In the first installment, Parkenstein assembles his creation: “the more power I accumulated, the more I felt this feverish desire to transfer it to another being, to give power to a cipher of my own creation.” In the second, the creation is animated “the monster’s speech was made up of grunts and snorts and slurping sounds. I had succeeded beyond my wildest dreams—he already spoke like a critic.”

And in the rousing final installment, the creation wanders the earth…which only is big enough for either the creator or the creation.

Mary Shelley would be proud–if she were a wine geek. Hopefully there will be Young Parkensteen!

First, the Wine Advocate’s recent reviews of 1,061 “new releases from Napa Valley” came out. I haven’t crunched the numbers but Blake Gray did and found that new critic Antonio Galloni’s “midpoint” (not sure if this is the mean or median) was 92, up from 91 for Parker’s last set of reviews. Fully 123 of the wines received 95 or more points.

Second, an importer wrote this to me via email last month:

The dollars and points are obviously directly related but so is the timing. 90 means nothing today unless it’s under $10 really. 91 and 92 are no mans land. The difference btwn 93 and 94 at the $35 price point is also another important barrier causing significant sales swings (when it is 94). But the points are only valid for the issue in question. Once that issue disappears subsequent vintages of a wine that got a higher rating won’t cause sales.

Third, this recently appeared in retailer Daniel Posner’s daily blast from Grapes the Wine Company:

Every time I turn around, another 2007 Barolo is getting 96 points or higher. Sales sheets have been coming my way with loads of offerings and the points are nearly always the same. 96 points…96 points…97 points, and then, perish the thought, they try to sell me a 94 pointer! I mean really. Who is buying 94 point wine these days. 94 points is for chumps…losers…people that don’t really love Barolo. Because if you love Barolo, you are buying 96 points and up…

Leave the 94 pointers for the people that like Napa Cabs…

And the 90 pointers…White Zin drinkers drink 90 point wine!

SIPPED: imitation as flattery?
From the coffee threatdown files: Starbucks will extend its wine bar concept with up to seven locations in Chicago. Make it a venti vino? [SeattleTimes]

SPIT: stinky reporting
A microbial enologist laments the lack of rigor in Decanter and Wine Spectator’s recent reporting of sequencing the genome of Brettanomyces, a cause of feral, animale aromas often considered a flaw. She says that while sequencing is an accomplishment and helpful, but “by no means guarantees a solution to winery brett problems.” [wineoscope]

ANNOUNCED: sequences
Speaking of sequencing, David Schildknecht hit the airwaves to say that Parker told him almost a year ago that Miller was retiring at the end of 2011. [Jim's Loire]

GAWKERIZED: Recent personnel changes at Robert Parker’s Wine Advocate make Gawker, in typically colorful style.

David Schildknecht is a thoughtful, erudite, thorough reviewer with a tremendous knowledge of the regions he covers. The one time I met him, he held forth on not only the wines in front of us but also Austrian soil types, vineyard weather exposure, family histories of producers, classical music and butterflies. He was an importer of German wines. He currently reviews the wines of Germany, Austria, the Loire, Languedoc-Roussillon, Beaujolais, Alsace, and America’s east coast. He will add Oregon and Washington to this list.

Neal Martin, 40 and based near London, will be the publication’s critic for Spain, Argentina and Chile adding to his new-ish coverage of Sauternes, South Africa and part of New Zealand. He has mostly been an “at-large” critic without a geographical region though he has been working on a book about Pomerol. In a 2006 posting on his site after attending a Spanish tasting, Martin wrote: “I have never really got under the skin of Spanish wine. This tasting does little to alleviate my apathy.” Martin entered a eBob thread on tempranillo in 2007 and wrote “in most cases I view it as more of a work-horse grape that works better as a blend rather than a single variety.”

A couple of things to note in all this. First, Parker has not selected a regional expert for any of the new regions. While Galloni had only been to California and Burgundy twice before assuming his coverage of those areas, it’s not immediately clear if Martin, in particular, has been ever been to and tasted in the regions of his new assignment. Also, a with so much ground to cover, hopefully they manage to slow down and not feel compelled to taste at nine wineries in a day.

Further, and most importantly, neither Martin nor Schildknecht would appear to have any patience for the high-octane, woody style of red wines of all of his coverage that Miller championed and showered with points, including many 100-point scores. So the wineries that were making wines in a style explicitly to appeal to Miller may find these new critics more abstemious with the scores. Or perhaps not–maybe the path of least resistance for the new critics is simply to lavish praise on all styles? Their first reviews will tell.

Miller says he will be returning part time to Bin 604, a wine store, working on a book and may start a wine blog. He added:

Some may believe my stepping down is in response to my critics. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have felt constrained in responding while still on The Wine Advocate staff. While the office has defended my actions, justifiably, now it is time for me to speak for myself… I leave The Wine Advocate with a clear conscience. I have never accepted (or requested) fees for visiting wine regions or wineries.

Neal Martin will take over reviewing the wines of Spain, Argentina, and Chile for the publication. David Schildknecht will review the wines of Oregon and Washington.

Related: “Campogate: No pay, no Jay” [Jim's Loire]
“Regional group charges wineries fees for Wine Advocate tasting“

SIPPED: tragedy
A blogger views the events transpiring in Spain through the lens of Aristotelean tragedy. But how does it end? [koskeloonwine]

SIPPED and SPIT: Yao Ming wine
Yao Ming, former NBA player and current wine enthusiast living in Shanghai, has released a Napa cabernet that will sell for $289 a bottle in China (including duties and sales tax). Blake Gray points out that the wine is not from a specific vineyard; Cameron Hughes elaborates in the comments that he bought similar wine for $5 – $25 a gallon on the bulk market. (There are about five wine bottles to the gallon.) A higher-priced wine, Yao Family Reserve, is expected soon. [WSJ, Gray Report]

SIPPED: BYOB?
Over on Chowhound, a commenter wonders if it is okay to bring wine, specifically Armand de Brignac “Ace of Spades,” to MASA where the corkage fee is $90. Over on Facebook, Lyle Fass quips that the bling bottle merits that “They should charge your ass double!!” It’s an interesting idea to have restaurants vary corkage fees depending on whether they like a diner’s wine–how much for Chateauneuf du Pape at Masa? Or Yao Ming cab?

Nine visits per day, needless to say, would equal about 30 – 45 minutes per visit. So I asked how much time he spends at each domaine. He replied, “depends on the # of wines, key is to have everything ready in advance, put visits close together.”

If he was tasting the Bourgogne-level wines, village wines, premier crus and grand crus (if any) for reds and whites, and for two vintages, that was a lot of swirling and spitting! I asked if he had sufficient time to evaluate the wines. He replied, “Sure thing. Tasted ’10 reds, plus selection of 09s, no whites.” Galloni had been to Burgundy twice prior to taking over coverage of the region earlier this year.

I saw John Gilman was also awake and tweeting, so I asked him how long he takes per stop while in Burgundy. He said, “Depends on the size of the cellar–Drouhin or Jadot count as 2 stops–average is 1.5 hours- I like to take time to talk w/ vignerons.” Then he added, “most I did on single day on this last trip was 6–3 in morning and 3 in afternoon–started a 8h00 & finished up at 19h00–exhausted.”

An item on Bloomberg yesterday detailed how Spaniards are drinking less wine, which has prompted Spanish wineries to pursue export markets more. From this perspective, it’s partially understandable why Spanish wineries might want to pay a fee to invite Wine Advocate critic Jay Miller to their regions. They want to crack into the US market and they figure the best way to do so is to get a score from the Wine Advocate (even if one document from the regional organization referred to the scores as “Parker points”).

But that sales strategy is sooo 1990s! In my view, many American wine consumers have moved beyond scores, and an increasing number of wine shops have too. What do you think: should the wine industry move beyond scores? Are scores less relevant today to consumers in your experience than they were five or ten years ago? It seems to me that today the trade clings to scores more readily than consumers do. But one importer I spoke with recently Jose Pastor, has said no to scores.

I asked the Twitterverse for shops that do not use third-party tasting notes or scores. The unverified responses appear after the jump–hit the comments to keep the list going!

In NYC:
Astor Wines
Chambers Street Wines
Crush Wines
Le Du Wines
Frankly Wines
Slope Cellars
Dandelion Wines
Olivino Wines
Grapes Wine Co (no Miller scores)

The Wine Bottega (Boston)

East End Wines (Austin, TX)
J. Emerson’s Wine (Richmond, VA)
Vinsite Wine Shop (Asheville, NC)

Perman Wines (Chicago)
Red & White Wines (Chicago)
The Goddess & Grocer (Chicago)
The Bottle Shop (Wilmette, IL)

Du Vin Fine Wines (Alameda, CA)
Terroir (San Francicso)

Derniere Goutte (Paris, France)

Related: “Wine Ratings Might Not Pass the Sobriety Test” [NYTimes.com]

Correspondence has surfaced from a regional association to the wineries entitled “Urgent: winery participation in Jay Miller’s visit.” Jay Miller reviews Spanish wines for Robert Parker’s The Wine Advocate. The secretary of the association lays out the following fees:
* €200-300 fee for each wine sent to taste
* €500 per wine selected for a tasting “masterclass”
* €1,000 euros for a winery to receive a visit from Jay Miller

The total sum sought from wineries was €29,000 ($40,000).

I spoke with the sender of the email, the secretary of the Murcia winery association ASEVIN, to confirm its authenticity. He said that Miller is visiting the region at the end of this month. I asked how the response was from the wineries and he said it was “positive,” with about a dozen wineries participating in the “masterclass.” I asked why they were raising the funds and he said it was to cover the costs of organizing the events, including a “colloquium” where wineries present could ask Jay Miller questions. I asked if The Wine Academy of Spain and its director Pancho Campo were involved in organizing the events and he said yes.

An email to Pancho Campo seeking comment generated a reply signed “The Media Department” at the Wine Academy, saying “The Wine Academy was approached by ASEVIN for organizing a seminar but nothing has been confirmed. Our management team has been fully involved with Winefuture for the last months and most of us moved to Hong Kong weeks ago.” Winefuture is a consumer event in Hong Kong taking place this weekend that includes 55 speakers and tastings. Tickets to all events cost $2,600 per attendee.

I asked Campo for comment and to clarify his relationship with Jay Miller but there was no reply to two email requests. An events promoter for twenty years who has organized concerts and tennis events among other things, Campo has appeared at Miller’s side in helicopter tours of Priorat, the San Fermin festival in Pamplona, and elsewhere in Spain.

Jay Miller received a $15,000 speaker’s fee for speaking to a group in Navarra, which according to this account, was for the wine trade and media. In August, Robert Parker defended the actions on his bulletin board:

Jay was paid $15,000 to give a lecture and presentation by the Spanish Wine Academy(an independent entity by the way) in Navarra…where is there any conflict? He, as all of us do, are paid to give lectures. I did the same thing last November in Rioja for the Spanish Wine Academy’s Wine Future,and am doing it again this November in Hong Kong….as did many other wine personalities from Gary Vanderchuk[sic],Jancis Robinson and Steven Spurrier to name some of the best known.

After the imbroglio of 2009, Parker modified his ethics statement to read:

I expect the writers to learn about the regions they cover from first-hand observation, but I demand they have access to all wines, not just one particular sub-segment category or region. Moreover, I require full disclosure of such hospitality they receive in the articles that emanate from these trips. With respect to historic wine regions, The Wine Advocate and eRobertParker.com will continue to cover all of the independent writers’ reasonable travel expenses related to their reviews.

Jay Miller said via email that he has never (and will never) charge wineries a fee for tasting their wines. He then forwarded a document from ASEVIN that included the following passage:

The Wine Academy made it clear at all times that if Jay Miller would visit some wineries he would choose the wineries at his sole discretion. In any case, the wineries visited would have to pay for such visit. The amount discussed with the staff of The Wine Academy was to cover the cost of organizing this seminar and master tasting, such as: fees of Miller, Pancho and The Wine Academy staff that would put together the event, as well as transfers, car rental, hotel, planes and food.
The Wine Academy representatives insisted at all times that wineries should not pay for having Jay Miller visit them or for sending their wines to the tasting.

Queried again about his fee, he said, “Regarding Jumilla, I have not been involved with that but whatever we wind up doing (which could be nothing) will be totally transparent.”

Mike Steinberger tweeted that along with the high-profile layoffs announced yesterday at Slate, his wine column also fell victim the budgetary ax. While the decision may seem penny-wise for the bean counters at Washington Post (Slate’s parent), it’s pound-foolish to cut an original column with great substance; what are they going to run now, lower-cost, pageview-baiting slideshows? Ugh. It’s too bad since I have tremendous respect for the publication, both the crackling editorial and the internet-only, free model from their first day of publication.

Mike writes with tremendous verve, brio, wit, knowledge, and a nose for a good story as well as a great wine; this is a major blow for wine writing. Fortunately, his writing will continue on his blog, WineDiarist.com. Check it out, subscribe, do what it takes to keep his writing coming.

Since Mike would probably never do a roundup of his own columns, and you probably don’t have anything better to do on this rainy, August afternoon, here are a select few nuggets from his run there, 2002 – 2011.

Perhaps his most serious (and lengthy) piece was: What’s in the Bottle? An investigation into the startling fraud accusations that have upended the fine wine world.

He had a touching quest with his dad for 1996 Coche-Dury Corton-Charlemagne: An Oenophile and His Money: Is any bottle of wine worth $700?

And some more rarefied juice: “The Greatest Wine on the Planet
How the ’47 Cheval Blanc, a defective wine from an aberrant year, got so good.”

Taking on big targets: “Grape Rot: The new Wine Spectator’s distinct aroma of fishiness.”

Who will ever forget his takedown of Sauvignon blanc? “Why Sauvignon Blanc is overrated”

Style and substance: “Cold Shower–How to spit with the wine pros.”

He was early to the story of double-entry bookkeeping: “Grape Deceptions: Why most wine collectors are also compulsive liars.”

A three-part examination of the physiology of taste: “Am I a Supertaster? The physiology of the wine critic.”

How kosher wine got good: “Sure Beats Manischewitz: The revolution in kosher wine.”

Sour Grapes: Why is there no such thing as a good, low-priced California wine?

Who’s To Blame for Expensive Wine? The trouble with Robert Parker’s point system.

His first Slate column, July 17, 2002: “The Great and Powerful Shnoz–Does the emperor of wine have any clothes?”

See the complete list
Mike’s blog: WineDiarist.com

SIPPED: horreur!
Lafite actually declined eight percent since April. [Liv-Ex]

SIPPED: getting pissy
Gerard Depardieu, vineyard owner, makes air travel fun for everyone. [NYPost]

SPIT: breathalyzer
An iPhone app tells you if you’re buzzed. But you don’t breathe into; rather, it’s a sobriety test of data entry. Would Gerard have passed the test?

SPIT: beer
Wine in Thailand: It’s not just for old, rich folks anymore, apparently. [BK]

SPIT and left for dead: bad web design
A Slate columnist examines the incredible suckiness of restaurant websites. Winery web developers, take a look!

Blogging isn’t dead. Far from it, in fact. It’s easy to see the appeal since it is free, instantaneous, open to all and has a global reach. The trouble is that it takes time and doesn’t generate much (if any) money. As much as I like Twitter, the comment threads generated beneath blog posts are easier to follow than the fast-moving, often disparate responses on Twitter. Facebook has a similar comment structure to blogs but it is more functionally limited than blogging, since there aren’t a lot of long Facebook status updates. Facebook and tweets are good components to blogs, even if quick reactions to blog posts do tend to come in more via Facebook and Twitter and have eroded somewhat comments on blogs. But on the whole, it’s about a conversation and Facebook and Twitter have made people more willing to engage in the conversation. This is the way more of us talk about wine today and in the future: discussion has become much more lateral, rather than the top-down, scores-handed-down-like-manna-from-Heaven model that prevailed for at least a couple of decades.

The lack of revenues remains the biggest stumbling block for blogging. But good blogging has been shown to enhance reputations and, unlike Facebook or Twitter, the blogger can own the platform. So my advice to the woman from the audience remains: if you blog, blog for love, not money, to keep it fun and free of conflicts of interest. There’s always space for someone who has an original angle, a distinctive voice, who is willing to join the larger conversation of wine online, on Facebook and especially Twitter.

What advice would you give someone wanting to start a wine blog today?

One thing she neglected to mention is that her friend and travel partner Scott Manlin is a co-owner of the winery. Teague has featured Manlin in both her Food & Wine columns over the years and recently had a gratuitous mention of him in a WSJ column. So it is odd that in the context of her review, the Journal would not compel her to disclose their friendship and Manlin’s ownership of the winery (of course, not mentioning her friend’s wine in print at all would certainly be another option). Point of irony in this non-disclosure: the pinot in question is called “Nevertell.”

Is there a legal precedent here? I don’t know the case history. But it seems to me that unless the product poses a health risk, there would be little negligence on the part of the wine producer or the closure manufacturer. And why would producers of synthetic closures have more liability than cork producers? An off bottle is an off bottle whether it is excessively oxidized or plagued by cork taint (TCA). All this is assuming perfect storage, which is usually the top cause of a wine’s not aging well.

Parker is heading down a slippery slope if he going to start haphazardly assigning blame on wine “failures” after 10 years. At what point might the critic be liable if the optimal drinking window (e.g. “anticipated maturity: 2017-2051″) results only “failure”? Or for lavishing points on a wine made in a style that does not ultimately prove age-worthy? Interestingly, Parker seems to have inoculated himself on this score since in his recent review of the 2001s, he significantly boosted the scores of several wines made in what might be called a “Parkerized” style.

Aromas leap from the glass, redolent of a barnyard packed with cattle after a summer rain, interwoven with a hint of desiccated blackberries. The mouthfeel is about as smooth as sandpaper, the new oak accosts your palate as if you met it alone in a dark alley. The finish endures so long that as much as you try to remember your grandmother’s apple pie, you can think of nothing other than a humus saturated barnyard for hours.

While someone else might describe the wine this way:

Got so much luv 4 this wine…funky…full throttle…awsum finish…this wine rox! will blow yer mind!

According to Panos Ipeirotis of NYU, the first one might actually be more convincing. Why? Drawing on his research on crowd-sourced hotel reviews, he writes on his blog: “A well-written review tends to inspire confidence about the product, even if the review is negative. Typically, such reviews are perceived as objective and thorough.” Thus companies like Zappos that depend heavily on user reviews are paying a lot of money to automagically correct the grammar of customer comments. It does raise some ethical and copyright concerns but hopefully, just the grammar, not the content are being modified by the program (known as Mechanical Turk).

An interesting phenomenon to be sure. While I could see grammar and readability in tasting notes–either user-generated or from critics–making a difference on sales, wine writing (for better or generally for worse) has its own Mechanical Turk for smoothing out all those pesky words: the score. Just imagine if that second review above had a “98 points” after it. I’m sure that would b gr8 4 sales…LOL GTG.