Well said. ![[welldone.gif]](/uploads/db3686/original/2X/f/fc9709a841aa9379fd892a9cf0b535b05f473b86.gif "[welldone.gif]"){kind=small}
Common courtesy? Yes. In this industry in this day and age? No. I don’t expect anything from anyone who I don’t know personally in this industry. It has become something it wasn’t 20+ years ago. People don’t respond to personal letters, let alone emails, phone calls, texts, etc.
The wine business has become “what can you do for me”, so if you expect someone who you don’t even know, to actually care about your wines in this day and age when you are just someone trying to be kind and make wines for the people…forget about it. Those days are over.
Find your niche. Find your people. Don’t expect anything from anyone. Just enjoy why we got in this business in the first place.
Bone … out.
Doesn’t make it right, just makes it sad. Integrity is important if for no other reason than to maintain ones self respect.
+1.
Darn right, Ed, and I think it’s important we remind others if they didn’t remember what their parents taught them.
I am very saddened from this whole situation with Jamie and Leslie. Many people that have answered openly here and on FB saying likewise. I really appreciate the overwhelming support from my fellow Berserkers but, for all those that have supported me publicly I also just want to make a thank you to the many well known winemakers and WB’s who have contacted me privately but feel that in this litigious world, it is unwise for them to say anything that could implicate and cause difficulties for them. These people who have confided in me are folks that are well known here and highly respected for their winemaking, wineries, and their kindness to their customers as well as their fellow WB’s. I fear that this whole debacle though IMHO has just scratched the surface.
Here’s what I see so far:
Some wine was submitted for review. Reviewer failed to respond further. Is this really a big deal?
There seems to be quite a bit of mud slinging going on here.
I fail to see what difference it makes what the reviewer was doing while failing to respond. Is it the thought that the reviewer is only entitled to avoid responding if he/she is involved in something super noble?
Doesn’t make sense to me.
Looks to me like the reviewer simply continued to conduct her life as usual while failing to respond.
Am I supposed to be extra angry that she was on TV hanging out with Sting on The Today Show while ignoring the submission?
Were you unaware of the type of work in which the reviewer was typically engaged?
Was she supposed to suspend all work?
Was she supposed to agree that she had no justification for failing to respond further?
It seems to me this could have been kept very simple.
Winemaker contacts third tier celebrity reviewer, tries to entice her to pay attention.
Third tier celebrity reviewer responds, telling winemaker to submit samples.
Third tier celebrity reviewer fails to respond further.
Winemaker warns other winemakers of the possibility of submitting samples to third tier celebrity reviewer and receiving no further response.
Contacted you privately to express their sympathy at how you’ve been hurt by being ignored by the third tier celebrity reviewer?
If they contacted you privately, why don’t you thank them privately?
Unfortunate insults aside, does it surprise anyone that Mr. Kutch has nicer things to say about the reviewer because he had a substantially better experience with her?
What a crock of !!!
I can say this privately, but since I am not a winemaker, I can say it openly and can give two shits what others think or feel, legally or otherwise.
Nola posted this not because she was hurt, but because she felt it was something others should know. This asshole accepted her wines as if she was doing her a favor. Nola was not pissed that she didn’t appreciate it or even that she didn’t comment about them unasked. She became pissed after months and months and months of reaching out to at least get a response. And the more she received NO response whatsoever, the more she realized what an ass she had sent her wine to, and it pissed her off. Nola, you can tell me if I am wrong, which I am far too many times. But I would feel the same way, and would have handled it the same way as Nola did here.
This is a wine board, and people post this stuff not only to educate, but to warn others. IF I were a winemaker, or ITB in any way, I would love to know that this happened. And, I would be really pissed if it happened to me after it happened to Nola and she just sucked it up and kept quiet. The hell with feeling and “Oh, she should have done this or she should have done that, etc etc”. Nola did what she felt was the right thing to do, and if you don’t like it, then fine. But Nola did nothing wrong here. She, in fact, provided a service.
I’ve met Jamie years ago. And I believe Jamie to be a very nice and decent person. I think Jamie made a big mistake here, and he may very well have his reasons, that I and others are not aware of. But, until he makes it clear why we should be ok with what he posted, he is in the wrong. Sorry Jamie, but that is how I see this thread and this “story”. Leslie comes off as a user. I’ve never met Nola, but feel like I “know” her from her years of posting here.
To me, this is a NO brainer.
Actually Steve it is a no brainer. And I agree with everything you said except your last paragraph.
I posted this on FB as a frustrated question and a PSA for winemakers and those ITB. I had no altercation or issues with Jamie before. Actually, I met him for the 1st time last May in Chicago at the Berserkerfest. So his acrid response to me was a total surprise and uncalled for.
The messages I received were not pity party messages or sympathy for the situation with Leslie, they were real accounts of Jamie’s M.O. both here on WB and to fellow winemakers and some who had had various personal situations. The messages have been quite an eye opener. I didn’t start this thread with a vendetta or ill will for either Jamie or Leslie. Leslie provided Jamie with the message I had with her. There is no other way Jamie could have gotten the message. Jamie came out like a wild man slinging accusations and insulting me. No, I don’t expect anyone to be angry with Leslie for hanging with Sting. But the pseudocelebrity status of Kutch wines should be considered. Jamie is the one who opened his post by saying, “I will vouch for Leslie Sbrocco 100% with my name and company fully behind me.”
It is quite obvious he has some sort of experience with her.
RS Beck, sorry I forgot your first name, IIRC from some previous topics you tend to be of the “thick skinned” variety who looks at posting as more “anything-goes just ignore it if you don’t like it” camp. Forgive me if I am wrong. Regardless it seems like that is the approach that would lend itself to your position. Either you didn’t read the entire account or you just have a different way of looking at it than many of us. Or at least me. I have the same response to Andrew, who seems to be partially blaming Nola.
Nola posted on this “Cellar Rats” board in what seems to be the spirit of that board. For people ITB to share potentially relevant information. That info does not have to be valued by everyone universally. Nola feels like she was treated unprofessionally by someone she had a dealing with. That dealing involved an expense to Nola in both money and time. She posted about it so that anyone who might want to the avoid that situation with the warning of how it might go, could do so. At worst someone could just figure that they had a different outlook, and at best someone would be saved a hassle and could thank her. Maybe someone could discuss whether a pro should be upset over this treatment or whether it is commonplace.
Jamie went WAY beyond that. First off, he seems to have tried to give the board an account of the events that was not how it occurred. (I’m sure Leslie is thrilled to have had him attempt to cover her) Secondly, he tried to put “himself and his company behind Leslie” as if to have everyone give his opinion extra weight. When he was pushed he said Leslie was like his sister. But then he should have told everyone that his wife is or was essentially employed by Leslie. I think that is a factor that people deserve to know and he’s biased beyond having a “better experience” in similar situations.
But that’s not even the biggest issue here. He carpet-bombed Nola by accusing her of a legal offense (defamation), called her a liar, and called her crazy. As you can tell by reponses people, even Todd, think that was totally out of line. Nola is then the one that is damaged in front of the group, whether that be professionally or emotionally. Should it devastate her? No. But by the same token, I don’t think the ignore it path is correct. If she gets trashed on the board, she gets to be “cleared” on the board. If for nothing else, that anyone not familair with the discussion understand that many people believe Nola’s account.
More importantly, Jamie deserved a dress-down. He was out of line and it isn’t even determined by the smaller issue of who made the fist contact between Nola and Leslie. This is a community. Many people look at it differently than others. Personally I’ve socialized with a ton of people here and have more than a couple of good friends I met through the wine boards. So perhaps some of us who view the community as more than just a bunch of infor shared between those with little other interaction. I have not met Nola, but just from the board know a little of her, and as with many here, would love to socialize sometime. The goodwill of the group isn’t served by people being jerky to one another, even if the jerk doesn’t care. It is certainly not my board, but I think this board funtions in part by self-monitoring so people shpuld call out others being inappropriate. Personal attacks and not disclosing things is inappropriate, and it was really a one-way street. I wouldn’t sit in my living room and have one person say that kind of stuff to another, so why just ignore it here? If no one had said anything to Jamie, the perception is that what he said is ok.
Even Jamie gets served by people advising him that he was out of line. I love to debate. I think I avoid getting personal. But if someone told me I crossed the line, or if I upset someone, I’d be glad to know and would try to make amends. That’s just being a nice person. Jamie got the chance at some feedback and made the choice to not try and smooth the water. That would be the better thing to do. Because once everyone goes through the acrimony, it’s actually better to see some sort of positive resolution. It keeps the group cohesive.
Ok, so it’s the number of opportunities the third tier celebrity reviewer was offered to ignore the winemaker that justifies the anger?
Still doesn’t make sense to me. Sounds more to me like somebody wanted this reviewer’s attention really bad and refused to “take a hint.”
The warning, without all of the vengeance and smearing, would likely be appreciated by some and ignored by many others. As Mr. Kutch’s example shows, this reviewer doesn’t ignore everybody, so the reality is that submitting your wines to this woman is simply a crap shoot. Be forewarned. You might get ignored and you might not.
Just isn’t that juicy when you post it that way.
Seems to me that instead of trying to compile a list of nice reviewers who return phone calls and send thank you notes and “jerky” ones who’ve been rude at times, or spending one’s time and money submitting samples as some sort of test to see whether a reviewer is an ass or not, it might just save a lot of heartache to consider the possibility of no further response BEFORE sending the samples. Only send the samples if you’re willing to take that risk. If you need the guarantee of a response, make that contract BEFORE sending the samples.
Just a suggestion.
Having no horse in the race here, Jamie comes off as a dickhead and if he doesn’t respond I’ll assume (accurately) most of us will think of him less favorably.
You don’t call ANYONE a liar like that (although you probably could have your ass sued off in the UK but not the US).
Seems to me that initially Nola was just giving the warning. If only one out of five winemakers appreciate it, then it does them service and is worth posting. I didn’t really see Nola’s inital account as smearing. The “reviewer’s” pompous attitude isn’t irrelevant either, but I agree that it wouldn’t matter to everyone.
What does “Mr. Kutch’s example” show?. We don’t even know what process Kutch underwent to be recognized by Leslie. For all we know (and I do not know) he might compensate her as othr producers have. We don’t know. We certainly know that they are personal friends, we know that his wife has a financial relationship with Leslie, and it certainly seems that Jamie does not want to explain it. That relationship tends to (IMO) invalidate his example as contradictory to Nola’s. Of course your friend and wife’s employer would give you preferential treeatment. This isn’t the story of point-counterpoint over similar conditions.
But the reason that the thread went so far is that he combined it with making really inflammatory personal statements about Nola. Skip the question over the usefulness of Nola’s warning. Jamie wasn’t provoked, and was out of line.
To my eyes, if I strip away Kutch’s inflammatory remarks, the only material point he raised was the one where he claimed it was Nola who first contacted the reviewer. Seems to me, the evidence has born this out.
Now, the argument seems to have shifted. The argument now seems to be that if one believes Kutch made offensive remarks then the winemaker must be right to be angry at being ignored by the reviewer and all of her comments about the reviewer must be justified.
So, I’ve now seen three illogical justifications for the winemaker’s anger at being ignored.
The only offense of which the reviewer has been proven guilty is that she ignored the winemaker.
Unless I’ve missed something, the rest is all just conjecture and vitriol as retribution for being ignored.
I’m going to guess that few winemakers will make their decisions based on this winemaker’s experience or on Mr. Kutch’s unfortunate remarks about her.
I would guess that most winemakers have already factored the possibility of not just being ignored, but of garnering an unfavorable review before sending out samples.
For years, people have claimed that The Wine Spectator gives preferential treatment to producers who advertise. If you browse the internet, you see this accusation pretty frequently, although I’ve never seen any evidence produced.
It is said that Parker gives higher scores to certain kinds of wines.
None of this stops hordes of winemakers from sending samples to these publications.
So, why would winemakers care about this incident?
Because they need to know the possibility that he/she might not receive a thank you note for sending in samples? That the reviewer might not return phone calls asking for an explanation? The reviewer might not come up with a good enough reason for failing to give you the attention you think you deserve?
Or, maybe other winemakers will band with this one against the reviewer out of solidarity?
You offend one of us by failing to send a thank you note or return a phone call and we’ll show you?
Rob, you and I come away from this thread with a very different sense of what we think is significant AND different logical conclusions.
First off, you can strip away Kutch’s inflammatory remarks to split hairs over the details, but what people got upset about WERE Kutch’s remarks. Otherwise this would be a ten-post issue. As evidenced by the Ilan thread there are some issues with posters getting personal with one another. Todd has to walk a fine-line with moderation, especially as this board was born out of heavy-handedness elsewhere. So people that cross the line and make zero effort to smooth the waters are going to get called out and deserve it.
That aside, I if we do split hairs as to the details of Nola’s topic, I don’t think you are precise about the details. Yes evidence has borne out that Nola contacted Leslie first. Nola never said she didn’t contact Leslie first. She said she sent wine at Leslie’s request. Leslie can “request” the wine whether Nola sent her the first email or not. I am sure that Nola’s point was that she did not send them unsolicited, out-of-the-blue, to Leslie. That is the distinction. If someone sent something out of the blue then perhaps they do NOT have any reason to expect a response. But obviously Leslie gave Nola her address, and knew that Nola was paying for the wine and the shipping. It’s just common-sense and common courtesy in any avenue of personal or business dealings to reply that you received something, especially after over a year, and if the sender inquires. If you can’t be bothered to employ common courtesy you have no business having people send you things. Leslie’s excuses are just that, excuses. Jamie’s attempt to split semantical hairs over the meaning of “request” and making Nola’s initial email out as some sort of proof that she has defamed Leslie or has no reason to have complain about Leslie’s conduct is just obfuscation.
No one said that Jamie being offensive justifies Nola’s remarks. Nola said that Leslie ignored her. Most of us would agree that that behavior is unprofessional, or at least something that any one on this ITB would like to consider. Leslie did ignore her. Even Jamie has not said that Leslie didn’t ignore Nola. He just made a dubious attempt to discredit Nola. Nola also made comment’s like calling Leslie “pompous”. Maybe Nola had a thin skin but interpersonal dealings are important in life. If a person, comes up with pompous b.s. about why THEY were irresponsible it reflects upon them and whether anyone would want to deal with them. My take is that Jamie’s own appearance here was known to Leslie. Good for her that she got him to do her bidding. How would he have known the details of who emailed who first? Leslie likely fed that excuse to him and he put it out here. Leslie’s already had an issue with disclosure and accountability. Have you seen the “not enough coffee” line? So I am just opining, but I certainly don’t find it hard to believe that Leslie was not “stand-up” in her response to Nola. It isn’t that Jamie’s remarks make Nola right. It’s that his remarks make whatever he has to say not credit-worthy. We are left with Nola, who many of us know, trying to make a warning to other winemakers. We’re also left with whatever our knowledge of Leslie is, and the facts here that she DID not respond to Nola for 18 months. Nothing there leads me to believe that Nola falsely constructed some account of Leslie being disagreeable.
What’s the rest? I see the discussion as revolving around three things. 1) Leslie did not respond to Nola for over a year. even you and Jamie don’t seem to contest that. 2) When Nola finally did get a response from Leslie. Leslie made a bunch of excuses, was not apologetic and was even pompous and blaming of Nola. Since only two of them were there, the rest of us including Jamie don’t know. Since Jamie parroted an excuse that probably came from Leslie, Nola seems like a credible person, and the spirit of her post falls within the info sharing between ITBers function of this board, she seems very credible.
That “few” winemakers will make a decison based on the info doesn’t invalidate the data point. Like everything on this board, the reader assimilates the info and decides whether to act based upon it. If one person decides not to risk sending their wine to Leslie then they’ve been served.
As far as Jamie, same thing. Everyone can decide what they think about his behavior. What is clear is that some people buy based upon personalities. Brian Loring is one of the nicest guys you’ll ever meet, and most of us want him to succeed. On the flipside some people choose to not deal with or enjoy the products of an artisan who behaves in an unlikeable fashion. There’s nothing wrong with getting the data that allows us to decide.
First off, Leslie is not the Wine Spectator or Parker. There is always a cost benefit decision involved with something that requires a loss like shipping samples. The potential benefit with WS or Parker is larger. That aside I doubt that one would send samples to even them and be unable to find out whether they were ever received or tasted. If they did the same thing to Nola or someone like her, the info might similarly be discussed. Just like the info regarding preferential treatment is discussed as you describe. Lastly the nature that you describe of WS and Parker DOES stop some winemakers from submitting samples to them.
An interesting discussion, to be sure, but there’s an important point that everyone seems to be missing … Nola is much better looking than either Leslie or Jamie. That’s got to count for something, right?
Omigod, I leave for a week and the sandbox is full of mierdo de gato.
Leslie has always been a self-entitled mean girl whose reviews pretty much gag anyone in the industry.
Nola, in every industry, samples are a game. Learn Texas Hold’em and you’ll learn a lot about marketing.
Kutch, you are, and always have been, pretty much a tool. And you need to spellcheck. So sue me.