Originally posted by Machine: Why shouldn't they? Do you like to get scammed into going to restaurants that don't deserve the 'award' that they have posted in their window?
Whatever. Wouldn't happen.
I get scammed 1/2 the time going to any place that advertises. Resturants, movies, plays etc. Ads get folks there, but have a lot of hype.
At least WS DID investigate MANY MANY of these folks, and did perform a ddilegent job in many of the cases. Look at the ones that fell by the way side.
Agreed, understood, and ackhowledged, the last thing we need is someone else we are supposed to trust or have grown to trust adding to the plethora of less-than-honest attempts to grab our cash. WS did not do a good job in assessing the wine list; if their assessment met their standards and the stardards of the 'award', then the award is of little to no merit. Great restaurants with great wine lists that receive the 'award' most certainly deserve it, and should be livid that this is another example that renders as questionable what should be a useful tool for diners and dining establishments.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Originally posted by Sacred Cow: I love the way people are complaining about the list because the con artist liar boy posted the 15 worst rated wines from the list.
Get a clue people. Those 15 bottles are not representative of the list. There are 256 wines on the list. Anybody ever see a list that did NOT have at least 5% losers on it?
It sure would be nice to see the entire list, instead of passing judgment based on the posting of an obvious liar and scam artist.
Moo
Of course most lists have losers on them and are not up to date and don't have the vintage listed on the list etc.....but to have a list that had those wines with those quotes from WS ratings should have ended up with the $250 'ad application' thrown in the garbage. Instead, they received an 'award'.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
OK, I get it. You think a wine list with roughly 5% losers should be disqualified. Make that suggestion to the powers that be, while I sit here and disagree with you and choose something from the other 95% of the list since I am a point chaser.
Moo
Your share of the national debt has increased by $6,180 from 10/1 - 9/30/09. Have you told your kids and grand kids they will be paying back your share in addition to their own?
Limit all politicians to two terms. One in office, one in prison. Follow the lead of Illinois...
Posts: 931 | Location: East BF, Egypt | Registered: May 15, 2002
Originally posted by Jcocktosten: Go away new posters -
Nope.
I'm staying.
Cheers!
Then, can you at least make a contribution to these forums with like a few tasting notes, tips on some great buys at your local wine shop, etc. versus promoting your blog or website every time you respond to the same post.
Posts: 1459 | Location: New Jersey | Registered: Aug 05, 2007
Originally posted by Sacred Cow: OK, I get it. You think a wine list with roughly 5% losers should be disqualified. Make that suggestion to the powers that be, while I sit here and disagree with you and choose something from the other 95% of the list since I am a point chaser.
Moo
I see the point that you purport to be trying to make, and agree with the point that you purport to be trying to make, but that is not the point that you are actually making (or actually trying to make i.m.o.), which is that a wine list that had a reserve list (apparently...can't be sure since I didnt see entire list) consisting of the follwing is a wine list that is deserving of an award or an 'award' from WS. I disagree with this, and don't see how anyone could agree with it, or agree that a publication that reviews and rates wine cannot be strongly questioned for giving an 'award' to a list that includes the following (particularly so given the quotes that are attributed to WS):
AMARONE CLASSICO 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 80,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. “…Not clean. Stale black licorice…”
Wine Spectator rating: 67 points. “…Smells barnyardy and tastes decayed. Not what you’d hope for…”
BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO 1993 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 180,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 80 points. “…A bit lacking in concentration, but with pretty, round tannins and a soft finish…”
BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO RISERVA 1995 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 135,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 81 points. “…The palate is light-bodied with a slightly diluted finish. Light for the vintage. Rather disappointing for this producer…”
Wine Spectator rating: 58 points. “Something wrong here. Of four samples provided, two were dark in color, but tasted metallic and odd…”
SASSICAIA 1976 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 250,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. “…Even Sassicaia could not apparently escape the wet weather of this memorably bad vintage in Tuscany. It lacks harmony, having oxidized…”
SASSICAIA 1980 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 280,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 77 points. “…Light, watery and diluted vanilla and milk chocolate character…”
SASSICAIA 1995 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 300,00 €
Wine Spectator rating: 90 points. “…Rich in currant, blackberry, dried herbs and tanned leather…”
Your casual characterization of the above as a "wine list with roughly 5% losers", is hardly accurate. Your tongue-in-cheek reference to 'point chasers' ignoring this 5% (as if the points are the key here - did you even read the wording from the (apparent) WS reviews on the list??) and going after the other 95% (which apparently were for the most part rated between 80 and 90, hardly the types of wines that point chasers would chase, do you not agree?) really does very little to further your cause or make your post in any way persuasive.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
1) So you made your determination based on 15 wines? What are the other 241 wines, and how many of those were on the reserve list? What were their scores?
2) Man, you sure do talk funny some times. Let me reword this and see if I understand it properly:
You see the point I am trying to make. You agree with the point I am trying to make. But I am not making the point I am trying to make. Does that about cover it?
Nope, don't understand it at all. Maybe you need someone at a higher intellectual level than a bovine, because it seems like nothing but methane to me.
Or are you just an attorney by training? If so, that would explain a lot. You sure do write like a blowtard attorney that used to post here before being chased away by Mishy
Moo
This message has been edited. Last edited by: Sacred Cow,
Your share of the national debt has increased by $6,180 from 10/1 - 9/30/09. Have you told your kids and grand kids they will be paying back your share in addition to their own?
Limit all politicians to two terms. One in office, one in prison. Follow the lead of Illinois...
Posts: 931 | Location: East BF, Egypt | Registered: May 15, 2002
However ridiculous the reserve list may be, it would bring much clarity to the core issue (that the list did not deserve the award) if we could see the COMPLETE WINE LIST submitted by Robin Goldstein.
____ Faith CAN move mountains... but you have to bring a shovel. redwinebuzz.com, winesooth.com, redwinebuzz.com/forum, twitter.com/redwinebuzz
Originally posted by Sacred Cow: 1) So you made your determination based on 15 wines? What are the other 241 wines, and how many of those were on the reserve list? What were there scores?
2) Man, you sure do talk funny some times. Let me reword this and see if I understand it properly:
You see the point I am trying to make. You agree with the point I am trying to make. But I am not making the point I am trying to make. Does that about cover it?
Nope, don't understand it at all. Maybe you need someone at a higher intellectual level than a bovine, because it seems like nothing but methane to me.
Or are you just an attorney by training? If so, that would explain a lot.
Moo
Actually I said "I see the point that you PURPORT to be trying to make, and agree with the point that you PURPORT to be trying to make, but that is not the point that you are actually making (or actually trying to make i.m.o.)".
I agree that a wine list with 5% losers should not be precluded from receiving an award or an 'award'. I believe that this was the point that you were PURPORTING to be trying to make.
However, I don't agree that this list should have received an award or an 'award'. Since you are not really arguing that a wine list with 5% losers is not a problem, but are actually arguing that THIS list that was mostly made up of wines rated between 80 and 90 and with part of (or the entire) reserve list made up of mostly very poorly rated wines with mostly very negative tasting notes (again, not sure if these are actually from WS or not) should not have been precluded from receiving an award or an 'award', I think the point that you were ACTUALLY trying to make was quite different from the point you were PURPORTEDLY trying to make.
So, I see and agree with the point you were PURPORTEDLY trying to make, but disagree with the point that you were ACTUALLY making/ACTUALLY trying to make. Sorry I should have taken more time to explain it better.
Lets make it easier, since I think we probably agree on the idea of what is/is not deserving of an award: Do you think that WS should have given an 'award' to a wine list that included (as part of/its entire reserve list) the wines that were listed, with the tasting notes that were listed? I do not.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Who is this guy? You shore do talk funny, but at least you have a purty mouth.
Even though you ignored my other questions, here is my response to yours:
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO JUDGE! Is that clear enough to you?
If those are the only 15 wines on the reserve list, I would say no. If those are the worst 15 wines out of 50 on the reserve list? Not sure. 100? Possibly depending on the rest of the list. If 200 wines are on the reserve list? Probably. Again, without seeing the entire wine list, it is impossible to know in my opinion, short of relying on the word of a demonstrated con artist, liar and scammer.
The point I am trying to make, purporting to make, and am making is that having a list of 15 wines out of 256 that were submitted is NOT enough to judge the list in its entirety. Capische, or do you want to try to parse some more attorney boy?
Moo
Your share of the national debt has increased by $6,180 from 10/1 - 9/30/09. Have you told your kids and grand kids they will be paying back your share in addition to their own?
Limit all politicians to two terms. One in office, one in prison. Follow the lead of Illinois...
Posts: 931 | Location: East BF, Egypt | Registered: May 15, 2002
Originally posted by Jcocktosten: Go away new posters -
Nope.
I'm staying.
Cheers!
Maybe Joe Roberts "certified Specialist of Wine" what ever certified you?? Not the highly ranked internaional boards.
as his web site says, Joe ... used to be a total wine dunce. Still is
Actually, I am certified by some regarded international boards when it comes to wine knowledge.
CSW is awarded by exam from the Society of Wine Educators, probably the preeminent wine education body in the U.S.
I'm also certified by the Wine & Spirit Education Trust (out of London), which is the official "feeder" program for those seeking to entrance into the Institute of Masters of Wine.
I won't comment on your design certs., because I know nothing about design.
I won't fall into a trap of negative back & forth in a forum, either, so you're pretty much wasting your time there.
Forums like this one don't belong to a clique. They aren't owned by any group. And I'm willing to stick around on this one if only to prove the point that anyone with an interest in WS has a right to be heard here.
Originally posted by Machine: Why shouldn't they? Do you like to get scammed into going to restaurants that don't deserve the 'award' that they have posted in their window?
Whatever. Wouldn't happen.
So you do like being scammed into going to restaurants that don't deserve awards, and support WS continuing a process that may dupe numerous fellow wine drinkers into doing the same. Bravo!
Nope. Didn't say that. But if it makes you feel better believe what you wish. At least you're not a one timer.
Joe ----- Wine is like potato chips around me...if it's open, it's gone.
Come visit me sometime at http://www.winexiles.com/
Originally posted by Jcocktosten: Go away new posters -
These kinds of comments make me glad I joined this board. As far as the WS being scammed, my thoughts are the people that have faith in WS will continue to follow them. Lots of hooplah over this considering it's a wine publication and that's what I read it for. I'm sure they will take the proper steps so it doesn't happen again.
For 20 years, we did not charge an entry fee. We began in 2002, as the program grew in volume, because of the time involved in administering the program and judging the lists.
Completely understandable. No doubt processing thousands of application requires a considerable amount of work and funds.
Unfortunately for the bottom line of WS, that practice now has the appearance of tainting the awards, earned or not.
However you choose to respond, eliminating the processing fee would enhance public perception of the award. It would be expensive, absolutely, but whatever you do is probably going to be expensive.
You think WS is going to knowingly take a risk putting through a fake wine list for the whopping sum of $250? I would think most “reasonable” people would consider the fee administrative to WS and nominal to the restaurant.
Posts: 2205 | Location: OC, CA (Currently in London) | Registered: Aug 01, 2007
Originally posted by Machine: Why shouldn't they? Do you like to get scammed into going to restaurants that don't deserve the 'award' that they have posted in their window?
Whatever. Wouldn't happen.
So you do like being scammed into going to restaurants that don't deserve awards, and support WS continuing a process that may dupe numerous fellow wine drinkers into doing the same. Bravo!
Nope. Didn't say that. But if it makes you feel better believe what you wish. At least you're not a one timer.
Or a two timer. And I know you did not say that, but your post was nonresponsive to some degree/at least in spirit. My point is that the WS 'award' has been suspect/criticized for some time, the actions of this guy were aimed at revealing that, and succeeded in adding further questioning to the credibility of the award. Many people here already questioned the credibility of the award/did not believe that the award had much merit, but were aware of the award criteria and weighed the award accordingly...so they are not really surprised that this slipped through. I understand their positions and agree with them. I just don't agree with those that seem to suggest that everyone out there who likes wine or goes to restaurants should know the award is of questionable value. If they don't know the award is of questionable value, and if they do generally trust WS, then if they are more likely to go to a restaurant because of a WS award (without knowing that it is of quetionable value), then they will have been duped to some degree into spending money that they otherwise would not have spent.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Originally posted by Sacred Cow: Who is this guy? You shore do talk funny, but at least you have a purty mouth.
Even though you ignored my other questions, here is my response to yours:
THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO JUDGE! Is that clear enough to you?
If those are the only 15 wines on the reserve list, I would say no. If those are the worst 15 wines out of 50 on the reserve list? Not sure. 100? Possibly depending on the rest of the list. If 200 wines are on the reserve list? Probably. Again, without seeing the entire wine list, it is impossible to know in my opinion, short of relying on the word of a demonstrated con artist, liar and scammer.
The point I am trying to make, purporting to make, and am making is that having a list of 15 wines out of 256 that were submitted is NOT enough to judge the list in its entirety. Capische, or do you want to try to parse some more attorney boy?
Moo
Your other questions were irrelevant. Your point seems to be either that you would have given the award to this list, or would not have precluded this list from receiving the award based on those wines and those quotes from tasting notes in their reserve list, and despite the fact thaf of the other 250 or so wines on the list, the vast majority scored between 80 and 90 (not so bad, but also not so great).
You are entitled to your opinion. I would not give them the award, and I would preclude them from being considered for the award. I don't trust WS restaurant awards, and I would not trust Sacred Cow restaurant awards. No big deal, but that is the point I was purportedly and actually trying to make, and I thought it was the point that I actually did make.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
I just want to clear up what may be a misconception...
The submitted wine list did not list the scores or tastings notes along with the selections of the handful of wines that were poorly rated by us.
15 of 256 wines not rating well with us is not means for a disqualification of an award (especially when many of the wines on the list rated 90+, a point curiously left out in many of the attack posts that use this nugget of info). Sorry if you don't agree...
In reviewing thousands of wine lists over the years, I've never come across one where I wanted %100 of the selections it offered - but that does not mean that in general, the list can't be considered a 'good' list...
We do not pretend to be totalitarian in our opinion. Many of the producers in question here (of the 15 sub-80 point wines) are generally considered top producers. For example, while our ratings of Soldera's recent vintages have been in the average range, we are not blind to the fact that there are people who may like the wines.
We are not in the business of steering folks away from a restaurant (again, on the assumption that we were dealing with a real restaurant here) that purports to offer a 250-plus selection of wines, the vast majority of which we consider good or excellent...
Yes, you attempted to make, purported to make, and did make the point that seeing the 15 worst wines on a list of 256 wines, of which you do not know the other 241, is enough information for you to make a decision. Would seeing only the 15 BEST wines on a list of 256 allow you to make a decision too?
Personally I like having MUCH more information available to me before making a decision. An almost total lack of information leads me to defer judgment rather than jump to potentially/likely erroneous conclusions.
Moo
Your share of the national debt has increased by $6,180 from 10/1 - 9/30/09. Have you told your kids and grand kids they will be paying back your share in addition to their own?
Limit all politicians to two terms. One in office, one in prison. Follow the lead of Illinois...
Posts: 931 | Location: East BF, Egypt | Registered: May 15, 2002
I should point out that we don't differentiate between a 'reserve list' and regular list. We think separating a wine list into two sections, inferring that one has better selections than another, is an antiquated concept. We judge the list on the entirety of its selections...
And a hypothetical: Would you downgrade a restaurant's list that had a complete vertical of a Bordeaux chateau's wines, if they included off years in the vertical just to complete the listing? Take a 20 years span from any period in Bordeaux and you can easily come up with 15 percent of the vintages that might no be deemed strong - is it wrong for a restaurant to list them along with the great years?
I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. One jerk lied to the WS about a restaurant and went so far as to provide false backup. What's the big deal that has everybody's bowels churning? WS is taking steps to try to prevent this from happening again. It appears to be an isolated incident. Is it so earth-shattering that somebody pulled off a little scam?
As someone hinted at earlier, we get fooled everyday by advertising. Here, as far as we know, we got fooled once in 2+ decades.
Just one more sip.
Posts: 25000 | Location: NY | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
Besides, I really don't think my other questions were irrelevant, especially the one about being an attorney. You see, as an attorney friend of mine once told me, "Arguing with an attorney is like mud wrestling with a pig. Eventually you realize that the pig enjoys it." Using that philosophy, knowing whether or not you are an attorney is EXTREMELY germane to deciding whether or not I want to continue this discussion.
Moo
Your share of the national debt has increased by $6,180 from 10/1 - 9/30/09. Have you told your kids and grand kids they will be paying back your share in addition to their own?
Limit all politicians to two terms. One in office, one in prison. Follow the lead of Illinois...
Posts: 931 | Location: East BF, Egypt | Registered: May 15, 2002
I would think most “reasonable” people would consider the fee administrative to WS and nominal to the restaurant.
