Skip to main content

Closed535 replies

Wine Spectator Has Been Scammed

D dananigroSenior Editor Wine Spectator
1WineDude,

Just want to clarify something. You referenced "those that ran the study" -- there is currently no published "study," in any scholarly sense of the term, no analysis of the program, just a fraudulent entry. Goldstein presented the information about that fake entry at the same time he presented an unrelated study at the wine economist's conference. We have yet to see the academic research he says he's working on.

Also the next Restaurant Awards entries aren't submitted until Jan. 2009, and the recipients aren't published until next summer, so we have time to develop and implement solid ideas for improvements to the program instead of just providing a knee-jerk reaction a couple days after discovering the fraud.

Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
Last edited by dananigro
flwinoflwinoMember
THIS IS THE CRAP LIST SUBMITTED BY GOLDSTEIN.

Osteria L’Intrepido’s so-called “reserve list” appears in its entirety below (with scores and some excerpts from the Wine Spectator reviews of those wines added here):

I rossi italiani “riserva” della nostra cantina


AMARONE CLASSICO 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 80,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. “…Not clean. Stale black licorice…”


AMARONE CLASSICO “LA FABRISERIA” 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 185,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 60 points. “…Unacceptable. Sweet and cloying. Smells like bug spray…”


AMARONE CLASSICO “GIOÉ” 1993 S. Sofia 110,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 69 points. “…Just too much paint thinner and nail varnish character…”


BARBARESCO ASIJ 1985 (Piemonte) Ceretto 135,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 64 points. “…Earthy, swampy, gamy, harsh and tannic…”


BAROLO 1990 (Piemonte) Az. Agr. GD Vajra 140,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 64 points. “…Earthy, musty, lacking in charm…”


BAROLO RISERVA 1982 (Piemonte) Bruno Giacosa 250,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 72 points. “…Agressive [sic] tannins that are sharp and harsh…”


BAROLO “ZONCHERA” 1994 (Piemonte) Ceretto 120,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 74 points. “Quite disjointed…a coarse, chewy texture and an astringent finish. Hard to tell if it will ever come around…”


BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO RISERVA 1996 (Toscana) Gianfranco Soldera 235,00 €

Wine Spectator rating: 74 points. “…Turpentine. Medium-bodied, with hard, acidic character. Disappointing…”


BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO “LA CASA” 1982 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 200,00 €

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…”


CABERNET SAUVIGNON “I FOSSARETTI” 1995 (Piemonte) Poderi Bertelli 120,00 €

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…”
D dananigroSenior Editor Wine Spectator
I wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time over the past couple of days to post thoughtful comments on restaurants they have visited in our Restaurant Search reader ratings and comments section. We see that some of you have methodically commented on a number of restaurants in your immediate area. We certainly hope more of you will take the time to add feedback that will be helpful to us and other readers, or to send feedback to our Restaurant Awards e-mail (restaurantawards [at] mshanken [dot] com) not just now but throughout the year.

Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com
flwinoflwinoMember
quote:
Originally posted by Dana Nigro:
I wanted to thank everyone who has taken the time over the past couple of days to post thoughtful comments on restaurants they have visited in our Restaurant Search reader ratings and comments section. We see that some of you have methodically commented on a number of restaurants in your immediate area. We certainly hope more of you will take the time to add feedback that will be helpful to us and other readers, or to send feedback to our Restaurant Awards e-mail (restaurantawards [at] mshanken [dot] com) not just now but throughout the year.

Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com


Thanks for the compiment.

The resturant search appears to only list award winners. Can it be expanded to include others in area, that may be better than those listed?
R randysloanMember
NOW where am I going to go eat in Milan?!? Big Grin

Personally, I think the blogger's actions qualify more as a silly self-serving prank than journalism but he did publicize the potential abuse of the awards program as designed. This abuse is possible, not just by a guy who takes the time to create an entire work of fiction, but more so by real restaurants who simply embellish their wine lists to make up for weaknesses in the actual inventory.

If one reads the steps for application and criteria for awards, it becomes clear that, in effect, it is a specialized writing (or copying/pasting) and print design contest, not a wine program contest.

WS assumption that all the information they receive is true and well executed in the real world leaves them open to fraud. The realization that such abuse is possible discourages deserving restaurants from participating and causes consumers "in the know" to view the award list with a rather skeptical eye.

I don't know if WS wants to improve this awards program, but here are my suggestions:

1. Lower the number of awards and/or award them less often. It's too many for any organization to check annually.

2. Use the current criteria to wean down to a list of quarterfinalists. From quarterfinalist on, they have to be checked.

3. Publish that list of quarterfinalists and have your subscribers send feedback, vote, etc. This will discourage fraud as they will probably be outed publically by the readers. Build a list of semifinalists from these results.

4. WS editorial staff visits the semifinalists and awards the grand awards. I think such a contest would both legitimize the award and build excitement among your readership.

5. Alternatively join with another publication (either new media or old) to use their resources and expertise in the process and help them with their evaluation. It would seem that since food and wine go together and menus and wine lists go together that joint awards or evaluations by Wine Spectator and Michelin, Zagats, etc would be of real value.
Last edited by randysloan
D dswilliamsMember
Ultimately the issue of whether or not Mr. Goldstein is a shameless self-promoter or a legitimate critic of WS is moot (unless litigation occurs, of course).

What is the issue is that Wine Spectator has entered the news cycle in a way that is detrimental to the reputation of both the magazine and its Award program. Vastly more people have come across this story than read Spectator on a regular basis and exponentially more than participate in these forums. This is bad for Spectator because the press is negative, but it remains true that any press can be good press. The Spectator name is in the news cycle, that alone is beneficial.

Whatever the intention behind Mr. Goldstein's action, Wine Spectator is now in the position of being forced to respond and change its awards program in some way - whether it be simply increasing the amount of diligence done in researching award winners, or a significant overhaul of the goals and intention of the program.

Is the goal of the program to truly recognize excellence in wine service, or is it to encourage wine consumption? How important to WS is the revenue generated by the program? How concerned should WS be about restaurants that have already earned the award, does the magazine owe any allegiance to these places, should it be concerned what will happen to them, their reputations, their business if the editorship chooses to make substantial changes to the awards program?

As a wine consumer, my preference would be for a much smaller list. I would also highly, HIGHLY recommend that WS cease charging any kind of fee for processing applications. I understand this represents a huge loss in revenue, but it would instantly answer questions about the impartiality of the judging process.
W 1winedudeMember
quote:
Originally posted by Dana Nigro:
1WineDude,

Just want to clarify something. You referenced "those that ran the study" -- there was no "study," in any scholarly sense of the term, no analysis of the program, just a fraudulent entry. Goldstein presented the information about that fake entry at the same time he presented an unrelated study at the wine economist's conference.

Also the next Restaurant Awards entries aren't submitted until Jan. 2009, and the recipients aren't published until next summer, so we have time to develop and implement solid ideas for improvements to the program instead of just providing a knee-jerk reaction a couple days after discovering the fraud.

Dana Nigro, Managing editor, WineSpectator.com


Thanks, Dana. As I mentioned in an earlier post here, I do agree with the consensus that the proposed study was, at best, seriously flawed, and at worst a publicity stunt.

I am very happy to hear from you and other WS editors that there will be a well thought out response and ideas for improvements to counter the negative press. I look forward to delving into that more deeply, when it's ready, in a blog post, etc.

Cheers
B brucesandersonSenior Editor Wine Spectator
quote:
I would also highly, HIGHLY recommend that WS cease charging any kind of fee for processing applications. I understand this represents a huge loss in revenue, but it would instantly answer questions about the impartiality of the judging process.


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.
W wine+artMember
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Sanderson:
quote:
I would also highly, HIGHLY recommend that WS cease charging any kind of fee for processing applications. I understand this represents a huge loss in revenue, but it would instantly answer questions about the impartiality of the judging process.


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.


Look here, Bruce is posting.

Bruce, to heck with all this stuff, lets talk Champagne please! Big Grin

I hope to see you posting more often also. (Champagne)

w+a
D dswilliamsMember
quote:

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.
S skolMember
So what I have seen mostly is reactions to Goldstein. But doesn't his experiment raise the question of whether the advertisers in the magazine are buying ratings from WS? If an award is granted for simply paying a fee and submitting a list, what about the wines that are reviewed? How can we trust what WS is saying about the wines? It does not prove anything but it raises the question of impartiality. For that reason some change ought to be done regarding the restaurant awards.
M mariofrancoMember
The most important part of this statement is "Wine Spectator will clearly have to be more vigilant in the future".

Although one can clearly realize the scam behing Mr. Goldstein´s action, an appologie is really needed for all restaurants participants on the award, as well as to all subscribers.

I also believe that the note should be posted directly on WS website, not only in the forum.

Best Regards.


quote:
Originally posted by Thomas Matthews:
Wine Spectator learned yesterday that, for the first time in the 27-year history of our Restaurant Awards program, a fictitious restaurant has entered its wine list for judging.

To orchestrate his publicity-seeking scam, Robin Goldstein created a fictitious restaurant in Milan, Italy, called Osteria L’Intrepido, then submitted a menu and wine list to Wine Spectator’s Restaurant Awards as a new entry in 2008. The wine list earned an Award of Excellence, the most basic of our three award levels.

Goldstein revealed his elaborate hoax at a meeting in Oregon last week. He is now crowing about the fraud on his own Web site. The story has been picked up in the blogosphere, and now Wine Spectator would like to set forth the actual facts of the matter.

1. Wine Spectator’s Restaurant Awards

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. The program evaluates the content, accuracy and presentation of restaurant wine lists. It does not purport to review the restaurant as a whole.

In the program’s 27 years, we have evaluated more than 45,000 wine lists. There is no doubt that more restaurants offer good wine lists today than back in 1981. We would like to think that this program has contributed to that development. Further, our Dining Guide is a widely used resource by our subscribers. (View more information on the program here.)

2. How could a restaurant that doesn’t exist earn an award for its wine list?

We do not claim to visit every restaurant in our Awards program. We do promise to evaluate their wine lists fairly. (Nearly one-third of new entries each year do not win awards.) We assume that if we receive a wine list, the restaurant that created it does in fact exist. In the application, the restaurant owner warrants that all statements and information provided are truthful and accurate. Of course, we make significant efforts to verify the facts.

In the case of Osteria L’Intrepido:
a. We called the restaurant multiple times; each time, we reached an answering machine and a message from a person purporting to be from the restaurant claiming that it was closed at the moment.
b. Googling the restaurant turned up an actual address and located it on a map of Milan
c. The restaurant sent us a link to a Web site that listed its menu
d. On the Web site Chowhound, diners (now apparently fictitious) discussed their experiences at the non-existent restaurant in entries dated January 2008, to August 2008.

3. How could this wine list earn an award?

On his blog, Goldstein posted a small selection of the wines on this list, along with their poor ratings from Wine Spectator. This was his effort to prove that the list – even if real – did not deserve an award.

However, this selection was not representative of the quality of the complete list that he submitted to our program. Goldstein posted reviews for 15 wines. But the submitted list contained a total of 256 wines. Only 15 wines scored below 80 points.

Fifty-three wines earned ratings of 90 points or higher (outstanding on Wine Spectator’s 100-point scale) and a total of 102 earned ratings of 80 points (good) or better. (139 wines were not rated.) Overall, the wines came from many of Italy’s top producers, in a clear, accurate presentation.

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.

The list from L’Intrepido clearly falls within these parameters.

4. What did Goldstein achieve?

It has now been demonstrated that an elaborate hoax can deceive Wine Spectator.

This act of malicious duplicity reminds us that no one is completely immune to fraud. It is sad that an unscrupulous person can attack a publication that has earned its reputation for integrity over the past 32 years. Wine Spectator will clearly have to be more vigilant in the future.

Most importantly, however, this scam does not tarnish the legitimate accomplishments of the thousands of real restaurants who currently hold Wine Spectator awards, a result of their skill, hard work and passion for wine.
wineismylifewineismylifeMember
quote:
Originally posted by skol:
So what I have seen mostly is reactions to Goldstein. But doesn't his experiment raise the question of whether the advertisers in the magazine are buying ratings from WS? If an award is granted for simply paying a fee and submitting a list, what about the wines that are reviewed? How can we trust what WS is saying about the wines? It does not prove anything but it raises the question of impartiality. For that reason some change ought to be done regarding the restaurant awards.



Not in the least. Now you're fabricating. WS tastes wines blind.
J jgreenMember
quote:
Originally posted by skol:
So what I have seen mostly is reactions to Goldstein. But doesn't his experiment raise the question of whether the advertisers in the magazine are buying ratings from WS? If an award is granted for simply paying a fee and submitting a list, what about the wines that are reviewed? How can we trust what WS is saying about the wines? It does not prove anything but it raises the question of impartiality. For that reason some change ought to be done regarding the restaurant awards.



FTLOG give it a rest...now you are goign to extrapolate this scam to call into question their wine ratings? Thats a load of crap. WS provides detail as to how they taste wines (blind). Until you have some facts, shut your piehole and quit piling on.
K keenoMember
quote:
Originally posted by wine+art:
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Sanderson:
quote:
I would also highly, HIGHLY recommend that WS cease charging any kind of fee for processing applications. I understand this represents a huge loss in revenue, but it would instantly answer questions about the impartiality of the judging process.


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.


Look here, Bruce is posting.

Bruce, to heck with all this stuff, lets talk Champagne please! Big Grin

I hope to see you posting more often also. (Champagne)

w+a


Big Grin That's too funny.
M machineMember
quote:
Originally posted by Bruce Sanderson:
quote:
I would also highly, HIGHLY recommend that WS cease charging any kind of fee for processing applications. I understand this represents a huge loss in revenue, but it would instantly answer questions about the impartiality of the judging process.


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.


Yeah, nice job on judging this list, you really must have spent a lot of time on it, money well spent I say. Hey, maybe you guys DID see the reserve list, but maybe you simply don't rely on WS wine ratings, just like most at Eboob.

Why don't you people ignore the 'duping' for a moment and remind yourselves that if this list was submitted from a restaurant in existence, that restaurant would still have received the award even though several bottles of undrinkable swill appeared on its reserve list. That was the main point of this whole thing, and seems to have been the main complaint about the award by this board for a long, long time. If I fill a restaurant list with first growths from off years, and put a good variety of regions and vintages on the list (all of which were off years/poorly rated) I assume that would not be an impediment to receiving the 'award'. How many here think the list was deserving of an award?

Seems that many here have qustioned the value of the WS 'award' for a long time, and some have repeatedly requested that WS do something about it. Seems absurd that many here seem to be supporting WS in spite of the longstanding general consensus on the value of the award. Surprising also that many of these people seem to believe that because they happen to read the magazine and happen to know the details of how the 'award' are handed out, that therefore this information is 'widely known' to the wine loving/restaurant attending public. I knew what WS was long before I ever read a magazine or saw this board, I saw WS or WA referred to on wine reviews, I knew that they were a (supposedly) respected reviewer with a respected publication. At that time, if I saw that a restaurant had won the 'award', I might have been more likely to go in there and spend my money. If I did so and the restaurant/wine list did not truly merit an award (even though they received an 'award'), I would have been duped by (a) the restaurant, and moreso by (b) WS's (supposed) credibility. For all of those that would say this was my fault for not researching the award prior to eating at such a restaurant, and determining in advance that it may be no more than a paid ad, I can't say much more than that is a very disappointing outlook to say the least. People who read WS and who read these boards and who have read/understand the nature of the 'award' make up a very small percentage of the wine loving/restaurant attending public. Much of that public is (like I was) aware of WS and have likely been duped by WS 'awards' into going to restaurants that were not deserving of an award. And even if I take the position that you would be right and I should have read the award criteria/read postings of peoples opinions of the award, what conclusion would I come to -- that the 'award' has little merit? And isn't this what the fake submission was intended to show? The fake submission exposed some of the failings of the 'award', and had thereby provided a public service.

Certainly don't expect WS to look up the score of each wine on each list submitted and compare it to WS ratings for those wines, and then evaluate the list for quality, variety, and other factors. After all, where would WS get a list of ratings for wines? And given the average size of most restaurant wine lists, it would probably take someone 2 to 5 hours to go through the average list (no I am not talking about Veritas or the like, I am talking about the average restaurant), and compare it to whatever wine rating database WS might be able to get their hands on...and I am sure that the $250 would not cover the hourly rate of the people that WS pays to do this work. Am I right? Does WS publish the size of each wine list with the awards, if so what % have more than 200 selections?

Who cares that the guy lied about the existence of the restaurant. The wine list was a list of wines. The 'award' was granted based on that list. Just makes it all the more appaling that the restaurant also did not exist but still 'won' the 'award'. At least there was no chance someone would walk by the restaurant after seeing the 'award' on the door.

p.s. since Dan Nigro and Bruce Sanderson have only 10 and 15 posts respectively, the sentiment of most in this thread would dictate that their posts should be ignored. Content of postings seems to be quite irrelevant to most; # of posts, well that is something entirely different.
M machineMember
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
quote:
Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Go away new posters -


Unfortunately it's too late for that JC. Either Robin Goldstein or the lier's followers have gotten the word and they're spreading it like wildfire. It's the wolf pack mentality. They'll keep picking at the bones until there's no meat left.


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?
flwinoflwinoMember
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
quote:
Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Go away new posters -


Unfortunately it's too late for that JC. Either Robin Goldstein or the lier's followers have gotten the word and they're spreading it like wildfire. It's the wolf pack mentality. They'll keep picking at the bones until there's no meat left.


They should purge all posts from this idiots followers, especially those accounts created since 08/18. Tired of seeing these spam artists. They are pissed off as they did not win an award for wine drinker of the year. Once an a-hole always an a-hole.

Ws will handle the issue, and solve the problem and will come out even better.

Until you have some facts, shut your piehole and quit piling on. Thanks J green for the line Cool
S sacredcowMember
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
flwinoflwinoMember
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
quote:
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.
M machineMember
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
quote:
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!
M machineMember
quote:
Originally posted by Florida Wino:
quote:
Originally posted by wineismylife:
quote:
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.
M machineMember
quote:
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'.
doubleddoubledMember
quote:
Originally posted by 1WineDude:
quote:
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.
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.
×