Wine Spectator Has Been Scammed

quote:

Originally posted by Sacred Cow:
OK, I get it. You think a wine list with roughly 5% losers should be disqualified. Make that suggestion to the powers that be, while I sit here and disagree with you and choose something from the other 95% of the list since I am a point chaser.

Moo

I see the point that you purport to be trying to make, and agree with the point that you purport to be trying to make, but that is not the point that you are actually making (or actually trying to make i.m.o.), which is that a wine list that had a reserve list (apparently...can't be sure since I didnt see entire list) consisting of the follwing is a wine list that is deserving of an award or an 'award' from WS. I disagree with this, and don't see how anyone could agree with it, or agree that a publication that reviews and rates wine cannot be strongly questioned for giving an 'award' to a list that includes the following (particularly so given the quotes that are attributed to WS):

AMARONE CLASSICO 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 80,00 €

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


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…”


Your casual characterization of the above as a "wine list with roughly 5% losers", is hardly accurate. Your tongue-in-cheek reference to 'point chasers' ignoring this 5% (as if the points are the key here - did you even read the wording from the (apparent) WS reviews on the list??) and going after the other 95% (which apparently were for the most part rated between 80 and 90, hardly the types of wines that point chasers would chase, do you not agree?) really does very little to further your cause or make your post in any way persuasive.

quote:

Originally posted by 1WineDude:

quote:

Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Go away new posters -

Nope.

I'm staying.

Cheers!

Maybe Joe Roberts "certified Specialist of Wine" what ever certified you?? Not the highly ranked internaional boards.

as his web site says, Joe ... used to be a total wine dunce. Still is

1) So you made your determination based on 15 wines? What are the other 241 wines, and how many of those were on the reserve list? What were their scores?

2) Man, you sure do talk funny some times. Let me reword this and see if I understand it properly:

You see the point I am trying to make. You agree with the point I am trying to make. But I am not making the point I am trying to make. Does that about cover it?

Nope, don't understand it at all. Maybe you need someone at a higher intellectual level than a bovine, because it seems like nothing but methane to me.

Or are you just an attorney by training? If so, that would explain a lot. You sure do write like a blowtard attorney that used to post here before being chased away by Mishy

Moo

However ridiculous the reserve list may be, it would bring much clarity to the core issue (that the list did not deserve the award) if we could see the COMPLETE WINE LIST submitted by Robin Goldstein.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacred Cow:
1) So you made your determination based on 15 wines? What are the other 241 wines, and how many of those were on the reserve list? What were there scores?

2) Man, you sure do talk funny some times. Let me reword this and see if I understand it properly:

You see the point I am trying to make. You agree with the point I am trying to make. But I am not making the point I am trying to make. Does that about cover it?

Nope, don't understand it at all. Maybe you need someone at a higher intellectual level than a bovine, because it seems like nothing but methane to me.

Or are you just an attorney by training? If so, that would explain a lot.

Moo

Actually I said "I see the point that you PURPORT to be trying to make, and agree with the point that you PURPORT to be trying to make, but that is not the point that you are actually making (or actually trying to make i.m.o.)".

I agree that a wine list with 5% losers should not be precluded from receiving an award or an 'award'. I believe that this was the point that you were PURPORTING to be trying to make.

However, I don't agree that this list should have received an award or an 'award'. Since you are not really arguing that a wine list with 5% losers is not a problem, but are actually arguing that THIS list that was mostly made up of wines rated between 80 and 90 and with part of (or the entire) reserve list made up of mostly very poorly rated wines with mostly very negative tasting notes (again, not sure if these are actually from WS or not) should not have been precluded from receiving an award or an 'award', I think the point that you were ACTUALLY trying to make was quite different from the point you were PURPORTEDLY trying to make.

So, I see and agree with the point you were PURPORTEDLY trying to make, but disagree with the point that you were ACTUALLY making/ACTUALLY trying to make. Sorry I should have taken more time to explain it better.

Lets make it easier, since I think we probably agree on the idea of what is/is not deserving of an award: Do you think that WS should have given an 'award' to a wine list that included (as part of/its entire reserve list) the wines that were listed, with the tasting notes that were listed? I do not.

see the complete list??? what a great idea...

Who is this guy? You shore do talk funny, but at least you have a purty mouth.

Even though you ignored my other questions, here is my response to yours:

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO JUDGE! Is that clear enough to you?

If those are the only 15 wines on the reserve list, I would say no. If those are the worst 15 wines out of 50 on the reserve list? Not sure. 100? Possibly depending on the rest of the list. If 200 wines are on the reserve list? Probably. Again, without seeing the entire wine list, it is impossible to know in my opinion, short of relying on the word of a demonstrated con artist, liar and scammer.

The point I am trying to make, purporting to make, and am making is that having a list of 15 wines out of 256 that were submitted is NOT enough to judge the list in its entirety. Capische, or do you want to try to parse some more attorney boy?

Moo

quote:

Originally posted by Florida Wino:

quote:

Originally posted by 1WineDude:

quote:

Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Go away new posters -

Nope.

I'm staying.

Cheers!

Maybe Joe Roberts "certified Specialist of Wine" what ever certified you?? Not the highly ranked internaional boards.

as his web site says, Joe ... used to be a total wine dunce. Still is

Actually, I am certified by some regarded international boards when it comes to wine knowledge.

• CSW is awarded by exam from the Society of Wine Educators, probably the preeminent wine education body in the U.S.
  
• I'm also certified by the Wine & Spirit Education Trust (out of London), which is the official "feeder" program for those seeking to entrance into the Institute of Masters of Wine.
  

If you're interested in these designations, you can learn more about them here:
http://1winedude.blogspot.com/2007/10/hey-you-like-one-of-them-thar-some.html

I won't comment on your design certs., because I know nothing about design.

I won't fall into a trap of negative back & forth in a forum, either, so you're pretty much wasting your time there.

Forums like this one don't belong to a clique. They aren't owned by any group. And I'm willing to stick around on this one if only to prove the point that anyone with an interest in WS has a right to be heard here.

Cheers

quote:

Originally posted by Tannat Madiran:
see the complete list??? what a great idea...

Turkey has a blog called "Sling Juice - The wine worlds finest news source"

Read it, bunch of crap. In fact not much news, more like the National Inquirer

quote:

Originally posted by Machine:

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!

Nope. Didn't say that. But if it makes you feel better believe what you wish. At least you're not a one timer.

quote:

Originally posted by Jcocktosten:
Go away new posters -

These kinds of comments make me glad I joined this board.
As far as the WS being scammed, my thoughts are the people that have faith in WS will continue to follow them. Lots of hooplah over this considering it's a wine publication and that's what I read it for. I'm sure they will take the proper steps so it doesn't happen again.

quote:

Originally posted by d.s.williams:

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.

You think WS is going to knowingly take a risk putting through a fake wine list for the whopping sum of $250? I would think most “reasonable” people would consider the fee administrative to WS and nominal to the restaurant.

quote:

Originally posted by wineismylife:

quote:

Originally posted by Machine:

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!

Nope. Didn't say that. But if it makes you feel better believe what you wish. At least you're not a one timer.

Or a two timer. And I know you did not say that, but your post was nonresponsive to some degree/at least in spirit. My point is that the WS 'award' has been suspect/criticized for some time, the actions of this guy were aimed at revealing that, and succeeded in adding further questioning to the credibility of the award. Many people here already questioned the credibility of the award/did not believe that the award had much merit, but were aware of the award criteria and weighed the award accordingly...so they are not really surprised that this slipped through. I understand their positions and agree with them. I just don't agree with those that seem to suggest that everyone out there who likes wine or goes to restaurants should know the award is of questionable value. If they don't know the award is of questionable value, and if they do generally trust WS, then if they are more likely to go to a restaurant because of a WS award (without knowing that it is of quetionable value), then they will have been duped to some degree into spending money that they otherwise would not have spent.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacred Cow:
Who is this guy? You shore do talk funny, but at least you have a purty mouth.

Even though you ignored my other questions, here is my response to yours:

THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION TO JUDGE! Is that clear enough to you?

If those are the only 15 wines on the reserve list, I would say no. If those are the worst 15 wines out of 50 on the reserve list? Not sure. 100? Possibly depending on the rest of the list. If 200 wines are on the reserve list? Probably. Again, without seeing the entire wine list, it is impossible to know in my opinion, short of relying on the word of a demonstrated con artist, liar and scammer.

The point I am trying to make, purporting to make, and am making is that having a list of 15 wines out of 256 that were submitted is NOT enough to judge the list in its entirety. Capische, or do you want to try to parse some more attorney boy?

Moo

Your other questions were irrelevant. Your point seems to be either that you would have given the award to this list, or would not have precluded this list from receiving the award based on those wines and those quotes from tasting notes in their reserve list, and despite the fact thaf of the other 250 or so wines on the list, the vast majority scored between 80 and 90 (not so bad, but also not so great).

You are entitled to your opinion. I would not give them the award, and I would preclude them from being considered for the award. I don't trust WS restaurant awards, and I would not trust Sacred Cow restaurant awards. No big deal, but that is the point I was purportedly and actually trying to make, and I thought it was the point that I actually did make.

about the wine list- just google his name !!!!

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.

15 of 256 wines not rating well with us is not means for a disqualification of an award (especially when many of the wines on the list rated 90+, a point curiously left out in many of the attack posts that use this nugget of info). Sorry if you don't agree...

In reviewing thousands of wine lists over the years, I've never come across one where I wanted %100 of the selections it offered - but that does not mean that in general, the list can't be considered a 'good' list...

We do not pretend to be totalitarian in our opinion. Many of the producers in question here (of the 15 sub-80 point wines) are generally considered top producers. For example, while our ratings of Soldera's recent vintages have been in the average range, we are not blind to the fact that there are people who may like the wines.

We are not in the business of steering folks away from a restaurant (again, on the assumption that we were dealing with a real restaurant here) that purports to offer a 250-plus selection of wines, the vast majority of which we consider good or excellent...

Yes, you attempted to make, purported to make, and did make the point that seeing the 15 worst wines on a list of 256 wines, of which you do not know the other 241, is enough information for you to make a decision. Would seeing only the 15 BEST wines on a list of 256 allow you to make a decision too?

Personally I like having MUCH more information available to me before making a decision. An almost total lack of information leads me to defer judgment rather than jump to potentially/likely erroneous conclusions.

Moo

I should point out that we don't differentiate between a 'reserve list' and regular list. We think separating a wine list into two sections, inferring that one has better selections than another, is an antiquated concept. We judge the list on the entirety of its selections...

And a hypothetical: Would you downgrade a restaurant's list that had a complete vertical of a Bordeaux chateau's wines, if they included off years in the vertical just to complete the listing? Take a 20 years span from any period in Bordeaux and you can easily come up with 15 percent of the vintages that might no be deemed strong - is it wrong for a restaurant to list them along with the great years?

I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. One jerk lied to the WS about a restaurant and went so far as to provide false backup. What's the big deal that has everybody's bowels churning? WS is taking steps to try to prevent this from happening again. It appears to be an isolated incident. Is it so earth-shattering that somebody pulled off a little scam?

As someone hinted at earlier, we get fooled everyday by advertising. Here, as far as we know, we got fooled once in 2+ decades.

Besides, I really don't think my other questions were irrelevant, especially the one about being an attorney. You see, as an attorney friend of mine once told me, "Arguing with an attorney is like mud wrestling with a pig. Eventually you realize that the pig enjoys it." Using that philosophy, knowing whether or not you are an attorney is EXTREMELY germane to deciding whether or not I want to continue this discussion.

Moo

Rational, evidence based thought is not nearly as 'fun' or 'sizzling w/ excitement' as fragmented tidbits used to slander a successful business as part of their odious agenda. Thankfully, there's a decent volume of people interested in the facts, which should be fairly clear now. Channeling a lot of time, effort and energy into a fooling a successful magazine may in fact smear their reputation a bit initially; but this was by no means a minor hoax that exposed how shallow the Wine Spectator's evaluation process was...while not a perfect process (and one, like many other things, that can be improved upon), it was fooled by a sophisticated & misguided individual. I know this all made the Spectator haters very happy, but it by no means demonstrates that the magazine lacks integrity or champions poor products.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacred Cow:
Yes, you attempted to make, purported to make, and did make the point that seeing the 15 worst wines on a list of 256 wines, of which you do not know the other 241, is enough information for you to make a decision. Would seeing only the 15 BEST wines on a list of 256 allow you to make a decision too?

Personally I like having MUCH more information available to me before making a decision. An almost total lack of information leads me to defer judgment rather than jump to potentially/likely erroneous conclusions.

Moo

The other day I bought a bottle of wine, and then I discovered it was just fermented grape juice. Boy, do I feel dumb.

I really have no point.... But neither do many of the posts here... I just like to read my own writing.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad Coelho:
Rational, evidence based thought is not nearly as 'fun' or 'sizzling w/ excitement' as fragmented tidbits used to slander a successful business as part of their odious agenda. Thankfully, there's a decent volume of people interested in the facts, which should be fairly clear now. Channeling a lot of time, effort and energy into a fooling a successful magazine may in fact smear their reputation a bit initially; but this was by no means a minor hoax that exposed how shallow the Wine Spectator's evaluation process was...while not a perfect process (and one, like many other things, that can be improved upon), it was fooled by a sophisticated & misguided individual. I know this all made the Spectator haters very happy, but it by no means demonstrates that the magazine lacks integrity or champions poor products.

quote:

Originally posted by Sacred Cow:
Yes, you attempted to make, purported to make, and did make the point that seeing the 15 worst wines on a list of 256 wines, of which you do not know the other 241, is enough information for you to make a decision. Would seeing only the 15 BEST wines on a list of 256 allow you to make a decision too?

Personally I like having MUCH more information available to me before making a decision. An almost total lack of information leads me to defer judgment rather than jump to potentially/likely erroneous conclusions.

Moo

Brad I do not think that you have correctly identified the purpose behind the false submission, but again I have read explanations of the reasons from 3rd party sources/articles/posts that make assumptions. If it was his intention, as reported by the LA Times (and I have no idea about the credibility of that publication, or their sources) " to expose the lack of any foundation for many food and wine awards", I think he succeeded in part. Again, many here seem to be of the opinion that the process of giving out 'awards' is flawed/lacks appropriate review (and that even if the lack of appropriate review is acknowledged by WS, that most people out there are not aware of the criteria for review, and may be surprised at the threshhold applied). As for being duped by something that was fake, it looks bad but is not so convincing that the review of the wine list was flawed. As for the presence of a number of awful listings on the wine list, that should have raised a red flag in my opinion, but several others disagree. So some success (i.m.o.) in questioning the foundation of the awards (consistent with questioning by posters for a long time), and some flashy window dressing (faking out WS with the fake restaurant).

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. One jerk lied to the WS about a restaurant and went so far as to provide false backup. What's the big deal that has everybody's bowels churning? WS is taking steps to try to prevent this from happening again. It appears to be an isolated incident. Is it so earth-shattering that somebody pulled off a little scam?

As someone hinted at earlier, we get fooled everyday by advertising. Here, as far as we know, we got fooled once in 2+ decades.

I agree. I do appreciate the patience and professionalism of the WS editors through all this. It is apparent that the poster(s) is/are just stirring the pot and the editors have been doing a tremendous job tolerating it.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by irwin:
Ne Kulturny:
Is it fair to blame the victim for the criminal's action? Do you blame women who are raped by evil guys because they wear alluring clothing, or do you blame banks for being robbed because they keep money in their facilities.

If a person is dishonest, and thereby injures an honest person, so far as I can tell, the bad guy is the dishonest person, not the victim.



Lets extend your bank analogy. Lets say said bank keeps all of said money in an unsecured back room with no security cameras (they don't purport to have any security); it also don't bother to do employee security checks on any of its 50 employees all of whom have keys to the back room (which is usually unlocked anyway because staff lose keys all the time), BUT each employee is required to sign a note saying they're honest AND the bank manager did Google each of their names verify that they've never done anything bad before.

And the bank gets robbed (duh!) and you have money in there. Do you fault the honest bank or the dishonest robber? Or both?

Above is a quote from Stevey:
My answer is: The money was stolen by the robber. The robber is solely responsible for stealing it. There is a huge qualitative difference between the passivity of the bank and the activity of the robber. The robber has evil intent.

quote:

Originally posted by Keeno:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. One jerk lied to the WS about a restaurant and went so far as to provide false backup. What's the big deal that has everybody's bowels churning? WS is taking steps to try to prevent this from happening again. It appears to be an isolated incident. Is it so earth-shattering that somebody pulled off a little scam?

As someone hinted at earlier, we get fooled everyday by advertising. Here, as far as we know, we got fooled once in 2+ decades.

I agree. I do appreciate the patience and professionalism of the WS editors through all this. It is apparent that the poster(s) is/are just stirring the pot and the editors have been doing a tremendous job tolerating it.

Agree with both Keeno and Board-O.

Agree with Wine + Art, who agreed with Keeno (the lame) and Board-O.

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. One jerk lied to the WS about a restaurant and went so far as to provide false backup.

Why do I keep wondering if Goldstein is actually Ashton Kutcher... and this is just another episode of Punk'd? Someone sets up an contrived, false situation in order to make someone else look foolish - for no other reason than "entertainment". Sure sounds like Punk'd to me.

quote:

Originally posted by irwin:
Agree with Wine + Art, who agreed with Keeno (the lame) and Board-O.

I'm officially walking now! I am thankful for this, and for my wife not having me put down. She may have suffered through this more than me.

"My name is Robin Goldstein, and I’m the author of a new book called The Wine Trials (book here ; website here ). Lately, I’ve become curious about how Wine Spectator magazine determines its Awards of Excellence for the world’s best wine restaurants."

I'm sure more than one person has alluded to this before, but it must be terrific to get this amount of publicity-- both on the internet and in news publications-- while a new book is in distribution. You have to hand it to Goldstein; he's hit a gold mine with this move. Whether you think his actions were wrong or acceptable, it's a good illustration of that Brendan Behan line that "There is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary."

Personally, I'm somewhat surprised at how large a mountain developed out of this molehill. And I recognize that just in posting this, I've added another yard of landfill to the pile, so I'll refrain from now on.

The only worthwhile thing about this is that it brought Seaquam out to play.

quote:

Originally posted by Brian Loring:

quote:

Originally posted by Board-O:
I think this whole thing is blown way out of proportion. One jerk lied to the WS about a restaurant and went so far as to provide false backup.

Why do I keep wondering if Goldstein is actually Ashton Kutcher... and this is just another episode of Punk'd? Someone sets up an contrived, false situation in order to make someone else look foolish - for no other reason than "entertainment". Sure sounds like Punk'd to me.

Thomas, I can not believe WS is even considering taking this stand for this situation. My friend this is very simply black and white. How can any award be giving for a restaurant when your qualified staff haven't eaten at or been to? That is clearly like Me giving an aware car of the year when I have never seen it. For the sake of integrity say your evaluating the requirements and you will be making the necessary changes immediately. Do you still rate wines that advertise in your magazine? That has to be a conflict of interest. I have known for a long time why true wine people avoid your magazine but thought if anything you were helping by getting people that would normally not be into wines into them but come on. I feel bad for your readers and all I have to say is,"Decanter magazine". Get an issue or ten and learn.

I think everyone is missing the bigger point here. It's not how accurate or honest WS is with their wine awards, it's the fact that that issue of the magazine is about the only one to get recycled before I've even read it. No one in their right mind would choose a restaurant in a strange city based on that list. If you did so in my city, you'd be truly sorry, at least if you like food at all. Most good restaurants, and yes even those with great wine lists, don't bother with this sort of thing. In the end, those wine awards really mean very little. They are a waste of time from the consumers stand point.

Hum along folks...

"That thing you do" by the Oneders

quote:

Originally posted by GlennK:
You think WS is going to knowingly take a risk putting through a fake wine list for the whopping sum of $250? I would think most “reasonable” people would consider the fee administrative to WS and nominal to the restaurant.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. Clearly WS didn't knowingly put through a fake list, also clearly a $250 fee didn't dissuade a determined individual.

The fee is administrative, yes, but to the general public it gives the appearance that the award could be simply a form of paid advertising.

I'm not saying that's what it IS, I'm saying that's what it looks like. All I was doing was offering a suggestion for a step WS could choose to take which would serve to repair their public image.

quote:

Originally posted by kjf:
I think everyone is missing the bigger point here. It's not how accurate or honest WS is with their wine awards, it's the fact that that issue of the magazine is about the only one to get recycled before I've even read it. No one in their right mind would choose a restaurant in a strange city based on that list. If you did so in my city, you'd be truly sorry, at least if you like food at all. Most good restaurants, and yes even those with great wine lists, don't bother with this sort of thing. In the end, those wine awards really mean very little. They are a waste of time from the consumers stand point.

Congratulations are in order kjf. With your first post ever, you are now in the running for the most insipid, foolish if not moronic post yet.

There are 1000's of world class restaurants on the list.

Which city are you in?

kjf, be careful about over generalizing. Many people do use the WS lists and find wonderful restaurants with great wine lists. If one comes to Denver, they will find the Barolo Grill which has been on the WS list for the umpteen years. It is truly a wonderful restaurant in all aspects, one of Denver's best!

While in Hilton Head this spring we visited a restaurant that we had gotten off the WS list that was likewise wonderful. If it had not been for the WS guide we would not have found the restaurant because of its out of the way location.

Is the WS Restaurant guide the Bible guide for travelors, probably not nor does it claim to be. But it can be very useful, if you use it with practicality.

I also used to find the DiRoNA award award winner listing next to the wine listing very useful. I don't know why that ceased to be included. Listing the corkage fee is nice, but I always call to confirm before going.

MR. MOLESWORTH

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