Papers are out for service
one thing I wonder looking at CT is if some people are giving a possibly flawed wine a score in the high 80s because they have a hard time believing that a wine that was scored 96 is like this. Its one thing I find weird as I’m the only person that really put it in as a flawed wine. My friend who poured the wine blind for me didn’t want to think it was flawed, but ended up agreeing with me when we both retried it again later in the night and it was completely undrinkable
Keith,
I truly believe that most people would have a hard time calling a 96 points wine total crap and would be inclined to find redeeming qualities/excuses.
1 Like
Faryan
You are missing the point entirely. If Jay Miller and Robert Parker did not taste under such absurd conditions (in a restaurant, with the importer pouring the wines for them, while spoonfeeding them info about age of vines, types of oak, etc) then we would not be in this mess.
These importers open these wines far in advance, decant whenever is necessary, increase/decrease temps, do whatever is necessary to make these wines show as perfectly as possible for Miller/Parker. It has been going on for years. Las Rocas was the first public display of an importer allegedly taking advantage of the critic, as Parker clearly got a sample of a wine that no one else ever got to purchase. ITB, it was a joke. FYI, we stopped selling Las Rocas after that debacle. Who to blame there? Importer? Winery? They were the same person…Eric Solomon.
Well Oiled Wine Co will just change the name of this wine and pour it for Miller again, under a different label.
Interestingly enough Josh Raynolds has never reviewed these wines and Wine Spectator, when tasting BLIND, has never reviewed any wines from the Well Oiled Money, I mean Wine Company higher than 88.
If you give someone a 96 point wine, I agree that many will not call it bullshit. I give credit to people like S Manzi, Bob Hudak, R Kenney, etc for stepping up and calling bullshit on this situation.
Well, they are “Well Oiled” after all and it seems like there is some greasing going on here and there.
I am not sure that buying off the store shelves would have helped here. It appears that it was the winery playing games. If you remember Los Rocas, they got a high RP score, and then a lot of the wine (2001?) was not very good. It was a $12 bottle, but the point was that there was clearly wine that was not the same. I bought a great case of that wine (I think I still have one bottle left). Many did not. Eventually Eric Solomon reported that he had contacted the winery and the problem was “solved” although I don’t think the wine was ever as good as that VV bottling the first year. The winery must have bottled more wine, but different under the same label.
I suspect, as was said above, that is what happened here. If that’s the case here, then if Jay got a good bottle from, say WL (did you say Gary V. liked it as well?), but there were lots of bad bottles, then how would blind tasting or independent buying help? It still could happen.
I think Jay may a bold move by publicly calling them out for fraud. Hopefully, he digs deeper as it is his reputation on the line. The vintage mixup does not worry me, but then I just got my first presription reading glasses so I may be more tolerant.
If this is a case of winery/distributor duping…is there any legal action that ATF can/will take?
Parker wrote that the Faiveley wines he bought in the U.S. were consistently inferior to what was shown to him at the winery, and obliquely implied there was some non-kosher reason for that. Faiveley sued Parker, which resulted in Parker’s becoming persona non grata virtually everywhere in Burgundy. The settlement seems to prohibit Parker from ever talking about the situation or Faiveley in general.
And, doesn’t this also say something about the validity of CT notes? If there are two cuvees, then it unfairly makes CT less reliable. If there are people who can’t review a wine low, even if it sucked, because of a JM96, or any other critic, what use is their note to me?
Which, by the way, and without a hint of a doubt, having Parker out of Burgundy is the best thing that has ever happened to the region and to all Burgundy lovers out there. Not to say that Meadows doesn’t move markets but at least we don’t have mounds of wines with 17% alcohol that tastes like Syrah now.
It doesn’t say anything about the validity or reliability of Cellartracker notes that shouldn’t already be obvious as a matter of common sense. Cellartracker is just a medium for aggregating different people’s views, which obviously will always include some people you want to listen to and some people you don’t. It’s up to each person to decide for themselves whom they can trust, which is true whether you’re reading somebody’s views on Cellartracker or anywhere else.
I completely agree. There were people at the tasting trying to say that the wine wasn’t, that bad because we all knew going in that the wines had recieved at least 95 pts. I also believe that Jay Miller believed that what he had been given was 96 pts for his palate and that there are good bottles of this wine out there, its just turning out that there are some seriously bad ones too
Loren, Eric called the winery? He was the winery.
It appears to be the exact same problem here. If Miller did not review the wine in front of importers (he probably told them the score right then and there), then he would have received samples (like WS) or he could have bought off retailer shelves, and there would not have been enough time to produce more wine, theoretically. Anything can happen, but he just accused a winery of fraud. Maybe he tasted shit the first time around and gave it a 96. That is possible too, right?
If the WA was not so lose with their dinner schedules, their vacation schedules and their tasting schedules, a lot of this could be and would be avoided. Don’t shit where you eat!
He says the winery committed fraud, but the importer was okay in this. How does he know where the alleged fraud took place, if it did at all.
He has made strong allegations here, plus he probably tasted the 2006 the other night. Greg’s picture of the label is clear. Miller reaffirmed he tasted the 2006 when someone asked, then 48 hours later, he says, “First, to clarify, as Robert Kenney and Mark Clinard, the importer, have pointed out, the Sierra Carche I tasted had to have been 2005.” Not very convincing…doesn’t he have the btl in his trash to check?
Is the 2006 crap as well? He gave it a 92 originally.
I don’t have the energy to go over each post, but after I post this, I may try to do a few select ones.
Here are the things I think range bad, to disgustingly pathetic.
Let me first state that I have not been a Jay Miller basher over the last few months. I did not feel that it was SO bad that he had things paid for or dinners with ITB people etc. I DID find it incredibly stupid to think that it was ok to do AND not be transparent about it.
I also looked at the issue where he was sent (forgot the wine) wines to score that turned out to be “mistakenly” filled with bulk wine…for some commercial shoot or some bullshit. My take on that fiasco was this. First of all, why would a winery go to all the trouble to label, cork and fill, bottles of wine for a commercial shoot, when bringing the real bottles would have cost a few hundred dollars??? ( I may be wrong in that I don’t know how many bottles were used for this shoot, or exactly what this commercial thing was). But, if I owned a winery selling 10s of thousands of cases, I think I could spare a few REAL bottles for a commercial shoot. Hell, gift them to the people after the freaking shoot. Jay scores those bottles something like 60pts or so from what I remember of this story. NOW, what makes me VERY suspicious, AND made me go “ARE PEOPLE FREAKING NUTS”? Is this: All this happens…to me VERY suspicious, the winery finds out the scores and says “OOPS, (insert story above)” So, they send Jay the REAL bottles this time. Jay scores them 90pts or so. Assuming these details so far are a reasonable telling of the events. So, Jay just ACCEPTS that these are now the REALLY REALLY true bottles. Totally accepts that as the REAL REAL truth, and uses those scores, tells people how this big screw up happened, and then poof…the whole issue has been resolved. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME??
Now, fast forward to THIS latest fiasco. The story I laid out in the initial post is now out there. With ALL this stuff that has gone on with him, the spanking he has taken on the board, the “apology” he gave (what a joke that was too), and then his Biggest, [SNIP…FAN/CHEARLEADER Kenney (who is one of my BEST friends)]…contacts him, tells him all the above, ships him a bottle overnight…and this guy takes TEN FREAKING months to taste it? Confirms to Kenney that the bottle he dranks sucked. BUT, then insists that it is the 2006. (Now, understand that he also CONFIRMED that the bottle he was tasting was Kenney’s bottle that he sent him, AND that he insists that it is the 2006, and not the 2005. 1) 10 months ago, the 2006 was not out, and besides, he admits it was Kenney’s bottle 2) even I thought it might have been to 2006 when I first looked at it for Kenney today. Upon closer look, I decided it WAS the 2005. 3) After Kenney calls me again, and asked me to check one more time, I take a magnifying glass and 100% it IS the 2005.
So, Kenney speaks at length with Jay on the phone, Jay listens and agrees with everything Kenney is saying. Agrees that this needs to be investigated. So what does Jay do? He posts this thread: http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/showthread.php?t=206266
In it, he says this:
First, to clarify, as Robert Kenney and Mark Clinard, the importer, have pointed out, the Sierra Carche I tasted had to have been 2005. In my defense, that last digit can be seen as a 5 or 6 depending on the angle of the bottle, and I just got a new prescription for my tri-focals.
More seriously, this is about the worst thing that can happen to a critic, to be tasted on a fraudulent wine, publish a note, and then have readers spend their good money on a fairly pricey wine only to find out that it’s plonk or worse. Its reminiscent of the furor over Las Rocas a few years ago that nearly killed that brand. It’s a bad situation all around.
Kudos to Mark Clinard for stepping up and making good on the bad bottles. For my part, I’m not going to review that line of wines again.
So Jay, this is what you decided? NO investigation? No getting to the bottom of this? IF this was a fraudulent bottle, you don’t want to have the WA go after these people IF you can find the proof?
You don’t think that MAYBE you should get hold of a good bottle and a bad bottle and have them TESTED to see if the wines are fraudulently different? I mean, there is SO much more he could do…and btw, this ALL falls on Parker and the brand name. Without at least attempting to get to the bottom of this, to me, this is a HUGE black eye on the Wine Advocate. Because then there IS NO such thing as being there for the wine consumer. IF this has been a GRAND dupe, how many others have been going on and will continue to go on?
The lack of caring, the slow, pathetically slow and indifference that Jay has shown in this latest fiasco, is just unimaginable to me. Anyone can get duped. But to just wipe the dust off and hope it all goes away is …I can’t find words strong enough without getting personal.
I’m thinking slower than usual, if that is possible, but this has got the juices flowing enough for me to post plenty to chew on.
I believe Jay’s days are numbered, and they should be, as far as I am concerned.
Absolutely. The initial effect of a critic moving markets is always to make the wines they champion very expensive, but the secondary effect is to incentivize others to make wines in the same style that eventually become numerous enough that they never catch up in price.
Jay, my understanding was the Eric subcontracted out the wine making to a winery. They in turn did not follow his instructions and misled him as well. That may (or not) be the same relationship with this wine. I do not know.
Thanks Steve,
As always with the Wine Advocate, the coverup is always bigger than the crime.
No one cared about the dinners or the trips, but people would like to see them disclosed. If you are best friends with an importer and you are reviewing his wines while on vacation with him, tell us that, so we can make informed decisions.
Viu Manent is a whole other disaster. I have doubts, much like you. That story they told did not exist when Tyler Colman first contacted them about the poor scores. But 48 hours later, they sent a letter to Miller explaining that story. Miller met with the guy for lunch, retasted the wines, and all of a sudden loved them. At the same time it was revealed that there is no difference between a 62 point wine and a 75 point wine, according to the Wine Advocate. Funny, it took just 48 hours for Viu Manent to save their reputation…this story that Miller tells today took just 48 hours. Anything can be twisted in 48 hours.
All credibility can be lost in less than 48 seconds, though.
I do not wish to beat a dead horse here, but Eric Solomon owned Las Rocas. Ultimately, it is the owner’s responsibility, especially when the company is so young (whether it be a winery, a gas station or a coffee shop) to ensure a good product. Eric did not. He blames this other winery. Well Oiled blames someone. GM blames the unions. Baseball fans blames the Yankees. Coffee shops blame Starbucks. hardware stores blame Home Depot. Toy Stores blame Walmart. Parker blames bloggers, and the Wall Street Journal, amongst others.
No one ever takes the blame. It is in our blood to deny all allegations and make counteraccusations. Jay Miller and the Wine Advocate have mastered that. As Steve bolded everything, today Miller deflected all blame and is playing the victim card, as Parker did a couple of months back. They are all victims. I feel awful.
Keith,
You are correct and we are witnessing the same with Galloni and Italy, even though it is under Parker’s roof. It is a much more leveled and laid back playing field and little or no bullshit going on. By the way, my take on that one is that Antonio should have stayed independent much like Meadows. Maybe he would have not have been invited to as many lavish wine feasts but in the long run it would have been a much better career move. As far as Bordeaux, where plenty of stroking/greasing goes on as well, once Parker fades into the sunset, it will be a much different world there as well. I want to see Bruno Borie stage a mock fire at the chateau and party like its 1999, during one of the worst economic times the world has seen, once “The Palate” is out of the picture.
A few more things. To me, Wine Library did NOTHING to deserve any negative feeback (not that anyone is doing that). I bet they sold their 2000 cases or if they had it, 20,000 cases, in an hour. They did what we did as buyers, and tried to pound out a great deal. That is why Kenney and I went to the importer/distributor for satisfaction. And in their defense, they have done nothing to make me or Kenney suspicious. The winery is Bodegas y Vinedos Murcia and the winemaker is Bodegas y Vinedos Murcia - Marcial Martinez Cruz. How the wine was tasted, I have no idea.
Furthermore, I thought it was mind boggling, that Jay just came out and declared this a fraud and said he will not taste the wines from that winery anymore. To me, that is nuts on so many levels. Does nothing for over TEN months, then in an hour, posts that it is a fraud and won’t deal with them again. And in the same posts, comes up with everything from bifocals, to the lighting, to the stars not being in line as to the excuses for the vintage year. I guess he never heard of a magnifying glass or some other way to find out for sure before posting all the things he said.
The more I read, the more I think…the more I think something is VERY rotten in Denmark, and Jay is sitting on the throne.