IT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WINE SPECTATOR'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE THAT THE COMPLETE LIST SUBMITTED BY MR. GOLDSTEIN BE PUBLISHED. PREFERABLY IN THE FORMAT/ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED.
WHY ARE YOU AND MR. MATTHEWS NOT ADDRESSING THIS REQUEST MADE BY SEVERAL PEOPLE POSTING TO THIS THREAD (SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I HAVE DONE THAT POLITELY AND RESPECTFULLY).
[understanding that all caps is usually considered "yelling" in chat and forums, I want to state that I am using all caps only in the hopes that the post will catch Mr. Molesworth's or Mr. Matthews' eye]
Arthur Przebinda
I wonder if they really want to bother listing 250+ wines which Mr. Goldstein would surely have provided if for one moment he though it would further his case.
He has told you about the carefully prepared Reserve list with its top name producers and characterised the rest as follows:
"The main wine list that I submitted was a perfectly decent selection from around Italy that met the magazine’s basic criteria (about 250 wines, including whites, reds, and sparkling wines–some of which scored well in WS)."
The WS editors have confirmed that 139 wines weren't rated, 53 were rated at 90+, 49 were rated 80-90 and 15 were rated below 80.
The 2 statements are entirely consistent so what more do you need?
Posts: 331 | Location: London, England | Registered: Feb 09, 2007
Originally posted by James Molesworth: Machine: Thanks for the posts...
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.
Thanks for clarifying, my apologies for anything incorrect in my posts...if those scores and notes had been there for you to readily see, the suggested/alleged 'oversight' would have been far more blatant.
quote:
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 theory I agree; given the particular selections that have been highlighted, I'm not so sure. 14 wines not rating well is one thing; 14 wines rated between 58 and 81 at the prices listed would give me cause for concern if my job was determining whether or not that list was deserving of an award; at the very least I think the presence of these bottles on the list should have raised a red flag. If the excuse is that the list was not reviewed in enough detail, I think that confirms the concerns of a lot of people re. the 'awarding' process. If these wines were noticed and the list was given the 'award' regardless, then that raises different concerns I think.
quote:
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...
I don't think the problem is about wanting wines. I don't particularly like pinot/burgundy, as much as I try to do so. That includes some wines that were highly rated. If I saw them on a list, I would not want to order them, but I would understand why they were on the list, and would not question the restaurant for putting them on the list. I personally could not say the same about most of the 14 wines in question.
quote:
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.
I am sure the use of top producers was part of the rouse; a reviewer of the list, seeing top names, may have chosen not to drill down further to assess rating/tasting notes for those wines. However, failure to drill down to the quality of the actual vintage years listed certainly decreases the value of the assessment of the list in my opinion. That is fine if that is the criteria of the 'award', but it also reflects the relative value of the 'award' in my opinion.
quote:
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...
Even if the vast majority are good to excellent, the bad 14 should have raised red flags. Again, the point of this exercise appears to be to expose a lax process of handing out awards. You say that the vast majority of the wines on the list were considered to WS to be good or excellent, if you post the entire list then I am sure you will put a lot of questions to be about the overall quality of the list. Why not let people decide for themselves if the overall list was worthy of an 'award'.
quote:
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...
I agree.
quote:
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 would not downgrade a list that had complete verticals, because complete verticals would in all likelihood contain several good wines, and maybe because several bordeaux houses seem to have particular characteristics from year to year (even during years in which overall quality is not present), but in the end I think verticals make little sense other than as an interesting curiosity as part of a collection. However, I would also not give them any extra credit for having a vertical rather than only good vintages of the chateau. If I had to choose between a list that had a vertical and a list that had only the good vintage years of each wine, I think I would go with the latter 100% of the time. Most of Mouton's vintage years between 1967 and 1981 did not fare so well. If a restaurant had a vertical from 1960 onward, I would understand for the reasons I mentioned; if a restaurant had only 64, 67, 73, 74, 77, 79, 80, 84 then I would certainly not be impressed. Sure the crappy wines would be on the list in both scenarious, but the point of having them on the first list was to maintain a vertical, while the point of having them on the second list would be in question (maybe to dupe people who don't have an extensive knowledge of vintage years...and I acknowledge many such people would also not be likely to order a first growth...and of those who would order a first growth without knowing that the vintage year was particularly poor would probably not be able to taste the difference anyway).
Off to open a fruity hedonistic tannic and tasty 2005 bordeaux for drab and board-0...
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Originally posted by wineismylife: Machine, why should somebody that has no vested interest in this forum be allowed to take one dump in our virtual backyard and then run off only to leave the stench behind?
I think that sentence is truly a work of art, and if true I would absolutely agree with you. However, posters have to start off at some point, and I think you might agree that several have made some valid points, and rather than address those points several others have simply disregarded the posts because of the number of posts made by the poster. If someone posts words that makes no sense, it is pretty easy to discredit them; resulting to personal attacks or questioning the validity of an argument because of the number of posts someone has made only seems to reflect poorly on the attacker.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
IT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE WINE SPECTATOR'S POSITION ON THIS ISSUE THAT THE COMPLETE LIST SUBMITTED BY MR. GOLDSTEIN BE PUBLISHED. PREFERABLY IN THE FORMAT/ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED.
WHY ARE YOU AND MR. MATTHEWS NOT ADDRESSING THIS REQUEST MADE BY SEVERAL PEOPLE POSTING TO THIS THREAD (SPEAKING ONLY FOR MYSELF, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT I HAVE DONE THAT POLITELY AND RESPECTFULLY).
[understanding that all caps is usually considered "yelling" in chat and forums, I want to state that I am using all caps only in the hopes that the post will catch Mr. Molesworth's or Mr. Matthews' eye]
Arthur Przebinda
I wonder if they really want to bother listing 250+ wines which Mr. Goldstein would surely have provided if for one moment he though it would further his case.
He has told you about the carefully prepared Reserve list with its top name producers and characterised the rest as follows:
"The main wine list that I submitted was a perfectly decent selection from around Italy that met the magazine’s basic criteria (about 250 wines, including whites, reds, and sparkling wines–some of which scored well in WS)."
The WS editors have confirmed that 139 wines weren't rated, 53 were rated at 90+, 49 were rated 80-90 and 15 were rated below 80.
The 2 statements are entirely consistent so what more do you need?
If I put 15 jars of my own urine on a wine list with 250+ good to excellent wines, would you give my list an award? And no that is not meant to be a dig on the general quality of British cuisine...
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Originally posted by Machine: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'.
You think those quotes were on the wine list???
Posts: 1125 | Location: Mountain View, CA | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
Originally posted by Machine: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'.
You think those quotes were on the wine list???
WS says that they were not part of the list that they received.
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
Originally posted by Machine: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).
Wrong.
15 were sub-80. 71 were 80-89 53 were 90+ 153 were not rated
Also, all of those sub-80 pt. wines are from highly regarded producers. Those specific wines are not in the uber-ripe style, or necessarily clean tasting. Likely, most WS readers, or more broadly most Americans, wouldn't like them. But, those specific wines are excellent examples of their traditional styles, and have the volume of well heeled fans that allow them to legitimately command those high prices. That makes them controversial wines, but *not* bad wines. Perhaps the WS employee in charge of verifying the list is guilty of recognizing not all people have the same palate?
Posts: 1125 | Location: Mountain View, CA | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
Originally posted by Machine: If I put 15 jars of my own urine on a wine list with 250+ good to excellent wines, would you give my list an award?
This kind of hyperbole makes discussing this issue virtually impossible.
As James said, just because the Wine Spectator, or he personally, doesn't care for a wine, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees. When looking at a list, who's to say if some "iffy" wines aren't there because the restaurant has some regulars who really like (and ask for) it? Or that the guy who owns the winery lives down the street and likes to entertain his friends there? Or any other of a dozen or so reasons the wine might be on the list. Restaurants need to make money - so they just can't offer what the wine geeks would find interesting. They need to cater to their ACTUAL clients.
But when they do take the next step, and add interesting wine to the list, then I think that should be recoginzed - which the Spectator award does. People look at the number of restaurants that submitted and the relatively few that got rejected as some proof that the award is meaningless. I can't disagree more. A restaurant would only submit if they felt they met the qualifications. Cosidering how many TOTAL restuarants there are in the US, only a very small fraction got the award.
The low level award separates those places that are trying to provide a good wine experence from the vast sea of places that don't care at all. If you've never accidentally ended up at a place that had good food reviews, only to find that they had a list that consisted of only generic, grocery store level wines, then you're way luckier than me.
Loring Wine Company
Posts: 353 | Location: Lompoc, CA, US | Registered: Feb 05, 2003
Originally posted by Machine: If I put 15 jars of my own urine on a wine list with 250+ good to excellent wines, would you give my list an award?
This kind of hyperbole makes discussing this issue virtually impossible.
As James said, just because the Wine Spectator, or he personally, doesn't care for a wine, it doesn't mean that everyone agrees. When looking at a list, who's to say if some "iffy" wines aren't there because the restaurant has some regulars who really like (and ask for) it? Or that the guy who owns the winery lives down the street and likes to entertain his friends there? Or any other of a dozen or so reasons the wine might be on the list. Restaurants need to make money - so they just can't offer what the wine geeks would find interesting. They need to cater to their ACTUAL clients.
But when they do take the next step, and add interesting wine to the list, then I think that should be recoginzed - which the Spectator award does. People look at the number of restaurants that submitted and the relatively few that got rejected as some proof that the award is meaningless. I can't disagree more. A restaurant would only submit if they felt they met the qualifications. Cosidering how many TOTAL restuarants there are in the US, only a very small fraction got the award.
The low level award separates those places that are trying to provide a good wine experence from the vast sea of places that don't care at all. If you've never accidentally ended up at a place that had good food reviews, only to find that they had a list that consisted of only generic, grocery store level wines, then you're way luckier than me.
Hey if the tasting notes interest you, maybe the hyperbole you refer to is also your cup of pee...er, tea...
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
It's funny, not supriseing my other user name (with a negatine comment doesn't work any more.Typical WS bs. Here's the deal, if you hace one question about the integrety on WS then do your home work contact people that are really into wine or the business and speak with them about there rateings and there advertizing practices. Enyone who is serious about wine knnow WS is for posers(looks good on the coffee table) and beginners. The thought that anyone would think otherwise simply says exactly that. Be strong my @#$! How about except who you are. A cash cow. Nothing wrong with that so why draw a stick figure picture and call it a Picasso?? Exibit A: Decanter Magazine. Sorry to inform all the WS beleivers. Have a glass of your Cab, Merlot,chardonnay or white zinfandel you got from the super market that WS recommended of course and realize.
Originally posted by SLJ: It's funny, not supriseing my other user name (with a negatine comment doesn't work any more.Typical WS bs. Here's the deal, if you hace one question about the integrety on WS then do your home work contact people that are really into wine or the business and speak with them about there rateings and there advertizing practices. Enyone who is serious about wine knnow WS is for posers(looks good on the coffee table) and beginners. The thought that anyone would think otherwise simply says exactly that. Be strong my @#$! How about except who you are. A cash cow. Nothing wrong with that so why draw a stick figure picture and call it a Picasso?? Exibit A: Decanter Magazine. Sorry to inform all the WS beleivers. Have a glass of your Cab, Merlot,chardonnay or white zinfandel you got from the super market that WS recommended of course and realize.
Here's a lesson for all of you. Don't post drunk.
Just one more sip.
Posts: 25010 | Location: NY | Registered: Oct 18, 2001
Originally posted by SLJ: It's funny, not supriseing my other user name (with a negatine comment doesn't work any more.Typical WS bs. Here's the deal, if you hace one question about the integrety on WS then do your home work contact people that are really into wine or the business and speak with them about there and there advertizing practices. Enyone who is serious about wine knnow WS is for posers(looks good on the coffee table) and beginners. The thought that anyone would think otherwise simply says exactly that. Be strong my @#$! How about except who you are. A cash cow. Nothing wrong with that so why draw a stick figure picture and call it a Picasso?? [B]Exibit [/B] A: Decanter Magazine. Sorry to inform all the WS beleivers . Have a glass of your Cab, Merlot,chardonnay or white zinfandel you got from the super market that WS recommended of course and realize.
Wow. I must admit, this is the first time I've been lectured by someone who is obviously illiterate.......
-------------------- "One may dislike carrots, spinach, beetroot, or the skin on hot milk. But not wine. It is like hating the air that one breathes, since each is equally indispensable."
Marcel Ayme`
Posts: 6948 | Location: The Left Coast | Registered: Dec 01, 2001
Originally posted by SLJ: It's funny, not supriseing my other user name (with a negatine comment doesn't work any more.Typical WS bs. Here's the deal, if you hace one question about the integrety on WS then do your home work contact people that are really into wine or the business and speak with them about there rateings and there advertizing practices. Enyone who is serious about wine knnow WS is for posers(looks good on the coffee table) and beginners. The thought that anyone would think otherwise simply says exactly that. Be strong my @#$! How about except who you are. A cash cow. Nothing wrong with that so why draw a stick figure picture and call it a Picasso?? Exibit A: Decanter Magazine. Sorry to inform all the WS beleivers. Have a glass of your Cab, Merlot,chardonnay or white zinfandel you got from the super market that WS recommended of course and realize.
Hey Machine. THERE WASN"T A RESTURANT, Of course they need to make money if there was one. The issue in my opinion is I don't feel that the average hard working citizen that buys a WS mag see's a review on a wine or a resturant and goes there or buys that because of it should be hugely disappointed because the WS wanted to make money dishonestly. Thats like the emails we all get that say you won a million dollars just send $29.99 for the process fee. They have been doing this for years. Shame on them and the best thing they could do is realize and start offering a good product for fair price. Either that or quit trying to put lipstick on a pig!
Originally posted by SLJ: It's funny, not supriseing my other user name (with a negatine comment doesn't work any more.Typical WS bs. Here's the deal, if you hace one question about the integrety on WS then do your home work contact people that are really into wine or the business and speak with them about there rateings and there advertizing practices. Enyone who is serious about wine knnow WS is for posers(looks good on the coffee table) and beginners. The thought that anyone would think otherwise simply says exactly that. Be strong my @#$! How about except who you are. A cash cow. Nothing wrong with that so why draw a stick figure picture and call it a Picasso?? Exibit A: Decanter Magazine. Sorry to inform all the WS beleivers. Have a glass of your Cab, Merlot,chardonnay or white zinfandel you got from the super market that WS recommended of course and realize.
What the F was that...
"No TV and no beer make Homer...something, something"
While I have disagreed with almost everything you have posted Machine, you are now safe. I think I will leave you alone now, there is a new toy to play with.
I don't drink I taste and you my friend you should do some homework or just stay ignorant. Most dishonest businesses WS make the majority of there money off, guess who?? You. Keep paying there bills.
