Skip to main content

Closed535 replies

Wine Spectator Has Been Scammed

S seanr7Member
quote:
Originally posted by James Molesworth:
I am however, disappointed at how many people jumped on the 'trash WS' bandwagon before both sides of the story had been told...


I understand you anger, you work for WS and I assume you love what you do and who you work for. With that being said those of us who post here are not your normal wino's and most of us have been to AofE restraunts have looked at their wine list and all thought "how the hell did they get the award". It really is not that hard to believe that the AofE is giving out like candy with next to no due diligence.
W wine+artMember
I have used the WS list as a resource for over 20 years when traveling for both business and personal. I have found it to be very useful, and the perfect starting point for research.

Before the internet, it was simply an invaluable tool, and with very few exceptions, I have always been pleased.

I would also challenge others that the VAST majority of restaurants taking the time to apply, do care about their wine list, and that said list is truly above average.

What resource does everyone prefer?

It goes without saying I prefer personal reference, but WS is still a rock solid resource.

The amount of people on this forum that would bitch if they were hung with a new rope is amusing to me. Big Grin
H happycswMember
Caveat Emptor people. I read WS online. I read the mag. I read Parker. I read ChowHound. I read Yelp. All of these sites will get referenced if I am choosing a restaurant I don't know, and wine is part of the choice equation. Almost all of them are available for free. Personally, WS awards do not figure into my equation because the first time I looked at the list I saw restaurants I don't like on the list. It wasn't a big deal, kind of like not buying the wine of a critic whose palate doesn't match mine. I really don't get what the scam proves. I do appreciate WS responding.
M morbordoMember
For God's sake, much ado about nothing. So WS was duped. They operate a business with a reasonable expectation of honesty which is all they can afford to do.
I have newa for all of you. I ate at Osteria L’Intrepido when I was in Milan last March and found it one of the most exciting new restaurants in Northern Italy (God I hope Milan is in N Italy). If you go, you must try the humble pie.
sd-wineauxsd-wineauxMember
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.
J juliusMember
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
B bradcoelhoMember
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.
G g-manMember
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 =)
B bradcoelhoMember
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.
M machineMember
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?
G gregtMember
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.
B barrelmonkeyMember
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
mimikmimikMember
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?
S squandraMember
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.
M michaelnumberoneMember
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.
S seaquamMember
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?
M martinbrileyMember
"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.
J jamesmolesworthSenior Editor Wine Spectator
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...
G golfandpinotnutMember
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.
Y yhnMember
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.
irwinirwinMember
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.
C cuffthisMember
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
flwinoflwinoMember
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
W wine+artMember
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! Roll Eyes
C cuffthisMember
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. Roll Eyes 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. Wink
J jamesmolesworthSenior Editor Wine Spectator
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?
wineismylifewineismylifeMember
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. Big Grin


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.
flwinoflwinoMember
quote:
Originally posted by James Molesworth:
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?


The point you are missing is:
1] you want feedback re the resturants,
2] you force us to pay a fee annually for access to the web site to post the comments.
3] In short, you are not too interested in these comments then.

I get better reviews for resturants etc. from WS dining threads & Squires Food threads, than I do with WS Awards [ads].

I am a reviwer for Zagata guides. I do not have to pay for this priveledge. I even get free guides for those polls that a participate in.

Likewise for $ 50 annually for the WS mag, I cannot post a comment re a resturant that is bad?
Last edited by flwino
wineismylifewineismylifeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Seaquam:
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?


LMAO again. Keep them coming good buddy. Add MartinBriley to your list as well. Another gumba.
J jamesmolesworthSenior Editor Wine Spectator
Florida Wino: The Forums here are free - start a thread re: Café Chardonnay and there you go.

Yes, the comments section on our restaurant db is subscriber only (though the annual subscription is not $99). The idea behind that was to keep anonymous posters from slamming restaurants unfairly - it's a real name board as with our editor's blogs, and thus is a different registration/subscription. We feel that if you want to critique something, you should have the courage of your convictions to put your name to it...
C cuffthisMember
quote:
Originally posted by James Molesworth:
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?


James,

Most people think that the award process consists solely of a cursory read of the submitted wine list. That's it.

I think WS could really help itself with a thorough answer, such as this (hypothetical) one:

1. Wine lists submitted for consideration in our awards program are given to our awards panel.
2. The awards panel consists of ___ number of people.
3. The panel members qualifications are ________________.
4. The panel reviews each submitted wine list for accuracy, number of selections, etc.
5. A panel member compares the submitted wine list to the actual one on the applicant's web site. Any material differences result in a telephone call to the applicant. Non response by the applicant usually results in the application being rejected.
6. A panel member compares the submitted menu to the submitted wine list to provide assurance the wine list pairs with the food.
7. A panel member calls the restaurant to confirm all the data submitted is accurate before it is published. Non response from the applicant will cause the wine list to be rejected.
8. A panel member goes a Google search to find additional relevant information about the applicant's wine program. Substantial negative information is considered when evaluating the wine list for an award.
9. The whole evaluation process, in general takes about ______________ minutes (hours) for each wine list.
10. other

I think you get my point.

I want to make it clear that I want to see the WS Awards be the best they can be. That's why I wrote to you in the first place and offered constructive comments for positive changes to the program, not simply complaints.

Thanks,

Tom
G g-manMember
quote:
Originally posted by Florida Wino:

The point you are missing is:
1] you want feedback re the resturants,
2] you force us to pay $ 99 a year for access to the web site to post the comments.
3] In short, you are not too interested in these comments then.


I'm missing the complaint... How does "forcing you" to pay 99$/yr for access to the website equate to not caring about feedback?

Have you've seen some of the reviews/feedback out there? "Yuck", "I didn't like the place because they didn't give us free dessert".

1) The 99$ gives you alot more other features then just commenting on restaurants.
2) It's good to screen out your reviewers to people you know who actually read your magazines.
3) It's 99$ / YEAR ... A bottle of yellow tail reserve per month.
4) You could always just spend 46 cents and mail a letter to the editor describing displeasure about an award restaurant.
5) And James M has stated that they will try and take a look at a restaurant if complaints have been raised.
PreviousNext
Post

Membership Required

We're sorry. You must be signed in to continue. Sign In or Register
×
Are you sure you want to remove from your Block List?
×
Loading...
×
When you block a person, they can no longer invite you to a private message or post to your profile wall. Replies and comments they make will be collapsed/hidden by default. Finally, you'll never receive email notifications about content they create or likes they designate for your content.
Note: if you proceed, you will no longer be following .
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×