truth, there's no substitute for popping corks and tasting wines for yourself, regardless of what the critics pronounce. That said, I believe the Wine Advocate is consistently better at rating wines more accurately than other wine publications... Like subjective wine ratings, this is merely my opinion.