subscribe: Posts | Comments      Facebook      Email Steve

There are some kinds of blogs we just don’t need



Parker published a column on his website the other day that has raised some people’s hackles.

(“Hackles” are the hairs on the back of a dog’s neck. They rise up when the dog is angry. Since Gus has never been angry, I’ve never seen any on him. Well, he got angry once when a poodle mounted him, but it all happened so fast I didn’t have time for a hackle check.)

I don’t subscribe to, and I tried to find the article for free on the Internet, but no deal. (Good firewall, Bob!) So all I know about it is what this opinion piece, from Wine-Searcher, said, and also this opinion piece, from the San Francisco-based blog, Vinography.

I’m here to defend RMP for this reason: Some bloggers have made a living (so to speak) promoting themselves by insulting well-known wine critics. By thus associating their names with famous people like Parker, they get mentally connected with them in people’s minds, and that’s the whole point. It’s free, cheap publicity. It’s also the mark of a small person who can’t figure out a way to achieve something on his own. Instead, he goes after the Big Dogs, hoping to attract attention and controversy that way.

We see this sort of thing a lot in politics, but it’s pitiful to see it in the wine world.

Parker happens to be right about “natural” wines. There’s always going to be a sub-section of the wine community looking for the next cool thing: biodynamique, low alcohol, LEED-certified buildings, natural yeast, minimal intervention, and so on. Nothing wrong with any of that, but to focus on any of them exclusively–to obsess with them–is a mistake. All that Parker is saying (from my read) is that wine doesn’t have to be this, that or the other, in order to be good. So the ideologues (I think the low alcohol crowd has become the Taliban of wine) are not only missing the boat, but misleading consumers.

And is Parker wrong when he says that many wine websites “offer little in the way of content or substance”? No! It’s absolutely true. I’ve been saying it for a long time. I visit a lot of winery websites and believe me, some of them look like they haven’t been dusted for years. As for “Euro-elitists,” can you doubt that there’s an anti-California crowd out there? You know it, I know it, everybody knows it. These are people who bash California every chance they get. And then they bash Parker for giving high scores to California wines. Look, if you don’t like California wine, man up and admit that they’re not to your liking, and don’t bash Parker just because he does like California wine, and he’s more famous than you’ll ever be.

When did wine writing get so personal, so ad hominem? It’s so counter to the gentlemanly (and gentle-womanly) way it’s always been. It came with the rise of the bloggers. Parker calls them “blobbers” and why shouldn’t he? They’re biting his ankles all the time. He’s an easy target and whenever a little blobber attacks Parker, their blog’s readership numbers rise, as they get republished, aggregated, retweeted and all the rest. Is Parker supposed to turn the other cheek all the time? He’s only human. After a while, the constant niggling must get to him. It would get to anyone.

The plain and simple fact of the matter is that success comes from real achievement. You might get 15 minutes of fame by being an angry mudslinger and going after famous writers in a snarky, nasty way. But in 16 minutes, you’re a nobody again. Not a good longterm strategy for making it as a wine writer. My advice to winemakers, winery P.R. folks and others interested in promoting wineries and wines is to stick with writers and bloggers who are professional, fair and polite, and to avoid those whose real agenda is self-promotion.

  1. Well, after reading both those opinion pieces, I don’t see why RP should be defended in any way! So he was fed up with the poodles nipping at his ankles, and he just lashed out and let rip a huge rant? Maybe, maybe not, who knows? It’s still no justification for attacking those minorities he targeted (natural wine, European wine, low-alcohol wine). What happened to tolerance, diversity and respect? And is it not patently obvious that the few loud-mouth, sound-byte generating, attention-seeking losers do not represent the majority of those natural and/or European and/or low-alcohol and/or whatever winedrinkers, distributors and producers, who are just quietly getting on with it? If he was annoyed at the yapping of the little blobbers, he could have just said so, and everyone would have agreed with him, and even sympathized with him.

  2. Bill Haydon says:

    [[ All that Parker is saying (from my read) is that wine doesn’t have to be this, that or the other, in order to be good. ]]

    Since when has Parker ever said that? His whole career (schtick) has been based on the complete opposite. The core of his essence has been defined by, “if a wine does not conform to my narrow view of what it should be then not only is it bad wine and flawed wine but the vintner is ripping you off and there is only one supertasting hero on the planet that can save you from such a horrible fate…….that’ll be a $55 subscription, please”

    As somebody who admittedly can’t stand 90% of what he tastes from California, I’ll agree with you that at its fringes the anti-California backlash has become polemical and pedantic. Any reactionary movement is bound to have its radical and uncompromising offshoots. That’s not to say that the vast majority and underlying themes of that movement are not without justification and merit. FWIW, I recently tasted a Ruche di Castagnole at 14.5% and rare Mendoza Malbec from 85 year old vines at over 15% and found both wines to be both balanced and highly expressive of their terroir.

    As for Parker’s latest screed (and I have read the whole thing), this was just the latest temper tantrum from a notoriously thin-skinned bully who’s never been able to take even the slightest criticisms, much less any questioning of his palate and tasting methodology, with anything approaching a sense of maturity or grace. It’s also one in a serious of last gasps of a man who (maybe only subconsciously) might be starting to grasp the level of irrelevance that he’s sunk to these last few years. I’ll give the fat man one thing though, he’s not going gently into that good night.

  3. Fabio – I’m just saying to cut the guy some slack. He’s been slammed, insulted, vilified, denounced and trashed by people out of sheer jealousy (in my view). Perhaps you could say, it goes with being at the top–and it does. But even Parker has to be allowed a moment to lash back at his tormentors.

  4. Good story, Steve. I have to admit that there was a period – between being independent and taking on investors – that had all PR people scrambling and wondering what we all were to do. Bob took care of it, by keeping his hand in many wine regions… Not depending on training any other writers. He took the time to train, and that became a train wreck. There are more of us that respect Robert Parker, than those out to build their own careers…

  5. “It’s free, cheap publicity. It’s also the mark of a small person who can’t figure out a way to achieve something on his own. Instead, he goes after the Big Dogs, hoping to attract attention and controversy that way.”

    Excuse me? Come on, Steve! I believe Mister Parker was the one, you know, started this. He first attacked, ad hominem if we must use Latin, those of us who go about our business writing on and recommending different wines in a different way than he does. Most of us were just minding our own business, writing about “obscure” wines, until Mister Parker belched.

    Might I also add that he didn’t have the balls to publish this rant — essentially the literary equivalent of an old man shaking his fists at younger punks — in a forum where anyone might respond. Rather, he chose to hide behind his imperial paywall. So we all wrote pieces on our own sites, like this one: (That’s what you’re refering to as “manning up” I believe, Steve. And I’m pretty certain I’ll still be around in 16 minutes, but thanks for your concern.)

    Mister Parker is at an age and a stage of his career where he could easily take a different approach, to mentor and foster the next generation of wine writers. To be, as you suggest, a gentleman. The graying elder statesman.

    But instead, he chooses to see all of us as some kind of threat or movement, and lashes out at…what? At people who like blaufrankisch?! That’s more than just borderline crazy. That’s someone who sees that his authority can no longer bogart the wine discussion, and he’s simply angry about that fact.

  6. Nice to see that Bob is open minded about a wide range of wine varietals and styles, although I have to admit I stopped reading his and Laube’s musings long ago. As a tour provider in Napa I can say that times have changed. Twenty years ago I knew that what ever was given 90 plus points by WS would be the wineries that my clients would ask about, not any longer! People have their own strong feelings about what they enjoy now they do not depend on any one person to tell them what they SHOULD be enjoying. This is great news for wine making diversity!

  7. STEVE!
    Oh, that damned First Amendment.

    I saw the title of your piece on my Feed, and I was sure my name was going to come up. Well, I was hoping. As someone who has merrily lampooned everyone important in the wine biz, I’ll defend everyone’s right to spout off about Parker’s little hissy fit, satirically or not.

    Cutting the big dog some slack is not the American way, my friend. Criticism and japery come with the territory. Parker knows that, and so do you. And so do I. Parker isn’t entitled to a free pass, even when those who mock him may be trying to use his fame as a springboard to their own.

    And by the way, whose agenda doesn’t include self-promotion?

  8. See, Ron, there you go… reading the wrong blog this morning to see your name in lights… Check out my “Faux Woe” story today, and you’ll find yourself *there.*

    If I may, Steve, only because he was looking (in the wrong place, it seems):

  9. Dear Hosemaster, yours is one blog that should never, ever go away!

  10. Steve – I completely agree 🙂 Good article!!

  11. Dear Brian Loring, thanks for weighing in.

  12. I think the statement “misleading consumers” can be applied to much of the Commercialized (commotitzed as Francesca Schuler of BevMo described) Wine Industry, not just the Ideologues.

    I do not blame Parker for the so-called Parkerization that may or may not have occurred, I blame lazy wine professionals that used parker notes and numbers as a crutch to move pallets. Wine sales teams in the 1990’s taught the consumer to value parker points, it wasn’t Parker who did that.

    I value balance in wine and commentary… it takes a lot of filtering to find though. Just ask any Burgundy lover and anyone on Twitter. The internet is full of great & valuable wine information, but it is hidden among volumes of bad, wrong & incomplete wine information. Filtering too much isn’t good in winemaking, but on Twitter and with your palate it’s pretty important.

  13. Steve, good call. For some of us, who (now 40) got into wine in the early nineties, there was a glossy mag with lots of ads, a local wineshop with lots of excess inventory (plonk) and a former attorney who championed good viticultural practices, well-run wineries, lambasted others who didn’t see quality as something to focus on, and gave people like me an objective opinion. You had those 3 options to make buying decisions (and as college student, disposable income was 0.) Me, I fell in love with the guy. He was passionate, he was dedicated. Awesome.

    Now, a lot has transpired in that time for Bob (the Spain deal, Jay Miller, sale to Singapore etc) and in the wine world in general, but I’m with you: the dude has a point! Any and everyone has come out looking for a new niche, which is fine, but in doing so, takes a shot at Bob, either maligning his palate, or his “misconceptions” of the market. I won’t argue that maybe he doesn’t deserve *some* of it, but hopefully others wouldn’t argue that he has a done a lot for wine, everywhere, full stop.

    I have never been a subscriber to WA, but I do have his books, and love ’em. I know his palate and preferences, and I read his notes for what I know are his descriptor “tells” for certain wines, and buy, or don’t buy accordingly. The last few years I have gotten the feeling that what people accuse Bob of, are actually guilty of themselves. They say he has a limited palate, only likes certain styles, wines of a certain power or character, and all that. His palate is far wider and deeper than that. Likewise, I think their’s in narrower, only to a different style than his, and therein lies the issue.


  14. STEVE!
    Thank you. That’s very kind. Lots of folks would disagree, but, hell, we live in a free country. That’s our story, and we’re sticking to it.

    And Jo Diaz, I don’t know, saying you have a little HoseMaster in you sounds a bit scary. Be careful what you wish for.

    When you’re somebody, be it President of the United States, or Robert Parker, or Steve Heimoff, you have to expect people to throw crap at you. It’s simpleminded to think that it was any different in the good ol’ days. There just wasn’t the Intergnats. Folks in the biz still badmouthed Parker, and the Wine Spectator, and, before that, Robert Lawrence Balzer. Only they spoke to the other eight people in the room, not the other nine people on their website. It’s not more powerful because it’s on some moron’s website, only more accessible.

  15. “It’s not more powerful because it’s on some moron’s website, only more accessible”. It is also not more right just because the current geek mood declares it so.

    Parker was attacked here and over on Vinography for what he likes (more say by the comments than by Alder) but attacked nonetheless. It may be totally expected within the run of play, but let’s call a shovel a shovel, picking on Parker has become a blogging art form.

    He is not always right and neither is anyone else. The thin wine crowd, the crowd that decries “big flavor” and wants their Chardonnay to taste like Chablis and their hamburgers to taste like ground up mystery meat are the ones who have mostly dominated the comments here and on Vinography. The rest of the world just keeps on drinking their Chardonnays the way the like them. Both Parker and Steve have stuck up for those folks as much as for Parker.

    And, by the way, how many times more will we repeat this charade?

  16. Dear Charlie, I don’t know “how many times more”? But I would hope you can agree that we need to return to an era of respect for established wine writers, such as the one you and I came up in. These attacks are most unseemly.

  17. What a fantastic diatribe!

    So glad to have met Steve and found his blog!

  18. Bob Henry says:


    Excerpt from The Wall Street Journal “Op-Ed” Section
    (April 21, 2006, Page A1f4):

    “When Blogs Rule, We Will All Talk Like —-”


    By Daniel Henninger
    “Wonder Land” Columnist

    . . .

    Technorati, a site that keeps numbers on the blogosphere, reports that as of this month the number of Web logs the site tracks is 35.3 million, and doubling every six months. Technorati claims each day brings 75,000 new blogs. . . .

    But in a “Blogs Trend Survey” released last September, America Online reported that . . . 50% of bloggers consider what they are doing to be therapy. . . .

    Not surprisingly, a new vocabulary has emerged from clinical psychology to describe generalized patterns of behavior on the virtual continent. As described by psychologist John Suler, there’s dissociative anonymity (You don’t know me); solipsistic introjection (It’s all in my head); and dissociative imagination (It’s just a game). This is all known as digital identity, and it sounds perfectly plausible to me.

    . . . But there is one more personality trait common to the blogosphere . . . It’s called disinhibition. . . .

    In our time, it has generally been thought bad and unhealthy to “repress” inhibitions. Spend a few days inside the new world of personal blogs, however, and one might want to revisit the repression issue.

    The human species has spent several hundred thousand years sorting through which emotions and marginal neuroses to keep under control and which to release. Now, with a keyboard, people overnight are “free” to unburden and unhinge themselves continuously and exponentially. . . .


    Excerpts from Fortune “Techland” Section
    (November 12, 2007, Page 46):

    “OMG !!! The End of Online Stupidity?;
    A software team is building a filter that blocks unintelligible comments”


    By Josh Quittner

    Internet veterans have long complained about the steady erosion of civility — and worse, intelligence — in online discourse. . . .

    But there’s still hope for intelligent life on the Internet. A team of software developers is hard at work on a “stupid filter” that promises to do to idiotic online comments what a spam filter does to junk and unwanted e-mail: put it in a place where it can’t hurt anyone anymore.

    . . .

    How does it work? [ SEE ARTICLE FOR EXPLANATION ]

  19. Steve has a great wine blog. Maybe the best one out there. Certainly the one I enjoy reading the most. I sure enjoyed reading this post and the two blogs referenced in it, but it’s hard for me, even having read all the comments, to figure out exactly what everyone is fussing about. Ron Washam has it nailed really. Hardly anyone actually pays attention to the real zealots of these fringe wine movements whether they are on the internet or not. However, Parker is a big dog in the wine industry. It comes with the territory that what he says is widely read and subject to a lot of scrutiny. Judging by the excerpted quotes, his own diatribe was comprised primarily of setting up a bunch of strawmen which he then attacked with a lot of intemperate hyperbole. I though both of the pieces criticizing it were balanced and well-reasoned.

  20. Dear Mike, thanks for your thoughtful comment.

  21. Bruce Gutlove says:

    I fail to see how Mr. Parker’s piece rises above the fray.
    It is more of the same Us-Vs.-Them-ing that has dominated wine discourse in the United States.
    There is no doubt that he has been targeted by some with incessant and at times unreasonable criticisms. But a response in kind does nothing to further the debate.

    On his board some of his more vocal supporters have already walked back many of his comments. So we are now to believe that “godforsaken grapes that, in hundreds and hundreds of years of viticulture, wine consumption, etc., have never gotten traction because they are rarely of interest” can also produce profound wines. If this is the case, then why bad-mouth these cultivars in the first place, raising the hackles of the many, many moderate, enthusiastic supporters and producers of wines made from Trousseau, Blaufrankisch, Savagnin, and the like?

    Are we incapable of discussing any of these trends–low alcohol, “natural” wine, etc–without rancor, without the use of incendiary rhetoric?
    And while I’m at it…. what’s so funny about peace, love, and understanding?

  22. Can anyone logically explain how Parker’s essay/diatribe is different than, say, Car & Driver’s editor writing an introductory piece on why non-gas-fueled cars are all inferior and worthless to consumers? I’ll save you the work; you can’t. Not only is Parker’s essay replete with illogical holes, so are the comments of those defending it.

    That guy is at the top of the wine criticism heap, and he just took an ungentlemanly dump on several fringe aspects of the wine business. If anyone here cannot, given a few minutes of deliberation, think of several dozen better ways Parker could have started his points in that piece, then you’re not trying hard enough, or you’re drunk.

    Having said that, this is certainly all insider baseball, about which I suppose even most wine insiders don’t care, except for the unfortunate side effect that we’ll have to put up with more public fights between Parker and the fringe movements in the near future, which will make all of us, involved or not, look even miss like douchebags to the average consumer.

  23. Mike sez: “…his own diatribe was comprised primarily of setting up a bunch of strawmen which he then attacked with a lot of intemperate hyperbole.”
    Yup, Mike…that pretty much sums it all up.

  24. Steve,

    You write, “Some bloggers have made a living (so to speak) promoting themselves by insulting well-known wine critics.”

    Can you name one blog (or blogger) that fits this description? I’m at a loss. The prominent “bloggers” to respond to the Parker screed were Alder Yarrow, who is one of the wine world’s finest writers (Purple Pages, and Jason Wilson, who has written books, been published in tons of newspapers, etc.

  25. Bob Henry says:


    As these articles will attest, I don’t know of ANY wine blogger who truly “makes a living” from his or her writing.

    ~~ Bob


    Excerpt from the Los Angeles Times Online
    (March 20, 2013):

    “Wine Advocate Sues Ex-Critic Antonio Galloni for Missing Tasting Notes”


    By S. Irene Virbila
    “Daily Dish” Column

    The breakup of the Wine Advocate’s Robert B. Parker with his former lead wine critic Antonio Galloni is getting ugly. . . .

    . . . now the Wine Advocate is suing Galloni for breach of contract — and fraud. According to a story up at “the Wine Cellar Insider” by founder Jeff Leve, “the problem is that prior to the sale of The Wine Advocate, Antonio Galloni, who was being paid $300,000 and expenses per year, contracted to write about and review the wines of Sonoma, California and other regions for Robert Parker and The Wine Advocate. Galloni refused to deliver the work product once he ended his business relationship with the company. He claimed that he was unable to finish his report on time as it would not do justice to the region.” Read more of Galloni’s side of the issue at his site.

    First thought: $300,000 is an astonishingly high salary [for Galloni’s contributions to The Wine Advocate], especially since I remember seeing a tweet sent by someone at The Symposium for Professional Wine Writers at Meadowood Napa Valley in February.

    Only three of the wine writers in the room earned more than $25,000 per year from their writing.

    . . .

    — AND —

    Excerpt from the Wall Street Journal
    (March 29, 2013):

    “Five Wine Blogs I Really Click With”


    By Lettie Teague
    “ON Wine” Column

    “There are about 1,450 wine blogs today, of which about 1,000 are nonprofessional endeavors (the rest are ‘industry’ blogs), according to Allan Wright of the Zephyr Adventures tour operator, who has organized the 2013 Wine Bloggers Conference in North America for the past five years. But most bloggers haven’t been doing it very long: ‘Only 18% of [wine] bloggers today have been blogging for more than six years,’ he said.


    “Most of the bloggers were doing it just for ‘personal satisfaction,’ Mr. Wright said, since the possibility of making money was quite small. Alder Yarrow, who writes a much-talked-about blog, Vinography, told me that he earns $12,000 to $16,000 from it annually, most of which comes from banner ads. Said Mr. Yarrow, who began his blog in 2004 and has a day job: ‘Monetizing a blog is very hard if you don’t want to sell products, sell advertising to wineries and therefore look like a shill.’

    “Most bloggers are more like Alice Feiring, a traditional wine journalist and blogger who has never made ‘a cent’ from her blog, the Feiring Line, which she started in 2004. (It’s one of the few that I read on a regular basis.) But unlike most other bloggers, Ms. Feiring has a newsletter; she has 450 subscribers paying $65 a year for 10 issues. ‘The blog was a soapbox; the newsletter is a mini-magazine,’ Ms. Feiring explained.

    “A lack of profit potential isn’t necessarily the biggest blogger obstacle; time is in even shorter supply. Judging from the number of bloggers who allow weeks, months, even years to go by without posting a thought, it’s clearly hard to maintain momentum. Or inspiration. More than one blogger explained his or her absence with a post that began something like: ‘I didn’t drink anything worth writing about.’ “

  26. Dear Bob Henry: When I wrote that some bloggers “make a living” etc. I misspoke. I should have written “make it a habit” or something like that. Believe me, I’m well aware that 99.9% of bloggers do not make a living from their blogs! So please forgive me for using that phrase.

  27. At first I read this as a parody, because I didn’t think anyone — let alone Steve — would be so lazy as to defend a piece they hadn’t bothered to read. Then I read the comments, and it appears that, yes, Steve was defending a piece he has not read. So, well, wow. For starters.

    Then, in classic form for this blog, Steve gets a legitimate question from a legitimate writer, and he ignores it. In this case, it’s David White, one of the outstanding wine writers of this generation. All David wants to know is exactly what I wanted to know: Who is Steve maligning? Does he mean Alder — he must, it seems, given the way the blog post was constructed. But if it’s Alder he’s attacking, he’s attacking one of the accomplished, well regarded blog writers with a long track record. So perhaps he’s attacking someone else? The other name that comes to mind when we think of taking Parker down a notch is Mike Steinberger. To state the obvious, Mike is a massively talented and accomplished guy.

    So either Steve is attacking those guys, and looking absurd doing it, or he’s attacking someone else, and not showing the courage to say whom, or he’s attacking a straw man, and wasting our time.

    As for Parker, enough, enough, enough. As Bill Haydon aptly notes, it is Parker who is narrow-minded and often personal in his writing. He is nasty, aggressive, and comes off as terribly insecure. Do I think his palate is awful? Well, sure. But plenty of mediocre writers have bad palates. Parker makes matters worse by pretending that he is the first and most important decider of quality. As if tasting a large volume of wines is all that’s required for authority.

    In Parker’s piece, which I did happen to read, he made some good points. I encourage Steve to read it and join the discussion about its substance. But Parker couldn’t resist veering into personal potshots and angry barbs. Why, I have no idea. If Steve had found a way to read the piece he’s defending, he’d see how silly he looks in attacking others for being nasty.

    I don’t like to read motives into behavior, but Steve, what’s happening here? Are you trying to appease those above you in an attempt to retain some form of power? I just don’t get it. If you want to defend something, read it first. That’s hardly asking a lot. And if you want readers to come back, answer their legitimate questions when they ask them. You can start with David White, a great guy with a great question, heretofore left hanging.

  28. Dear Evan Dawson. No, I am not trying to appease anyone. Who would that be, anyhow? Anyone who’s kept up with the blogosphere and social media in general for the last six years (since I’ve been blogging) knows that Parker has been slimed repeatedly. I have better things to do than to keep a database of everyone who’s written something derogatory about him. But I do have a memory. And I would hope that people who hang out in the social media world of wine also have memories. It’s been very easy to beginners to take potshots at RMP (and me, and Wilfred, and others) due (as has been pointed out) by the ease with which commentary can be published instantly on the Internet. To deny that Parker has been the target of misplaced criticism is disingenuous. As I wrote, he’s only human — perhaps he got a little carried away in his column, but I’m sure he’s aware of almost every attack against him from everywhere, whereas you might be aware of just a small number of them. So I cut him some slack. I don’t know him, never met him, but I’ll still defend his right to vent once and for all. This actually cuts to the issue of the level of vituperation in online wine commentary, which is a topic I find myself addressing with greater frequency these days. It is very damaging — it has never existed before in the wine industry — it does not exist on the production side, but only on this written side. So I have to wonder: Why? What is the source of the anger, the level of upset?

  29. Steve –

    Okay, nevermind, I guess.

  30. Steve, no one is asking for a database. You make claims without support. Some people (Evan and I included) would like to hear your evidence. Certainly, your memory includes names. What is one, or maybe two, of those names of people that have unjustly slimed Parker?

  31. We make Money : ) If you work you should make money, crazy concept huh…..

  32. Yes Steve,

    I agree with Evan and David and Kyle. I think you should tell us who are these “nobodies,” these nameless, shady “bloggers” that wrote these pieces challenging Parker last week? As David noted, it was pretty much Alder and I (and the Wine-Searcher writer) who wrote the pieces challenging his rant. Is Alder the nobody? Am I? Are we the ones who were “promoting themselves by insulting well-known wine critics”? As David noted, that would be a strange assertion. And anyway, what’s with all the weird focus on who’s a “nobody” and who’s not? It seems a little, like, high school, doesn’t it?

  33. “(I think the low alcohol crowd has become the Taliban of wine)”

    That is AWESOME.

  34. I kinda figured Robert Parker was primarily calling out Alice Feiring, she has a blog and a paid subscription newsletter. I mean, she did write a book called “The Battle for Wine and Love: Or How I Saved the World from Parkerization.”


  1. A few pertinent Articles Jan. 2014 | Noble Wines - […] More on Mr. Parker’s Rant from Steve […]
  2. Three-chord wines, hold the rants | - […] Alder Yarrow of Vinography took exception and proposed a cage match. His column: Debating Robert Parker At His Invitation. Rebecca…
  3. Three-chord wines, hold the rants « Vintage Direct - […] Alder Yarrow of Vinography took exception and proposed a cage match. His column: Debating Robert Parker At His Invitation. Rebecca…

Leave a Reply


Recent Comments

Recent Posts