Wine Spectator Has Been Scammed

quote:
Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
quote:
Originally posted by Chilepepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
As much as I found this “scandal” a good laugh, watching the forum trolls getting their panties in a bunch over new posters is almost as rich.

Big Grin Popcorn Big Grin
Actually some of us are just laughing our asses off at them.

Much like we do with you....... Popcorn


Big Grin Classic Big Grin
You’re both giving Pavlov’s dog a real run for his money.
Sorry if the truth hurts you...... Cool
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
quote:
Originally posted by Chilepepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
As much as I found this “scandal” a good laugh, watching the forum trolls getting their panties in a bunch over new posters is almost as rich.

Big Grin Popcorn Big Grin
Actually some of us are just laughing our asses off at them.

Much like we do with you....... Popcorn


Big Grin Classic Big Grin
You’re both giving Pavlov’s dog a real run for his money.
Sorry if the truth hurts you...... Cool
From the pain of laughing so hard. Sometimes I even feel bad about it. (Ok, not really).

Seriously though, sit down and give your mind a rest. Smile
quote:
Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
quote:
Originally posted by Chilepepper:
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by GreenDrazi:
As much as I found this “scandal” a good laugh, watching the forum trolls getting their panties in a bunch over new posters is almost as rich.

Big Grin Popcorn Big Grin
Actually some of us are just laughing our asses off at them.

Much like we do with you....... Popcorn


Big Grin Classic Big Grin
You’re both giving Pavlov’s dog a real run for his money.


Quit feeding us every time you show up then! Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by davem858:
quote:
Originally posted by Holger B:
For Marvin Shanker, it's all about the money. Putting aside how pathetic the "award" issue is, he's prostituted WS to the hilt.

I'm not going to defend the clown that made WS look like idiots, but it was bound to happen sooner or later. If the awards are for sale, where's the integrity for anything they do?

It's all downhill for Wine Spec from here.


For sale?? For $250?? WTF are you talking about? Do you really think $250 gets you anything in the wine world? If so, you are seriously out of touch with reality.


$250 adds up! Anyone in the volume Biz knows this.
$250 is a reasonable processing fee. Looking at this from the stand point of someone who operates a website, I think that $250 covers paying someone to process the paperwork and do some basic checking, production (print and web) and other ancillary costs. If WS nets any money it can't be over $125 per application at best.
It's funny that some of the earlier one-hit wonders had exactly the same talking points and writing style as Robin Goldstein. If you go look at the comments on his blog post, you'll also notice at lot of the comments, under various names, are in the same style, with the same talking points.

Can't the WS web guru trace these people to see if any are him and if any are posting under multiple names?

Maybe they're all just sycophants, who knows. A lot of the comments there are in the style of SLJ: unknowledgable, blindly accepting of his view, incapable of independent thought and fairly incoherent.

It's also notable that on eBob, where you can't post anonymously, there have been zero one-hit wonders. Add to that, with all he's gone through with this, you'd think Goldstein would show up here.

Know I go becuse their is wine too drink that from bergandy red region and so good you ingorunt peepoles could never get it how good it is now that I have a glass is good for me yum.
yhn

I am of the impression that one cannot trace that information of one is not the blog owner/admin with access to the identifying info of each poster (ip, whois, etc)


Goldstein's MO is to lay low during heated debate, discussion and even attacks.
Thomas Matthews does not live in a bubble. He knows what his simple awards of encouragment mean to restaurants and wineries. Submitting a list with $250 and receiving an award in return is slowly but surely becoming a joke for those of us in the business who would like to see honesty in wine and a rating system that is free from any intent to deceive or impress others. I was GM at a restaurant in SF that received the award of excellence every year without many of the wines being on the premises. One of WS former columnists was friend and dinner buddy of the owner. They would go on and on in a stupor announcing that good white wine does not exist. That columnist was full of it as were his columns, in my opinion. In addition; the word is that ad space purchased and ratings are closely tied together at the Wine Spectator. I understand this relationship and realize back in the day people like Chuck Ortman, for example, were in business and depended on the Spectator to sell his products. Where else could he advertise? Because ratings are subjective, fudging a little in exchange for some full page ad space dollars seemed reasonable. Dishonest, but reasonable. Thomas Matthews can squawk all he wants but this is the perception in the community. It is like Joel Segal taking Hollywood payola to give his blessing to an expensive movie bomb. Eventually people don't care what he says. His syndicate believes there are always fresh suckers who will read the column and go purchase tickets. In America, a growing business always finds new suckers.
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
WOW. What a team. To answer Machine's question, I generally have no use for post counts. I think they should be gone. I'm using them here because I find it offensive that these posters have at no other time come into this forum to add anything, but to join now to criticize, complain and tell WS that they are out of bounds with what they do. I find it rude to come in here, and with your first post, and probably last, tell the hosts that they suck. If you don't like what WS does, go somewhere else. There are plenty of other wine BB's available. It doesn't take an abacus to find any of them. If you have problems with the WS "Awards", then knock your socs off, make up your own by your own rules. If this were eBob, and any of these posters spoke of Robt. Parker in the same way, they would be gone faster than fast. That's it. I'm done talking. LOL. I was trying very hard to include "people with no stake in the situation/horse in the race" somewhere in this, but I couldn't see it fitting in.

MADWINO - 3 of 5 posts, this topic.
Tannat Madiran - ALL 3 posts, this topic.
squandra - 1 post, this topic.
michaelnumberone - 1 post, this topic.
MartinBriley - 1 post, this topic.
ryanopaz - 2 posts, this topic.
mkoppen - 1 post, this topic.
bjohnson - 1 post, this topic.
CRS - ALL 16 posts in this thread.
ColoradoClaire - 2 posts, this thread.
Cledus J. Krelpfarth - 1 post, this topic.
Phillip in France - 1 post, this topic.
* Phillip can be excused though, because he claims to have come here from "DIGG". Since that makes him around 14 years old, he really can't be called out on this.
1WineDude - ALL 10 POSTS IN THIS THREAD.
d.s.williams - 3 of 4 posts, this topic.
Mario Franco - 1 post, this topic.
Heywood - 1 post, this topic.
Shanej - 1 post, this topic.
kjf - 1 post, this topic.
SLJ - 5 posts, this topic. (Try using "Spell-Check".)

...


I can only speak for myself, but if the WS editors chose this forum (both senses of the word intended) to air their response on this (now highly public) matter, and folks like me are trying to have discourse (not just complaints, if you read my posts here) with the WS editors on the topic... well, I'm struggling to understand where else the discourse should take place.

If the WS editors had a press release and other means of contact on the topic, I'm sure many of us would be happy to use it as an alternative to the forum.

Cheers
JMFremont or whatever your name is. The only thing dishonest are your comments. There is absolutely no connection between advertising and wine ratings. It's always been like with the magazine and I have worked 27 years at the Spectator. In fact, we have lost plenty of advertising from lowly rating some wines. Why don't you climb back under your stone in Fremont and stay there.
quote:
Originally posted by Machine:
If I put 15 jars of my own urine on a wine list with 250+ good to excellent wines, would you give my list an award? And no that is not meant to be a dig on the general quality of British cuisine...


Hmmm. Now that's a truly relevant and insightful comment on both counts.

My post addressed a constant and IMO unnecessary request to see the 256 wines in the original list and explained my reasoning.

Yours poses a ludicrous and irrelevant question followed by another piece of iridescent cant.

Apparently we agree that providing the vast majority of a list that even the scammer considered good is a meaningless exercise.

To characterise the 15 wines which were carefully chosen from some top producers as somehow like your 'urine' is about as juvenile as it gets.

I am not sure where national cuisine comes into it or your ability to comment on British cuisine but it is clearly another irrelevant issue that you probably know nothing about yet are happy to introduce.
quote:
Originally posted by azprwb:
btw,

139 not rated
that leaves 132 - correction: 117
take away the 15 rated @<80
you get 102 rated @ 80+ of which 53 rated @ 90+


I think you will find that was exactly I posted in my earlier response to you.

I still see absolutely no purpose in discussing the full list by individual wine since it is absolutely clear that the scam relies entirely on the 15 carefully [because they include such top producers] chosen ringers.

Even Goldstein concedes the rest of the list was good and presumably deliberately so in order to further camouflage the 15 ringers.

What would you be trying to prove? That the vast majority of the list was even better than already known? Hmmmm I wonder.
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
quote:
Originally posted by Machine:
If I put 15 jars of my own urine on a wine list with 250+ good to excellent wines, would you give my list an award? And no that is not meant to be a dig on the general quality of British cuisine...


Hmmm. Now that's a truly relevant and insightful comment on both counts.

My post addressed a constant and IMO unnecessary request to see the 256 wines in the original list and explained my reasoning.

Yours poses a ludicrous and irrelevant question followed by another piece of iridescent cant.

Apparently we agree that providing the vast majority of a list that even the scammer considered good is a meaningless exercise.

To characterise the 15 wines which were carefully chosen from some top producers as somehow like your 'urine' is about as juvenile as it gets.

I am not sure where national cuisine comes into it or your ability to comment on British cuisine but it is clearly another irrelevant issue that you probably know nothing about yet are happy to introduce.


Sigh....Nigel I have read numerous posts that you have made on both boards for a long time, and can only conclude that you are and always have been pretty much incapable of participating in a logical discussion; you call my posts juvenile? Try reading through your history.

Since many people here don't seem to acknowledge a difference (which I think is clear, but that is my opinion, and others may disagree...but I think it has a degree of objectivity rather than subjectivity) between (a) a list that happens to have some wines that certain people won't like are/or were not rated so good and (b) a list that contained the 14 apparently awful wines in question, I took it further by including something that should not have been on the list and should have been considered by most to be completely undrinkable (save except perhaps those who enjoy the cuising of the two fat ladies...may their lard covered, streaky bacon wrapped, organ meat filled souls rest in peace). Lots of wines that people don't like are on lots of lists; lots of wines with poor ratings are on lots of lists; Goldstein's main point seems to have been to put wines on the list that were so poorly rated that someone assessing the list would have rejected it or at least questioned it. I looked at those wines/ratings/bits of tasting notes only, and think those wines were bad enough that the list should have been questioned as a whole for their inclusion. You repetedly ignore the very poor quality of these wines, specifically selected to be so bad that WS should not have approved the list, and point to the rest of the list.

Seems pretty clear that there are no 14 bad bottles in existance that could have been so poor that you would have rejected the list, so I took those bottles to their logical conclusion, i.e. instead of crappy wine, I used the byproduct of drinking crappy wine. Your stance on approving the list does not appear to have changed.

In the end, I say that having those 14 bottles on the list should have raised serious questions about the wine consultant/sommelier/list as a whole (as was Goldstein's apparent main intention), that is my opinion. You disagree. End of story.
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:
quote:
Originally posted by SLJ:
It's funny, not supriseing my other user name (with a negatine comment doesn't work any more.Typical WS bs. Here's the deal, if you hace one question about the integrety on WS then do your home work contact people that are really into wine or the business and speak with them about there and there advertizing practices. Enyone who is serious about wine knnow WS is for posers(looks good on the coffee table) and beginners. The thought that anyone would think otherwise simply says exactly that. Be strong my @#$! How about except who you are. A cash cow. Nothing wrong with that so why draw a stick figure picture and call it a Picasso?? [B]Exibit [/B] A: Decanter Magazine. Sorry to inform all the WS beleivers . Have a glass of your Cab, Merlot,chardonnay or white zinfandel you got from the super market that WS recommended of course and realize.
Wow. I must admit, this is the first time I've been lectured by someone who is obviously illiterate....... Eek


It's Goldstein in disguise!! he jhas to civer his dirty tracks somehow.

I still believe that most all of these one hit wonders are the same muckraker [my apoligies to Sinclair Lewis] yellow journalist freak.
quote:
Originally posted by SLJ:
I don't drink I taste and you my friend you should do some homework or just stay ignorant. Most dishonest businesses WS make the majority of there money off, guess who?? You. Keep paying there bills.


Yur still drunk or senile!! Kant tpe or spel enlish langage! Sober up fingers and your brain
quote:
Originally posted by James Suckling:
JMFremont or whatever your name is. The only thing dishonest are your comments. There is absolutely no connection between advertising and wine ratings. It's always been like with the magazine and I have worked 27 years at the Spectator. In fact, we have lost plenty of advertising from lowly rating some wines. Why don't you climb back under your stone in Fremont and stay there.


NOT implying that I agree with JMFreemont, but I hope this is not actually James Suckling responding like this...
quote:
MADWINO - 3 of 5 posts, this topic.
Tannat Madiran - ALL 3 posts, this topic.
squandra - 1 post, this topic.
michaelnumberone - 1 post, this topic.
MartinBriley - 1 post, this topic.
ryanopaz - 2 posts, this topic.
mkoppen - 1 post, this topic.
bjohnson - 1 post, this topic.
CRS - ALL 16 posts in this thread.
ColoradoClaire - 2 posts, this thread.
Cledus J. Krelpfarth - 1 post, this topic.
Phillip in France - 1 post, this topic.
* Phillip can be excused though, because he claims to have come here from "DIGG". Since that makes him around 14 years old, he really can't be called out on this.
1WineDude - ALL 10 POSTS IN THIS THREAD.
d.s.williams - 3 of 4 posts, this topic.
Mario Franco - 1 post, this topic.
Heywood - 1 post, this topic.
Shanej - 1 post, this topic.
kjf - 1 post, this topic.
SLJ - 5 posts, this topic. (Try using "Spell-Check".)


To think they all registerd this week, Fantastic!!

I love to look at the public profile of some of these folks. BTW CRS runs a wine shop in Napa! Others have no qualificayions including Joe and his 'certificates'
For a while I've heard the idea that the award of excellence was at best meaningless and at worst a money grab. This guy started with that premise and designed an albeit unfair test of said premise.

You can rip goldberg as a self promoting schmuck but it doesn't change a broadly held belief that the award has some problems.

One last...Goldberg is crowing that the key point is that the restaurant didnt exist. I think the key point is that the winelist maybe only got skimmed by a staffer.
quote:
Originally posted by Florida Wino:
quote:
MADWINO - 3 of 5 posts, this topic.
Tannat Madiran - ALL 3 posts, this topic.
squandra - 1 post, this topic.
michaelnumberone - 1 post, this topic.
MartinBriley - 1 post, this topic.
ryanopaz - 2 posts, this topic.
mkoppen - 1 post, this topic.
bjohnson - 1 post, this topic.
CRS - ALL 16 posts in this thread.
ColoradoClaire - 2 posts, this thread.
Cledus J. Krelpfarth - 1 post, this topic.
Phillip in France - 1 post, this topic.
* Phillip can be excused though, because he claims to have come here from "DIGG". Since that makes him around 14 years old, he really can't be called out on this.
1WineDude - ALL 10 POSTS IN THIS THREAD.
d.s.williams - 3 of 4 posts, this topic.
Mario Franco - 1 post, this topic.
Heywood - 1 post, this topic.
Shanej - 1 post, this topic.
kjf - 1 post, this topic.
SLJ - 5 posts, this topic. (Try using "Spell-Check".)


To think they all registerd this week, Fantastic!!

I love to look at the public profile of some of these folks. BTW CRS runs a wine shop in Napa! Others have no qualificayions including Joe and his 'certificates'


You are correct that I don't have any "qualificayions" (at least none that I am aware of!) Smile

However, if you're talking about certifications from the most internationally-recognized wine education bodies, those I *do* have.

Though I cannot speak on their behalf, I do know folks on the BoD for the Society of Wine Educators and I'm pretty sure that they'd consider your casual dismissal of their Certified Specialist of Wine credential a bit offensive.

If you'd like to learn more you can check out their website here: http://www.societyofwineeducators.org/public/education_...ification/index.aspx

The WSET Advanced Certificate is also pretty rigorous, but that's what many people in the wine industry go for to give themselves upward potential for their careers. Suggest you take a look at http://www.wset.co.uk/documents/2008advancedspec.pdf for more info.

Basically, for the vast majority of people out there, these certs. should signal that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to wine.

This is not a defense of me. It's a defense of these highly-regarded programs. Of the 'big 3' cert. tracks in the wine world, the only one I'm not involved in is the Court of Master Sommeliers, which concentrates on wine service.

If, after reading the info. at the links above, you still think these programs are bogus, or don't judge well someone's overall knowledge of the world of wine (bear in mind that the WSET includes a tasting component, so it's not all academic), then I'm not sure what to tell you - you'd be in a very small minority.
quote:
Originally posted by chrisinroch:
For a while I've heard the idea that the award of excellence was at best meaningless and at worst a money grab. This guy started with that premise and designed an albeit unfair test of said premise.

You can rip goldberg as a self promoting schmuck but it doesn't change a broadly held belief that the award has some problems.

One last...Goldberg is crowing that the key point is that the restaurant didnt exist. I think the key point is that the winelist maybe only got skimmed by a staffer.


Totally agree with you here. I wouldn't expect WS to see through the complicated ruse surrounding the restaurant's existence.

I do expect WS to thoroughly examine the wine list submitted for the award. I guess we don't yet know if/how that was done, which is what the WS editors have told us would be their next focus for a considered response.
quote:
Originally posted by James Suckling:
JMFremont or whatever your name is. The only thing dishonest are your comments. There is absolutely no connection between advertising and wine ratings. It's always been like with the magazine and I have worked 27 years at the Spectator. In fact, we have lost plenty of advertising from lowly rating some wines. Why don't you climb back under your stone in Fremont and stay there.


You demonstrated restraint here. You and the rest of the staff at WS have done an admirable job showing the facts, and keeping things civil. My hat is off to you all.

If this was ebob, Mark would have sued Fremnont for libel. Disgusting comment from him.
quote:
Originally posted by Florida Wino:
quote:
Originally posted by James Suckling:
JMFremont or whatever your name is. The only thing dishonest are your comments. There is absolutely no connection between advertising and wine ratings. It's always been like with the magazine and I have worked 27 years at the Spectator. In fact, we have lost plenty of advertising from lowly rating some wines. Why don't you climb back under your stone in Fremont and stay there.


You demonstrated restraint here. You and the rest of the staff at WS have done an admirable job showing the facts, and keeping things civil. My hat is off to you all.

If this was ebob, Mark would have sued Fremnont for libel. Disgusting comment from him.


Agreed...Freemont's post was not very carefully worded, definitely crossed the line. To suggest causation through observing a correlation between good ratings and advertising is completely reckless without any evidence that this is taking place. I have not seen any credible suggestions that WS gives good wine ratings/tasting notes in return for ad dollars. If this was true and was discovered then it would cost WS everything; there is no way that they would risk this. Absolutely no relationship between this baseless argument and the 'award' ads issue, I would have been a bit angrier than James in responding to that post.
quote:
Originally posted by Florida Wino:
quote:
You are correct that I don't have any "qualificayions" (at least none that I am aware of!)


dear Dude!! I had eye surgery, and lucky to see the screen, so keep your comments to yourself!! Mad Mad


Sorry - was meant in jest & certainly without knowledge of your eye surgery.

Did you get an opportunity to check out the SWE & WSET links?
quote:
Originally posted by 1WineDude:
quote:
Originally posted by Florida Wino:
quote:
You are correct that I don't have any "qualificayions" (at least none that I am aware of!)


dear Dude!! I had eye surgery, and lucky to see the screen, so keep your comments to yourself!! Mad Mad


Sorry - was meant in jest & certainly without knowledge of your eye surgery.

Did you get an opportunity to check out the SWE & WSET links?
Your supposed titles don't mean much without backup documents. Show us your restaurant experience and wine lists you have personally put together and maybe you'll get some respect.

Anyone can claim anything on the internet. I as a matter of fact am a rocket scientist. That's only because I grew tired of performing heart transplants.....
Geez, you mean Mr. 5% (Machine) is still at it? He still doesn't realize that only seeing 15 wines from an entire list is not enough to pass judgment?

GA: No need to see an entire wine list from 1WineDude. Just have him send a list of 15 of the wines from one list to Mr. 5%. I will trust his judgment on whether or not the list is worthy of an award. How 'bout you?

Moo
quote:
Originally posted by Gigond Ass:

Your supposed titles don't mean much without backup documents. Show us your restaurant experience and wine lists you have personally put together and maybe you'll get some respect.

Anyone can claim anything on the internet. I as a matter of fact am a rocket scientist. That's only because I grew tired of performing heart transplants.....


Oooooooooooooooooookaaaaaaaaayyyyyyy....

Should I scan in my certificates and send them to you (so you can photoshop them and put your name on them)?

Can you supply even one explanation WHY ON EARTH someone would want 'fake' having these certificates? They only help people who don't know me to give a level of trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to wine. Of course it needs to be backed up by real-world performance.

A bit like the WS restaurant awards.

I've never worked within the restaurant industry. But even a cursory glance at my blog will show you that I've worked with restaurants in the Philly area (Cosimo and Teikoku among them) on their wine events, have been chosen to be among a handful of bloggers to review Rodney Strong's new allocated brand (Rockaway) before the mainstream wine press, and I've been asked by wineries such as Opus One to visit so that I can blog about their establishments.

If I'm a fake, then I'd offer that I'm a damn good one. And if I was that good at faking something, trust me I'd have faked something far more lucrative.
quote:
Can you supply even one explanation WHY ON EARTH someone would want 'fake' having these certificates? They only help people who don't know me to give a level of trust that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to wine. Of course it needs to be backed up by real-world performance.


ASK GOLDSTEIN
Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

What exactly, do your certificates get you? Do they pay your mortgage? Are you the editor of a big wine magazine? Do the makers of Screaming Eagle, Harlan or Colgin call you for your opinion? If you run a grocery/drug store are you a nutritionist, gynecologist or brain surgeon? I think you can take your certificates and go stand in line with geniuses that have art history major degrees looking for real jobs. Good luck. And before you ask, NO, I don't want any fries with this post.
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.


What episode of Stargate is this from?
Mimik, that would be Apocalypse Now.

1WineDude, there have been many folks who have come here, waved their certifications around, and expected respect. I don't think that any of them have received it, and most were met with derision. And I think that most have deserved it, given their behavior. [Exhibit 1]

The quality of your contributions here are what matters to most of the forumites, I think. And directing us to your blog to assess your knowledge isn't going to cut it either. Too many people blow through here looking to direct some traffic to their site to want to do that anymore.

Stick around, if you're still inclined. I look forward to reading your posts.
quote:
Originally posted by Maverick:
Kurtz: Did they say why, Willard, why they want to terminate my command?
Willard: I was sent on a classified mission, sir.
Kurtz: It's no longer classified, is it? Did they tell you?
Willard: They told me that you had gone totally insane, and that your methods were unsound.
Kurtz: Are my methods unsound?
Willard: I don't see any method at all, sir.
Kurtz: I expected someone like you. What did you expect? Are you an assassin?
Willard: I'm a soldier.
Kurtz: You're neither. You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill.

What exactly, do your certificates get you? Do they pay your mortgage? Are you the editor of a big wine magazine? Do the makers of Screaming Eagle, Harlan or Colgin call you for your opinion? If you run a grocery/drug store are you a nutritionist, gynecologist or brain surgeon? I think you can take your certificates and go stand in line with geniuses that have art history major degrees looking for real jobs. Good luck. And before you ask, NO, I don't want any fries with this post.


Nice... love that movie...

What exactly, do your certificates get you?
I've already answered that.

Do they pay your mortgage?
No. *I* pay my mortgage. And support my family, and my music side business.

Are you the editor of a big wine magazine?
No. I'm a wine blogger.

Do the makers of Screaming Eagle, Harlan or Colgin call you for your opinion?
No. I've been approached by Penns Woods, Rodney Strong and Opus One.

If you run a grocery/drug store are you a nutritionist, gynecologist or brain surgeon?
Uh.... what the heck are you talking about?

I think you can take your certificates and go stand in line with geniuses that have art history major degrees looking for real jobs. Good luck. And before you ask, NO, I don't want any fries with this post.
Failing to see the relevance here. Also I'm not getting at all why anyone would attack the WSET or SWE - these institutions have done a lot for the world of wine.

I'm not here looking for your thoughts or respect (those would just be an added bonus). I am here trying to better understand WS Editors' response to Goldstein. It's really a shame that it's been offered here in this forum, and not via a PR department. Otherwise, I'd be spending my time in forums that promote constructive discourse without "hazing" new posters. These do exist ( check out www.openwineconsortium.org ).

As it stands, here I am until I can get a response from the Shaken Communications PR department.

Sigh...
quote:
Originally posted by SD-Wineaux:
Mimik, that would be Apocalypse Now.

1WineDude, there have been many folks who have come here, waved their certifications around, and expected respect. I don't think that any of them have received it, and most were met with derision. And I think that most have deserved it, given their behavior. [Exhibit 1]

The quality of your contributions here are what matters to most of the forumites, I think. And directing us to your blog to assess your knowledge isn't going to cut it either. Too many people blow through here looking to direct some traffic to their site to want to do that anymore.

Stick around, if you're still inclined. I look forward to reading your posts.


Thanks. As I've said, I'm here to understand the WS editors' take on these events. Blog traffic is a bonus, but I'm not looking for it.

And I wouldn't try to make anyone look in awe at my certs. they just are what they are, nothing more.

Cheers
quote:
Originally posted by JMFremont:
Thomas Matthews does not live in a bubble. He knows what his simple awards of encouragment mean to restaurants and wineries. Submitting a list with $250 and receiving an award in return is slowly but surely becoming a joke for those of us in the business who would like to see honesty in wine and a rating system that is free from any intent to deceive or impress others. I was GM at a restaurant in SF that received the award of excellence every year without many of the wines being on the premises. One of WS former columnists was friend and dinner buddy of the owner. They would go on and on in a stupor announcing that good white wine does not exist. That columnist was full of it as were his columns, in my opinion. In addition; the word is that ad space purchased and ratings are closely tied together at the Wine Spectator. I understand this relationship and realize back in the day people like Chuck Ortman, for example, were in business and depended on the Spectator to sell his products. Where else could he advertise? Because ratings are subjective, fudging a little in exchange for some full page ad space dollars seemed reasonable. Dishonest, but reasonable. Thomas Matthews can squawk all he wants but this is the perception in the community. It is like Joel Segal taking Hollywood payola to give his blessing to an expensive movie bomb. Eventually people don't care what he says. His syndicate believes there are always fresh suckers who will read the column and go purchase tickets. In America, a growing business always finds new suckers.


Another internet blogger/free forum classic. Sign on, post and run. Make sure post is full of rumor and innuendo. Don't identify 'sources' or previous places of employment. Just use the cloak of anonymity to hide behind.

Jean Louis Chave, Stephane Ogier, E. Guigal, Jean-Michel Gerin, Georges Vernay, Domaine St.-Prefert, et al. High scores? Uh, yes.

Dollars spent on advertising in Wine Spectator: $0.

(And the list could go on, and on and on)....
quote:
Originally posted by Machine:
quote:
Originally posted by Nigel Groundwater:
quote:
Originally posted by Machine:
If I put 15 jars of my own urine on a wine list with 250+ good to excellent wines, would you give my list an award? And no that is not meant to be a dig on the general quality of British cuisine...


Hmmm. Now that's a truly relevant and insightful comment on both counts.

My post addressed a constant and IMO unnecessary request to see the 256 wines in the original list and explained my reasoning.

Yours poses a ludicrous and irrelevant question followed by another piece of iridescent cant.

Apparently we agree that providing the vast majority of a list that even the scammer considered good is a meaningless exercise.

To characterise the 15 wines which were carefully chosen from some top producers as somehow like your 'urine' is about as juvenile as it gets.

I am not sure where national cuisine comes into it or your ability to comment on British cuisine but it is clearly another irrelevant issue that you probably know nothing about yet are happy to introduce.


Sigh....Nigel I have read numerous posts that you have made on both boards for a long time, and can only conclude that you are and always have been pretty much incapable of participating in a logical discussion; you call my posts juvenile? Try reading through your history.

Since many people here don't seem to acknowledge a difference (which I think is clear, but that is my opinion, and others may disagree...but I think it has a degree of objectivity rather than subjectivity) between (a) a list that happens to have some wines that certain people won't like are/or were not rated so good and (b) a list that contained the 14 apparently awful wines in question, I took it further by including something that should not have been on the list and should have been considered by most to be completely undrinkable (save except perhaps those who enjoy the cuising of the two fat ladies...may their lard covered, streaky bacon wrapped, organ meat filled souls rest in peace). Lots of wines that people don't like are on lots of lists; lots of wines with poor ratings are on lots of lists; Goldstein's main point seems to have been to put wines on the list that were so poorly rated that someone assessing the list would have rejected it or at least questioned it. I looked at those wines/ratings/bits of tasting notes only, and think those wines were bad enough that the list should have been questioned as a whole for their inclusion. You repetedly ignore the very poor quality of these wines, specifically selected to be so bad that WS should not have approved the list, and point to the rest of the list.

Seems pretty clear that there are no 14 bad bottles in existance that could have been so poor that you would have rejected the list, so I took those bottles to their logical conclusion, i.e. instead of crappy wine, I used the byproduct of drinking crappy wine. Your stance on approving the list does not appear to have changed.

In the end, I say that having those 14 bottles on the list should have raised serious questions about the wine consultant/sommelier/list as a whole (as was Goldstein's apparent main intention), that is my opinion. You disagree. End of story.


Sigh indeed although looking at your contributions in this thread alone it is easy to understand why it’s hard for you to concentrate long enough to drivel. Does anonymity help?
If you think “the cuising of the two fat ladies...may their lard covered, streaky bacon wrapped, organ meat filled souls rest in peace” remotely conveys an appreciation of British cuisine……….
Let's see if I can make it easier for you though it would help if you actually understood what you claim to read:
1. You apparently don't understand that my posts [which you referenced] simply addressed the constant requests [from another poster in case you hadn't followed that either] for the full list from the WS and my point was that the full list was unlikely to help move the debate forward because the scammer AND the WS apparently agreed that the vast majority of the list was good. While there is significance in the fact that the list was 256 wines and the really poor [based on WS ratings] wines from top producers was about 5% of that list I have never said that the latter wines did not deserve scrutiny or that they were unimportant.

2. I also never said that the majority of the 15 wines would have been acceptable to me had I had the same view of them as the WS ratings but that’s not relevant. But what should the WS have done and were they negligent in the normal scheme of things?

3. You apparently assume that (a) they had checked the rating of every wine on the list as well as checking for variety, balance and depth, knew there were some wines they had rated very poorly and then approved the list anyway OR (b) they simply rubber-stamped the list without checking OR (c) their normal review and checking was undertaken but was not detailed enough to spot that a small percentage of top producer wines, in a situation designed to deceive, were by their own ratings very poor. Come up with another one if that doesn’t cover it.

4. I assume you would damn them in all 3 cases whereas I would differentiate between these scenarios. If one is inclined to believe anything the WS says [which I do] then (c) is what happened and reflects their modus operandi. If you know something different pray tell.

5. Clearly the second would be unacceptable and the first would pose questions of judgement. IMO the third only suggests that the WS review procedure could usefully include an automatic check against its database of TNs and ratings for every wine on the list however large. Bear in mind the WS don’t rate very wine [over half the wines on the Goldstein list had not been rated] so the judgement for such wines would have had to be made on more general criteria such as regional coverage.

6. It is clearly possible to trick a system that relies heavily on the integrity of the organisation applying for the award and to question the sincerity of both that organisation and the WS but are people so certain that the system is being so abused as to be valueless and if so where is the large body of evidence?
For that to be the case there would have to be a substantial number of participating restaurants with fraudulent proprietors constantly pissing off clients resulting in multiple continuing complaints. Is that so? Numbers? Names?

7. Just because some do cheat and all could doesn't mean that a significant number are doing so since there are obvious business debits for being caught. And if this was widespread wouldn’t the system have already imploded due to its failures which would surely be best judged by restaurant goers in numbers and not just a single scam.

8. The WS could presumably improve the situation: better checking of the lists against their database which could surely be automated if the submissions were required to be in an appropriate [e.g. electronic] format.
Plus other routine checks later that required a simple submission which could be automatically checked against the original. Plus enhancements to remote performance monitoring and complaints process and follow up etc. The WS say they already drop restaurants based on a complaints procedure and possibly this could be improved.
IMO it would also be better to describe the process as a wine list rating rather than a restaurant award for excellence while making it absolutely clear that the WS ‘endorsement’ is no more than an acknowledgement that, if the restaurant delivers what it says it will, the wine list meets a good, very good or excellent level. Only the highest level requires an onsite review.

The WS say they recognise they have issues to deal with and have said they will be dealt with. Let’s see.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 1WineDude:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maverick:
Are you the editor of a big wine magazine?
No. I'm a wine blogger.

Do the makers of Screaming Eagle, Harlan or Colgin call you for your opinion?
No. I've been approached by Penns Woods, Rodney Strong and Opus One.


I'm not going to check out your blogs (you post here and can answer here), but to add some credibility to your post how do you feel about the above mentioned wines, in particular Opus One?
For the record... and hopefully folks will believe me as I've been here longer than I've been making wine.

I have submitted several wines to Wine Spectator for review over the last few years. Some have not been reviewed and some have with scores of 87, 90, and 92. NEVER have I been approached by WS to solicite advertising or anything else.

This differs from another publication to which I submitted wines. While they didn't in any way imply that scores were tied to advertising, they immediately started trying to get me to buy shelf-talkers and an offer that I could pay to have my label picture appear with the review. I don't recall exactly but this "offer" was either part of an email informing me of the score or followed close behind. I declined.
Likes (0)
×
×
×
×