For one, it has not just begun to conduct reviews of wine tasting, (I like to call them over that way, that using the term critical) through this blog, talking about Robert Parker is somewhat complicated. And that looming analytical complexity common sense has always made me believe in the need scores when I try to avoid giving my opinion on the wines that union. I submit a stubborn and habitual way to reduce the expression, the potential and the sensitivity of any wine to a cold figure, I think children and sometimes very unfair to all the people who work tirelessly behind the formation of a wine. Newly decorated in our Spain and as recently in the light output of its new ratings, the uproar that caused the list include Parker in the world of wine at the international level is only comparable to a plague of phylloxera in the strains of any land with appeal of origin. It is said that in Bordeaux wait for the guru say what you think of the wines through their personal scores, before checking the prices of their vintages. Parker Legends of hundreds, including the dogs of Cheval Blanc, who had harassed him and bit encouraged by Jacques Hebrard, director of the house when the lawyer and wine critic decided that the 1981 harvest at the Chateau was the least of unimportant. Parker is the most influential person in the wine business segment, which holds that many know and despise, maybe, especially those that are not valued by the critic to the extent expected. Parker
list exceeds in many parts of the world's major channels should be rational. The market is free, and that freedom lives, good lives, the American lawyer. Far from it, seek a place a number of commentators, more obsessed with conveying our views, which make influence, consumer prices or paths through which customers walk wineries. I, unfortunately for me, did not win a single euro to the opinions released into the air, keep a few independent channels that make me freer than Parker. I understand the figure of Parker as necessary, in many cases satisfactory, but I think their influence is somewhat excessive. I do not understand in a rational way the opinion of a person, if their own and their partners, including Jay Miller, so definitely can make the Use of wine and its makers. Wine is a creation expressive as subjective, even within the parameters matching logic for how well or poorly done during processing, it is unfair to leave the decision criteria and selective in the hands of one person, or what is, a single market interest . It is clear that the critics must exist, the forms that are used within these reviews should always be respectful of winemakers, wineries and winemakers, and figures such as Parker, Jancis Robinson Patricio Tapia Mary are so forced as inevitable. However, by reaching the limits of the cordial Alice Fiering pretending to save the world parkerization , yes I identify with those who advocate the need of turning to the overrated list prepared every year called wine guru. I do not welcome such a monopoly, that insane feeling that Parker is the closest thing to a judge binding criteria aimed at all consumers and wineries around the world. In wine there is room for freedom of opinion, but when someone is high above the rest, able to check prices, saying that wine is to drink and what not, the health of our consumer and opinion freedom is violated by the roots.
not think it's a healthy habit that happens year after year when Parker print your list, when separated from the black white balls. Parker
list, although by day Today is almost a market need, an unquestionable guide to overcome the lack of personality and its own criteria, steps should lose the influence it brings to the international wine market. Only then will the world of wine recovered much of its real value. For the sake of wineries, winemakers, critics and consumers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment