I agree with yaacov et al - the real issue is the long-standing pretense of objectivity from the Wine Advocate. That is a large part of the Parker’s schtick and it has been utterly fake for a long time. Time to grow up. The world is full of relationships and tensions between objectivity and interest. Disclose and let people decide how honest and useful you are.
A.
I was at the tasting and the dinner and this does not reflect accurately what occurred.
First, the afternoon tasting consisted of a modest pour of one wine from each producer. It was a wine that they currently have for sale in the US. These were all very good wines, but these are the kind of wines I would expect these producers to pour when they visit the US to promote their wines, as most of them often do. For example, among the producers there, Giacosa, Voerzio, Vietti, Scavino, G. Mascarello, and G. Conterno routinely make a riserva, but no reservas were poured. No Le Rocche del Falletto, no Villero Riserva, no Monfortino. So as far as what the producers were “giving” to Antonio (wines to pour to their potential customers and their own travel), I don’t see it as being any different from what they would normally do to promote their own wines.
For the dinner, the winemakers each brought one magnum of a special wine, but generally not a very old one. For example, Bruna Giacosa brought a magnum of 2004 Barolo Riserva Le Rocche del Falletto, but I brought a magnum of 1990 Bruno Giacosa Santo Stefano Riserva. She and I traded tastes. I think she did ok by me. I sat at the table with Beppe Rinaldi. He brought one magnum of 1999 Barolo Brunate/Le Coste. I had a glass, he had a glass of the wine I brought. At our table, Greg dal Piaz brought mags of 1993 and 1989 Barolo Brunate/Le Coste. Jamie Wolff brought a 1.9L of 1964 Bartolo Mascarello. You can check out this thread to see just some of the amazing wines people brought:
AFAIK, the winemakers did not pay for their dinners. So how could anyone say they were giving something to Antonio? I think they did very well.
None of this is intended in any way as a complaint or a criticism, just a perspective on what actually happened at this event.
I do agree with Wilfred’s comments above. The WA should update the page that Yaacov linked to so that it reflects what they are doing. But I don’t see this event as being that far off what is actually stated there.
To go a bit further on what Ken has already clarified - Roberto Conterno and three of what I presume were his employees sat at our table. I doubt any of the four paid for their dinner. As a group, they brought a magnum of '02 Monfortino. The five of us sitting at the table with them got a pour each from the mag - the four of them got a pour and sometimes multiple pours of a bevy (at least 20) of wines that we brought including a flight of Monfortino’s from '41-'78.
Wow - ethical or not - that was one helluva wine dinner.
Many valid comments above and nice to see them being handled in a mature fashion. It’s hard to see the difference between an event like this and the WS Tour for instance. That being said the lines in wine criticism have always been blury. What about Steve Tanzer or AM hosting tastings for high end retailers around the country ? Suckling regularly blogs about dinners with winemaker friends. IMHO, as Ken has pointed out it wasn’t exactly a wealth of cellar treasures from the winemakers. Just what they would pour on normal promotional tours. I would think maybe it’s time for the WA to alter their draconian policy. Does anybody really care ? If I feel the reviews are helpful I’ll continue, if not cancel.
By the way, Ken you got really screwed there huh ?
Squires did react violently to the comments about his and JM’s expoits. I’m sure the next staff meeting will not be warm and fuzzy.
No, I didn’t. That’s the one thing that could have made the evening better. ![[wink.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/0/04707e6a7bbb03e0153e349d8a9270d30e1e9525.gif "wink"){kind=small}
It’s not different. It’s not really a problem. Except for the fact that Parker’s credo pretty much denigrates exactly this sort of activity. In essence, Parker is choosing to bind all of their hands behind their backs with regard to this sort of activity. Or he can do as he is doing now, turn a blind eye, and expose himself and Antonio to criticism.
Apparently Parker who was so critical of others.
And yet he’s quite happy to compromise in his deal with US Mail, who actually deliver his tatty little rag all around the country. The hypocrisy of it all…
GG
So the guests brought bigger and better wines than the winemakers??? I hope you all charged them a fee by the glass, as Mr. G. charged you! :~)
I’m confused as to why Parker’s past grandstanding even has to be relevant here. I mean, I understand the point, but independent of Parker, consider:
Galloni is hosting dinners on which he is making a profit, and the quality of the wines at the dinner – the wines that he reviews! – directly affects his ability to attract people to pay for the dinner.
There’s a whole lot to like about Galloni, and I trust people like Eric and Ken and others who have good things to say. But in terms of journalistic standards, there’s not a serious debate about this, right? Who cares what Parker said? This would be enough for me to cancel a subscription. But maybe, as a journalist myself, I missed the memo about changing standards. Sigh.
One other point: Galloni promises this won’t affect his ability to remain objective. That’s nice. I don’t think he’s lying or obfuscating. But we’re talking about human beings here. There’s a reason these standards (used to) exist: To make sure we’re not put in the position to be tested.
It is not past. He is still selling the idea of the Wine Advocate under those premises.
A.
My point is, it doesn’t matter that Parker is creating those standards. Those standards should have been created by journalism itself. Common sense. Parker didn’t invent objectivity and basic ethical behavior, contrary to legend.
Objectivity, journalistic or otherwise, is a myth.
Once that is accepted the issue is defining standards which provide a metric of how close one is to it. For example, this case is hardly as bad as accepting advertising in a publication where that advertiser’s portfolio is being reviewed.
It certainly seems like Mr.Galloni is saying that a few steps from the original Parker standard is not too far. In the end I agree with Yaacov, the quality of his recommendations will be the final determinate.
Galloni us apparently being transparent – which is all he can do at this point.
It might be of some value if he provided some general principles which define where he thinks the line is for him and why.
In the end it’s a free market for recommendations and some may leave him. That’s the risk he takes.
Pat
Ken, I have no doubt that every word of your post above is an accurate, eyewitness account. Its only shortcoming is that it is not at all responsive or relevant to the issue being discussed on this thread, which is whether or not Antonio’s commercial tasting enterprises conflict with the WA code of ethics or not. I know your longstanding passion for Nebbiolo firsthand, and I am fully supportive of tasting/dining events that provide once-in-a-lifetime opportunities such as La Festa did. I am, like yourself and others above, a believer in Antonio’s honesty, integrity, humility and tasting skills. Indeed, I was the primary and loudest agitator on the Squires board who insisted that Daniel Thomases be fired and replaced by Antonio. While I have never tasted with Antonio, it speaks well of him that perhaps 20 people whose opinions I trust, all of whom have tasted with him, all confirm those qualities. Thus, we can dismiss totally anybody who resides in the “Galloni is corrupt” camp. There is no basis for that point of view.
In addition, the WA code of ethics aside for a moment, Antonio has been responsive to Steinberger and others who are exploring this issue with him, and I submit that he is now on record, albeit via a telephone interview and multiple posts on multiple wine boards, as to where he stands ethically and where he believes that the boundaries are. He has exhibited far greater transparency than Parker ever has, and without any of Parker’s arrogance. (Antonio has never alluded to anti-Parker conspirators living in their mothers’ basements, for example.) I say that all of us chickens are now in position to judge Antonio’s performance against his own yardstick in the future, be satisfied or not, subscribe to the Wine Advocate or not. And I, for one, am a realist about Antonio’s need to make a buck. I believe that he could go so far as to judiciously accept advertising for the WA without compromising his principles, but I respect the opinions of those who believe that is a can of worms that heads the WA down the WS path, with an increased risk of bias and compromise of principles. And indeed, wine criticism is already a field where the totally subjective, biased (palate or otherwise) opinions of many different critics are counted upon to yield something akin to objective, unbiased truth. As a follower of all major critics and a tracker of their scores and notes, I believe that a largely objective truth is achieveable, and essential for the wine educations of generations of wine enthusiasts.
The rubber meets the road only here: the Wine Advocate code of ethics EXPRESSLY does not allow what Antonio is doing with La Festa and the Masseto tastings. Personally, I will be satisfied if that code is overhauled and the ground rules for events like La Festa incorporated. I understand that Antonio may not be in position to do that just yet, and I am fine with it. However, only an idiot would deny that the code in its present form is being violated. Likewise, in this time of transition, given the ethical quagmires that Miller and Squires got themselves into, and the fact that Neal Martin seems to drink for free at the tables of British retailers and importers more often than he drinks out of his own cellar (never failing to mention the source of such largess), Antonio needs to be doubly careful about his own activities. This is one of those issues where perception counts for more more than reality. We will never know what is in Antonio Galloni’s heart and mind, but that should not keep us from trusting him if he sustains his track record of honest, accurate reporting, any more than it has kept many from trusting Parker and most from trusting Tanzer…
Well said Bill. It’s not Antonio’s tasting abilities or personal integrity that I question - only an outdated and frequently violated code of ethics for The Wine Advocate.
I am mystified by the Tanzer reference. I guess I have missed some things.
Bill,
At the risk of agreeing violently, let me just point out that most of my post was not intended to be directly about “the issue being discussed on this thread”. My post was a response to Dave’s comment.
In my last paragraph, I did give an opinion on “the issue being discussed on this thread” and I think it is similar to yours. The only difference is that not being a retired attorney, I did not need half a page to say it. ![[stirthepothal.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/f40faec63ca1018898a40805efbf9f0066a3d205.gif "[stirthepothal.gif]"){kind=small}
A bit more seriously, I do think it is relevant to “the issue being discussed on this thread” that the winemakers who attended did not do something extraordinary to benefit Antonio. Robert Conterno did not bring five double magnums of 1961 Monfortino to pour for everyone in the room. He brought one magnum of 2002 Monfortino to share with his table and a few others and in return tasted half a dozen much older vintages of his father’s wine, as well as other great wines from around the world.
Don’t these events make the invited producers, in some sense, Mr. Galloni’s business partners? And well after the event, when wine reviews are published in TWA, how many of their readers will remember specifically who those “business partners” were, and take that into account when reading his reviews?
This strikes me as transparency that really isn’t, and a firewall between the editorial and business sides that has some design flaws (“You came to my dinner in New York and helped to make it successful, but your neighbor couldn’t be bothered. Of course, that friendly relationship I have with you, and don’t have with him, won’t affect my reviews in the least.” Maybe, maybe not.)
Fair points, but I guess the reason I can’t muster up the same indignation is that I’ve never really considered what most wine reviewers do to be real journalism in the first place. It’s not quite as whorish as, say, entertainment journalism, but it’s definitely in the same ballpark…
Ken, I have great news! It is not a requirement that one be a retired (or active) lawyer to say in a half page what could be said in a sentence, although it helps. I can teach you that art at an event that I am putting together right now, La Festa di Verboso. Two sessions, $300 for just a taste of verbosity, $700 for the full treatment $900 for both…