The Robert Parker of the whisk(e)y world.

by **Aidan** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:29 pm

I have heard various claims, but...

by **westcoastboy** » Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:32 pm

What a piece of ego-inflating nonsense !

Boycott this poll - none of them are worth it !!!!

:evil:

by **WestVanDave** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:54 am

Me thinks westcoastboy is not a fan... but he does have a right to his view.

Personally I enjoy reading the opinions of all three - and don't forget Dave Broom too. But - let's put this in perspective - we all agree that taste is subjective and there really is no "quintessential" opinion. There is, however, plenty of interest and these critics/writers/"experts" have done a great service to the industry and the enthusiasts (and fanatics) that fuel it.

Cheers, Dave.

by **Aidan** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:12 pm

Well I actually did have Dave Broom in there, but he didn't appear in the poll for some reason. Maybe there is a max of three.

That's quite a reaction westcoastboy. Good luck to you. Note that person that polls the best does not get an award or become the Robert Parker of the whisky world. It's just a bunch of mostly anon pepole voting on an Internet poll that doesn't really mean anything.

by **lexkraai** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 3:16 pm

Well, in support of westcoastboy, why have an, in your words, meaningless poll? What's the point of asking a question if you're not going to do anything with the answer?

Cheers, Lex

by **Aidan** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 4:11 pm

Ok, let's call it a meaningful poll. If you don't want to take part, by all means don't. I am interested in who people think is the most influential whisky writer. If you're not, fair enough.

God forbid if you have a conversation with someone and some of it turns out to be meaningless.

I am going to do something with the answer. I am going to hang it on the wall and throw sugar at it.

by **Lawrence** » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:42 pm

Throw caramel at it.........

by **Admiral** » Sat Mar 13, 2004 1:24 am

Your poll question uses the term "whisk(e)y", which implies all global whiskies. If we are to take this objectively, then there can only really be one answer.

In scotch circles, Michael Jackson appears to have the most influence. His Malt Whisky Companion is the bible of many scotch drinkers, his other books on scotch are similarly revered, and of course, his writings appear in periodicals, newspapers, magazines, etc. It's also worth bearing in mind that MJ is also recognised as a (the?) leading authority on beer.

However, looking globally at whisk(e)y, Jim Murray obviously looks at the big picture. Scotch is merely a chapter in his books, which also focus on Irish, American, & Canadian whiskies. (Japanese also!). And yet, he shuns writing for magazines & periodicals, and so his influence extends only to those who read his books. If your interest/preference is bourbon, than JM will be your guru, rather than MJ.

by **Lawrence** » Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:24 pm

I've never even heard of Paul Pacult...............the hell with it I'm going to go and have a dram.

by **Ash** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 12:47 am

I've never even heard of Paul Pacult

or Robert Parker for that matter.

IMHO, MJ rules. Murray's latest bible is inconsistent and sometimes factually incorrect. And I disagree with his opinions more often than any other whisky writer's. And he's a hippy. :lol:

by **Aidan** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 8:56 am

Ash wrote:
I've never even heard of Paul Pacult

or Robert Parker for that matter.

IMHO, MJ rules. Murray's latest bible is inconsistent and sometimes factually incorrect. And I disagree with his opinions more often than any other whisky writer's. And he's a hippy.

That's interesting, Ash. Of course, being factually incorrect is entirely consistent with being a hippy.

Can you tell me where JM is factually incorrect? I haven't spotted it, but I haven't given the book my full attention yet. And of course I probably don't know enough to be able to spot it if I did.

by **Iain** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 1:18 pm

If I remember right, Robert Parker was Chairman of British Rail when I was a lad (I hope I'm not being factually incorrect here!).

The trains didn't run on time then, either...

But he certainly wasn't a hippy :wink:

by **Aidan** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:42 pm

Well, this is turning out to be who everyone thinks is their favourate, rather than the most influential, but that doesn't really matter.

I don't know anything about wine, but I know that he can change the price of a wine by giving it a good or bad rating. It is claimed on the slieve of Whisky Bible that Jim Murray is the Parker of... It also seems, according to the book and a few other things I've read, that he saved Redbreast from extinction. Moreover, he seems to have led the campaign for the recognition of Ardbeg, successfully. More work than most hippies do in a lifetime.

Of course, I am taking these claims at face value etc. I also like Michael Jackson and Dave Broom, who looks suspiciously like Jim Murray.

by **Kertie** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:31 pm

Good point Brian. Parkert is indeed influential. Scarily so and the wine world is the worse for it. . Writers are commentators, that's all! Murray didn't 'save' Ardbeg or Redbreast that's self-aggrandising nonsense. As Chuck D once said: "Don't believe the hype!" Make up your own mind.
:twisted:

by **Aidan** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:42 pm

Kertie

Yeah, I accept that this could be the case. I also note that the whiskies he is involved with (blending and consulting) recieve a very high rating in general. I think he should have someone else rate these few whiskies in his book. That said, surely he must like the flavour profile of a whisky he blended himself - otherwise, he would be telling his employers he did not do a very good job.

Anyway, I like his book and enjoy many of the whiskies he does, in the end of the day.

Is Michael Jackson involved in blending anywhere?

by **Kertie** » Mon Mar 15, 2004 6:43 pm

Brian?? Sorry Aidan, been reading too many postings!
:oops:

by **jerry_vcmg** » Sat Mar 27, 2004 5:01 am

I read the critics analyses and if they agree with my own I tend to use them as a guide to buying something new.

Jerry

by **Matt2** » Wed Apr 07, 2004 3:06 pm

NB! Dave Broom was added to this poll rather late and therefore missed some of the votes, I'm sure he would have got a couple.

by **Aidan** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 12:37 am

Yes, I tried did put Dave Broom's name in the original poll, but it did not come out. I don't know why.

by **Matt2** » Thu Apr 08, 2004 9:07 am

When posting a poll you have to click the 'add' button for every item and then 'submit' the posting, rather than just typing the last one and clicking 'submit'.

by **michel** » Mon May 10, 2004 9:23 pm

If you get to know them, you'll see which one to trust at which typical whisky... So for me, all are equal important, with Dave Broom possessing the extra x-factor... His descriptions are most close to what I find in a whisky (see for example the Springbank 10... it's 100% what I should write down... if I only found the words). So it's a pitty he has no ' tastingnotes-book' to pursuade... and furthermore it's a pitty I can't vote for him because of 'site-problems...'.

by **PiHKAL** » Fri May 28, 2004 2:22 am

Aidan wrote:
I don't know anything about wine, but I know that he can change the price of a wine by giving it a good or bad rating. Murray.

He may be able to change the price of wine, but not the value. In an efficient market, price always gravitates towards value. It's anyones guess how long that can take though

by **Deactivated Member** » Mon May 23, 2005 7:39 pm

I know bourbon is not a lot of you guys' cup of tea, so to speak, but I believe any whisk(e)y-lover would enjoy Chuck Cowdery's "Bourbon, Straight". You can buy it from Amazon.com.
Chuck is a regular in Whiskey Mag on American whiskey, and has done promotional media for the bourbon industry.
He is perhaps not as widely read as those listed in the poll above, but every bit as authoritative.

by **bamber** » Tue May 24, 2005 9:50 am

I used to think MJ. But last year would be JM. MJ's Bourbon tasting notes are bizarre at best

by **Mr Fjeld** » Wed May 25, 2005 10:43 am

I sincerely hope there won't be a "Robert Parker" in the world of whisky. If that happends you can say goodbye to the whisky as we know it because the whisky will be tailormade to certain markets, the prices will rise, and not to forget- it will be completely destroyed. There's a reason why the italians and the germans are rising to fame because they haven't given in to cheap taste and perfumy bad wines while even the Premier Cru Classè wines of Bourdaux have literally gone to hell with over perfumed choclaty over fruity taste bombes. Think Barbaresco, Barolo and you'll see fantastic quality with good structure and balance still untouched by Robert Parker!

There's also a paralell to be made between the "old" bourdaux wine and brandy from Cognac before the eighties. This used to be fantastic untill wine and cognac makers gave in to taste preferences of the far east and the north american markets.

Sincerely disturbed Christian!

Skål!

by **Deactivated Member** » Thu May 26, 2005 3:55 am

I have read all your opinions with great interest and carefully considered the question and can cheerfully affirm that I don't know and don't care!

How does Parker find the time to rate all those wines and write all those Spenser novels, too, anyway? :roll:

(Probably not as tough a trick as writing on beer and whisky and being the King of Pop at the same time....)

by **Mr Fjeld** » Thu May 26, 2005 5:44 am

It's understandable if someone who's not very interested in wine doesn't know who Robert Parker is, but for those who do it's of some consern. I for one would feel more at ease if someone asked "who is the Jancis Robinson/Hugh Johnson of the whisky world". And no - this isn't just another "Macallan conspiracy-thing" But that's me!

Skål!
Christian

The Robert Parker of the whisk(e)y world.

Who is the Robert Parker of the whisk(e)y world?

The Robert Parker of the whisk(e)y world.

What a piece of ego-inflating nonsense !