quote:

Originally posted by Thomas Matthews:

Our Awards program was founded in 1981 to encourage restaurants to improve their wine programs, and to aid readers in finding restaurants that take wine seriously.

I appreciate your explanation of how you were "duped" into honoring a bogus establishment an Award of excellence.

My issue is that the first two levels of the restaurant awards program don't truly address your above statement. In my opinion, and it's just that, a restaurant's award-winning wine program goes beyond the wine list. Is it worthy of an award if a 2000 Margaux is served in a Welch's jelly glass (exaggeration)? Or a 1990 d'Yquem served at just below the boiling point (another exaggeration)? Being able to spend the money to purchase good (or great) wine is not proof that they are serious about wine. It merely proves that they have deep pockets. My point is I think the award should reflect the service that goes along with the wine selection. If I have more than one wine at a restaurant and a fresh proper glass is offered for each one, wine temperature is as it should be and decanted if warranted, than that shows me they "take wine seriously."

As an example of a restaurant that I assume legitimately applied for and received an Award of Excellence from WS but that I think doesn't qualify because of the service issue, see the following: http://tv.winelibrary.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20270&start=0

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
WS did more to try to validate the existence of "Osteria L’Intrepido" than I had expected, but I don't actually give the slightest damn about whether a fictitious restaurant got an award. I care about the real restaurants that submit wine lists which don't represent what they actually offer, whether due to laziness or deceit. Most restaurants don't provide their wine lists on-line, and if they do then prices are almost never provided.

So what can be done to validate an Award of Excellence winning list using phone calls to the establishment and internet searches? Nada. If a restaurant submitted a fraudulent or old list, how would I know that as a consumer? I don't have access to the list submitted to WS.

Well, maybe you found out about the locale through WS...and they provided a link & phone number...maybe it was convenient- they gave you the tools and insight to do your own research...amidst a high volume of other options, they've brought it down to solid (at a minimum) contestants from a wine perspective...that no other magazine does w/ such breadth...it's a great service, and no service is perfect- this is a learning experience, for all of us.

Brad, if I find out about a locale through WS, it's no longer via the awards list - it's from forumites who've been there or from the city reviews that will run in the mag. It's been a long time since I've used the awards list.

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
Brad, if I find out about a locale through WS, it's no longer via the awards list - it's from forumites who've been there or from the city reviews that will run in the mag. It's been a long time since I've used the awards list.

but one of your fellow forumites might have found it via the awards list.

Can't possibly hit ALL of the new restaurants opening up daily.

It's a tool, and you use it to the level you think is useful to you.

Like when I went up to portland maine this weekend, guess what guide I used =)

quote:

Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
Brad, if I find out about a locale through WS, it's no longer via the awards list - it's from forumites who've been there or from the city reviews that will run in the mag. It's been a long time since I've used the awards list.

well perhaps you are more connected...but there's plenty of folks out there w/o a circle of wine geeks or outlet that want to stumble on a place that offers them a solid chance at picking a good bottle...there is still breadth and value there for many.

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
Larry: This is the problem with the 'blogosphere'. It's a lazy person's journalism. No one does any real research, but rather they just slap some hyperlinks up and throw a little conjecture at the wall, and presto! you get some hits and traffic...

Laziness? No real research? Hmmm...sounds awfully similar to the apparent manner in which WS doled out this ‘Award’ of Excellence. Seems to me that many people here and at eBoob consider the ‘awards’ to be nothing more than paid ads for restaurants that may or may not be deserving of awards, in which case I suppose I have to concede that laziness and lack of research never come into play (after all, how could they if hard work and research are not a factor in determining which establishments should win the 'award' in the first place). I don't need to repeat that when restaurants that do not deserve awards get those awards, the awards are probably not worth the paper that they are printed on. The problem with this, and this is where I differ from many on the board, is that most restaurant-attending wine-drinking people don't read these boards and are not aware of the nature of the WS ‘award’, including a lot of people that like wine (i.e. many state or imply that everyone knows the 'award' is meaningless...I don't agree). I would say that if any of these uninformed and trusting people have an increased likelihood of going to a restaurant because of the WS award, then they will have been scammed by WS, to use some terminology from the title of this thread.

Also, are you suggesting that WS searched the net and found posts on chowhound before handing out this award/ad for Osteria (and considered these as a factor in giving out the 'award')...I find that hard to believe, and my guess is that you noticed the chowhound posts after reading the boards in the last day or two, and then added this to your sob story about being scammed. Instead of searching the net and making multiple phone calls, maybe you should try reading the entire wine list next time. If you had done so and had seen some of the lesser wines listed, would you have still given the award? I sincerely hope not.

While I see the logic/consistency behind the posters here who (a) identify that the award is nothing more than a paid ad with no credibility or merit, and (b) express no surprise and place no blame on WS for the fact that a non-existent restaurant with several bottles of undrinkable swill on their list could receive the award, it seems pretty clear that these posters do indeed believe that this incident certainly reinforces point (a) above...and the fact that (a) appears to be generally accepted as true by many posters is a shame. As for those posters that seem to sympathize with poor 'scammed' WS, why don't you instead feel sorry for those diners that are scammed into going to substandard restaurants by the WS Award?

quote:

Our Awards program was founded in 1981 to encourage restaurants to improve their wine programs, and to aid readers in finding restaurants that take wine seriously.

It was and is a good concept.

The problem is in the nomenclature. An "award" indicates recognition, but by the criteria WS states clearly, the recognition is equivalent to a desk audit. All the folks at WS are smart enough to understand how important words are and what is implied vs what is stated. So if WS were simply to publish "Assessments of Submitted Wine Lists", that would still be useful and would be no different from what is currently happening. However, it wouldn't have the same marketing value as publishing "awards", with the implication of selection from a field of competitors.

But that works both ways. "Awards" may imply more excitement than a simple compilation of wine lists, but now that it's been shown to be an easy scam, I'd expect more - and some would be from real restaurants with underwhelming wine lists. That of course would undermine all the efforts of the folks at WS.

And none of that has to do with the freedom of the internet. If I had a restaurant and I thought I'd get some mileage out of an award of excellence from someone who admitted he probably wouldn't verify my claims in person, I'd scam it too. There's almost no down side.

Wow!

Mr. Molesworth, you are absolutely right about the online community being "lazy" in this matter. I should have realized that a list with only 12 wines isn't telling the whole picture... but I assumed Mr. Goldstein wouldn't be as duplicitous as... well... it seems he is.

I owe Wine Spectator and all the editors an apology for shooting my internet mouth off, and while the system may not be perfect, it certainly isn't the complete farce that Mr. Goldstein expected it to be.

Mr. Matthews, thank you for a clear response.

Sincerely,
Rajiv

quote:

Originally posted by TBird:

AWESOME! How long has that been there?

While we now have both sides of the story, Mr. Goldstein obviously went out of his way to tarnish the Wine Spectator’s Restaurant Awards image. But this has no bearing, IMHO, on the reputation of the respectable wine critics of WS or that of the magazine. It just means that more attention should be paid to verify the real accuracy of people who are claiming to own a restaurant or have a certain wine list.

Is WS planning legal action against this individual?

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
... This is the problem with the 'blogosphere'. It's a lazy person's journalism. No one does any real research ...

After reading both the blogger's post and this thread, I'll certainly allow that his actions are irresponsible journalism.

But I have to say that as a Senior Editor at a publication that unquestionably failed to do enough "real research" (your own Executive Editor admitting above that "Wine Spectator will clearly have to be more vigilant in the future") ... You are throwing ONE HECK of a stone with that statement, given the glass house you're in.

Thomas, and the whole WS staff:

I am a long time subscriber and for the first time I am feeling truly let down by your publication. Which is not to say I have not had my doubts before about the striking relationship between who pays you and who you endorse. But now, with this whole Goldstein bruhaha, your response is worse than the accusation itself.

I mean, you gave an award to a place that does not exist, and your response is that some of the list is not that bad? Or that it appears on chowhound? For crying out loud!

I think I will take my next 20 years of wine pointers and advice from Mr. Goldstein. He seems likelier to call it like it is and expose a scam that passes for evaluation. WS, I wish you'd been more honest all these years about what your awards mean.

Tannat Madiran
Member
Posts: 2 | Registered: Aug 20, 2008


squandra
Member
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 21, 2008


michaelnumberone
Member
Posts: 1 | Registered: Aug 21,


I was thinking of registering under another monicker last night so that I could tell the WS staff just how poopy they must be, but damned if there wasn't a lineup at the registration desk. Then I realized that there's still almost a full moon and that the lineup wasn't going to get any shorter, so I gave up and decided to start up a fake online university instead.

I'm thinking Costlow Online Diploma College of Milan might be an attractive institutional name, no?

"Here is our description of an Award of Excellence:
Our basic award, for lists that offer a well-chosen selection of quality producers, along with a thematic match to the menu in both price and style."

Maybe you need to review the definition of "excellence."

And after that, "quality." "Quality" means "of what type", so by itself it means nothing. You mean, I assume, good-quality producers.

As Seaquam points out, my guess is Squandra is a charter member of the post-and-run crowd du jour...but:

Squandra: Please find the article where I knowingly published false information that I didn't bother to research...

Better yet, show me the wine review that I faked, just because I wanted to prove that it could be done...

Marvin would gladly take my head for either offense...and rightfully so.


Now, while Squandra does that, in the meantime, I am happy to hear your folks thoughts on the pros and cons of the program, as nothing is perfect...I administered the program for 10 years before turning it over two years ago, so I have a lot of time and effort invested in it...

We have said before, very clearly, that the program judges the list itself, because we do not visit the restaurants other than the Grand Awards...we have always heeded reader comments when they had a bad experience at an Award Winner, and we have investigated some restaurants where it appears they were sending in lists that were not wholly accurate with their official entry (again, this has all been published in the mag and discussed here before)...we added reader comments/reviews to our web search last year, along with other features...

We're always looking to improve and always appreciate good, honest feedback...

Wow! I find all of this fascinating. I'd really like to know whether Wine Spectator is considering legal action aginst this Rube Goldstein. Sue his sorry ass, and he can title his next blog post "From Moral Bankruptcy to Literal Bankruptcy: How Wine Spectator Got the Last Laugh."

I think the reason we're so compelled by this story is the combination of the obviously shakey ethics of the perpetrator coupled with the proverbial egg left on Wine Spectator's face which (if you'll allow me to mix my metaphors) shows that the paparazzi may have gotten a skin shot of the Emperor without his clothes. I'd be surprised if Wine Spectator didn't have at least a minor overhaul in how they dole out these awards henceforth.

I do, however, have a problem with Goldstein's tactics. He has cloaked this ruse as "academic research" where I suspect that the real motivation was driving up the sales of his books. I confess I clicked on the link that took me to his Amazon page. Creating a bogus website, menu and wine list for the sake of researching wine economics is akin to "researching" crime by commiting a few.

I also applaud the folks at Wine Spectator for leaving these various threads up so the forumites can decide for themselves. This is your playground, and you certainly would've been within your rights to yanks these threads. I am almost certain that this would've been the approach of at least one of this Board's biggest competitors.

quote:

Originally posted by michaelnumberone:I think I will take my next 20 years of wine pointers and advice from Mr. Goldstein. He seems likelier to call it like it is and expose a scam that passes for evaluation. WS, I wish you'd been more honest all these years about what your awards mean.

Mr. Goldstein is the scam here. This was his most recent self-promotional publicity stunt. Surely he's got another book in the pipeline that he will use this to promote. And surely, lazy fools in the media who don't bother to do due diligence, like MSNBC, will unwittingly help him promote it. Again.

He's the one behind the "study" and book claiming under $15 wines outscored wines up to $150. In fact, in the preliminary study only 10% of the wines were over $15. In the published study, the top and bottom 10% were discarded as irrelevant. So the stated premise, the title, the claim that grabs the headlines, is fraudulent. It is merely a study of $6-15 wines and a book that lists 100 $6-15 wines.

His intent is malicious self-promotion. His track record and intent are clear. WS should definitely sue.

Some further comments:
1) I wonder if any of the tasting notes on this site, posted by people who don't use their real name, but say they've had some fantastic Petrus, D'Yquem or DRC are legit.

2) I had a case once where a person created a fraudaulent assignment of a mortgage, recording it in the land records. When property was sold, a fraudulent pay off statement was received by the title company, who did a wire transfer of funds to a bank account set up by the criminal.
It's a complex story, but the bad guy created false stationery, false phone number, false assignment of deed of trust, false notary seals, etc. He stole $250,000.
Well, the guy was caught. He was convicted of a variety of offenses. Of course, he had blown the money, so the people who ate the loss were consumers, like you and me, who pay higher insurance premiums. Apparently, this criminal is out of jail and posing as Mr. Goldstein.
In any event, the full weight of the law should come down on the criminal, but the victim who let his guard down by trusting humanity is a victim, not a bad person. In this case, WS is the victim. Let us remember that.
3) I'd volunteer my time to represent WS in its case against Goldstein, with WS paying expenses and throwing in a few choice cases of Bordeaux, a couple dozen Reidels, and a lifetime subscription to WS.

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
I am happy to hear your folks thoughts on the pros and cons of the program, as nothing is perfect...
We're always looking to improve and always appreciate good, honest feedback...

I know I've already offered my constructive feedback, steps to take to make the program more credible, as well as my personal offer to help. Perhaps you didn't see this:

Dining Awards letter

Not much of an answer.

They really should investigate much better. If they dump 1/3 of folks applying, there must be some research involved.

As for feedback. I will not pay $ 99 a yaer for WS on-line, just to post a review on a resturant. That should be free. WS makes well over $ 1,000,000 annually for the reviews, and if they care enough about that, they should allow registered forumites the chance for a review and critique

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:
I know I've already offered my constructive feedback, steps to take to make the program more credible, as well as my personal offer to help.

Yeah. They want your help. I'll help too.

quote:

Originally posted by squandra:

quote:

Originally posted by James Molesworth:
... This is the problem with the 'blogosphere'. It's a lazy person's journalism. No one does any real research ...

After reading both the blogger's post and this thread, I'll certainly allow that his actions are irresponsible journalism.

But I have to say that as a Senior Editor at a publication that unquestionably failed to do enough "real research" (your own Executive Editor admitting above that "Wine Spectator will clearly have to be more vigilant in the future") ... You are throwing ONE HECK of a stone with that statement, given the glass house you're in.

Journalism? Go away please if that is the best you have to offer!

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:

quote:

Originally posted by cuffthis:
I know I've already offered my constructive feedback, steps to take to make the program more credible, as well as my personal offer to help.

Yeah. They want your help. I'll help too.

I think you should help. It's the right thing to do.

It may help you to lower your level of crankiness also.

To Florida Wino and others who say we're not responding re: the process involved...

I'm sorry I don't get it - we've listed the judging criteria and explained how we go about things. The magazine article which accompanies the listing clearly states the numbers on who got rejected, etc. The website here provides all the pertinent info on the program...

What am I missing here?

quote:

Originally posted by Seaquam:

quote:

Originally posted by wine+art:

The amount of people on this forum that would bitch if they were hung with a new rope is amusing to me.

Are we talking nylon or 100% manila hawser?

'Course, I'm only an average person who would be bitching just about being hung; only true afficionados would care about the age of the rope.

LMAO. God I love you man. Don't tell the wife though.