Wine Criticism in the Post-Robert Parker Era: Here to Stay?

Wine critics have been around for ages, and their expertise has served as the guiding light in the wine industry. Robert Parker, for example, is one of the most famous wine critics credited with introducing the 100-point wine rating scale. With scores given to every bottle, consumers can make a slightly more informed decision when faced by the plethora of wine options available in the market. But Robert Parker’s latest retirement has prompted a debate between two prominent writers in the wine community around the future of wine criticism in the post-Robert Parker era.

In his NYT article, Eric Asimov makes the argument that “the best consumers can do is to learn whether their own tastes correlate with one reviewer’s more than another’s.” Asimov goes on to assert that because “wine is a much more competitive business today, with more good wines from more places in more diverse styles…the best way for consumers to negotiate this confusing but pleasure-packed landscape is with some good general knowledge and the courage to explore.” His article reflects the idea that wine reviews and ratings as they are today only serve as limitations in an industry filled with so many options, tastes, and styles. He argues that wine critics should simply arm consumers with knowledge about wine and allow them to make the decision themselves.

In response, Peter Pharos argues over Tim Atkin’s blog that the field of wine criticism is a key pillar of the wine industry, and asks “if the oak forest of wine criticism is to be burned down, what is to replace it?” Pharos directly responds to Asimov by saying that “When he [Asimov] celebrates the fact that the wine available in the US is more diverse and comes from more places than ever before, he forgets how the humble score helped level the playing field, suggesting to consumers that a South African red can rival a famed Bordeaux.” Pharos is praising the field of wine criticism and makes the point that it has helped set standards to allow vastly different wines to be compared and rated.

Although Pharos seems to be directly challenging Asimov’s core argument, the two articles have more similarities than one might think. Both articles point out that wine criticism falls short when considering the environment that a consumer will be in when drinking the wine. Both articles also recognize that the tasting-and-spitting-out process used by wine critics is rather mindless. However, the two authors still agree that wine criticism brings some value to the wine industry. They only differ when it comes to how this value is best achieved. Asimov claims that the value of wine criticism is “best achieved by helping consumers gain enough knowledge to make their own buying decisions without the crutch of the bottle review.” Pharos argues that learning how to properly critique wine is easier said than done, and the sophisticated palates and opinions of wine critics should stay relevant.

The traditional role of wine critics is changing in a post-Robert Parker era, and perhaps his 100-point wine rating scale will be a thing of the past. However, both Pharos and Asimov agree that wine critics play an important role in the industry. Whether it be by providing useful information to arm wine drinkers with the ability to make their own choices, or sticking to rating scales, the dynamic field of wine criticism is not going to fade out with Robert Parker’s retirement.