Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

You can also view Joe Dressner's viewpoint here...

http://captaintumorman.com/#232

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire...

Joe is a bit off the wall, so be careful.

Dressner is so far off the wall that there's a hole in the opposite wall where he blew through it. I think he makes some very good points, though.

You can also view Joe Dressner's viewpoint here...

http://captaintumorman.com/#232

Where there is smoke, there is usually fire...

Joe is a bit off the wall, so be careful.

Dressner is so far off the wall that there's a hole in the opposite wall where he blew through it. I think he makes some very good points, though.

Ya know, you are correct....but he also misses some points that I think are very obvious.

Here you go...no stopping this train...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/robert ... ocate.html

With re the tag-line "critics hate criticism".....

1. Any person who performs an act in public is open to criticism
2. Critics perform a quite public act
3. Critics are therefore open to criticism
4. The critic who doesn't know how to "take" criticism is a fool
5. Every wine critic that I respect is both open to and capable of dealing with criticism
6. If the criticism is valid or even thought-provoking, those critics I respect learn from it

And, as an aside...

7. If a critic receives no criticism that means only that nobody is reading that critic

Best
Rogov

[David M. Bueker]

Dan,

Do you have any comments to add to your posted links, or are you just enjoying spreading your schadenfreude?

Here you go...no stopping this train...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/robert ... ocate.html

Dan,

Thanks for the link. First article I have seen outside of the trade. Interesting to see how an independent journalist viewed the situation.

Dressner is a hoot. He is too hilarious to take seriously! Somewhere in there he makes a good point.

He is a hoot. I love him.

Chef, have you and Dressner ever been seen in the same place together? I am just wondering.....

Gosh, now that you mention it...

One good thing for them - such threads must generate much greater readership than a reasoned discussion would generate, with all the popcorn eaters settling in for the weekly spat.

Hmmmm. What wine goes with popcorn?

Alex R.

David

If you have a question to ask me, I am more than happy to engage you in a conversation. Thus far, people are just reading the links I have posted and appear to be enjoying them. This is an interesting discussion. There is a lot going on here that you may not realize. You can choose to ignore it, which is your prerogative. I am in the business of selling wine and much of what I sell comes with the Wine Advocate seal of approval. If that seal is tainted, I want to know, and based upon the feedback my email list has been getting, my clientele is very interested in this issue as well.

Here you go...no stopping this train...

http://www.forbes.com/2009/04/23/robert ... ocate.html

....because this audience is not only small, it mostly comprises older, boomer-age drinkers. Their best buying and drinking years are behind them.

Man...that hurts!!!
Thanks for the link, Dan.
Tom

[David M. Bueker]

Dan,

You must be snickering a little at the public flogging that Mr. Squires is taking.

But seriously I was really hoping for a little more than posted links, and in fact, with your comment on how the stories might affect your business, you are doing just what I would hope - brining another retailer's perspective to the controversy. I don't see how bloggers are going to replace the Advocate/Spectator model for some time yet.

After thinking about this whole episode (more like a mini-series really) I believe that Mr. Parker made a mistake in expanding the size of his team and the reach of his coverage beyond what could be managed to his same set of standards. In addition to all the questions about how the coverage happens, we have also seen the floodgates open of coverage of Spain and Australia to the point of overdose, while areas like Burgundy are lagging further and further behind in time and coverage space. The whole independent contractor thing has made The Wine Advocate a much less predictbale vehicle in terms of what to expect from the coverage and when, as well as opening the door to questions about the content and how it is gathered. Heck, I find that David Schildknecht has been totally marginalized. Whether that is by his own devices, or a lack of commitment to his specialties I have no idea, but my reasons for subscribing have been dwindling with each issue.

Slightly off-topic, but having to do with the expansion of the Parker team, I personally abhor the local practice here of citing any Wine Advocate score as a "Parker" score, no matter who actually reviewed the wine in question. I see in local retailer newsletters on a regular basis. I think it does Parker himself a dis-service because I don't really feel he intended his team to be branded that way and whatever you might feel about about individual members of his team, if they wrote a review, it should be attributed to them or, failing that, to WA.

It must be a local thing. I haven't seen this type of branding in the US.

[David M. Bueker]

Chaim,

It happens all the time in the USA. WA=Parker. Heck there have been times when the Squires Bulletin Board=Parker. There are many ethical and fine retailers in the world (by the way, Dan Posner is one of them), but they are not all so conscientious.

In Brazil, too, all WA scores appear as "Parker" scores, adding irritation to irritation.

Dan,

After thinking about this whole episode (more like a mini-series really) I believe that Mr. Parker made a mistake in expanding the size of his team and the reach of his coverage beyond what could be managed to his same set of standards.

He could have managed them, right? He has elected not to. Which is why we are where we are.

Going off the subject for a second,

Dan,

After thinking about this whole episode (more like a mini-series really) I believe that Mr. Parker made a mistake in expanding the size of his team and the reach of his coverage beyond what could be managed to his same set of standards.

I'm actually quite happy that he did expand his team; I respect the palate of Schildknecht and Galloni a lot. They are actually the reason I haven't canceled my subscription to the Advocate.

[David M. Bueker]

I'm actually quite happy that he did expand his team; I respect the palate of Schildknecht and Galloni a lot. They are actually the reason I haven't canceled my subscription to the Advocate.

Me too.

I'm actually quite happy that he did expand his team; I respect the palate of Schildknecht and Galloni a lot. They are actually the reason I haven't canceled my subscription to the Advocate.

Me too.

Me three. Them, and the racy centerfold.

Mark Lipton

I'm actually quite happy that he did expand his team; I respect the palate of Schildknecht and Galloni a lot. They are actually the reason I haven't canceled my subscription to the Advocate.

Me too.

Me three. Them, and the racy centerfold.

Mark Lipton

Centerfold was Miller? Frightening!
I haven't made a decision on Galloni yet, need more exposure to his likes and dislikes. David I'm sure of his palate and trust it totally. I don't say that about many people.

It is interesting that Schildknecht, Martin and to a lesser extent Galloni both came from the outside and have proven to be assets to the Advocate. Neither Squires nor Miller have an independent journalistic background, and I find little value in their notes.

I should also add that some people have appalling Internet personas. Squires is actually a much nicer person than he comes across on his board.

Mark
Thanks for making the point about Galloni, Martin and Schildknecht, as I was thinking that myself. I can't recall seeing a harsh word from or about them on occasional browsing of e-bob, or indeed anywhere else for that matter. Tastes can differ (as indeed Martin's do to Parker), but if one is positive and professional, then there is little chance for discord.

There are a number of possible reasons for the same not being true of Squires and Miller, but I won't seek to stoke those flames.

regards

Ian

It is interesting that Schildknecht, Martin and to a lesser extent Galloni both came from the outside and have proven to be assets to the Advocate. Neither Squires nor Miller have an independent journalistic background, and I find little value in their notes.

I should also add that some people have appalling Internet personas. Squires is actually a much nicer person than he comes across on his board.

Yes, actually most of the criticism (as far as ratings, not the recent ethical issues) seems to be towards Miller. Squires just doesn't cover a lot of areas my friends are interested in/knowledgeable about (I'd be interested in some better Israeli, Portugese and Greek wines, but just don't see many). Parker has known Miller for many years, and apparently trusts him, but for most people he came out of nowhere. Add in a penchant for wines many see as overblown, and a manner that seems (excessively) authorative, and people say "WTF?". One needs to build authority in criticism, it cannot be bestowed.

Parker tried to deflect the conversation to other publications. In one comment, he tried to place WA as on a higher plane, saying "also all of my writers write for other publications,which I believe have no rules of engagement.." Yet as far as I know, only Schildknecht writes a fair amount for other publications. I think maybe Martin and Galloni might have done an article or two, but the only substantive thing I've seen were their respective newsletters that were absorbed into WA. I've never seen or heard of another publication hiring Miller or Squires for an article.

I, too, am actually a much nicer person than my internet persona. I swear.

[David M. Bueker]

I, too, am actually a much nicer person than my internet persona. I swear.

Not me! I'm a "sanctimonious bore" or so I've been told.

I can vouch that Dale is even nicer in person than his already nice on-line personna.

Squires is more fun to be around in person as well, though he is still always right.