Welcome Walt, we've got some funky Sasquatch's toe jam smellin' Mourvedre airing just for you....

Welcome, Walter!

Has anyone introduced Walter to our NSFW forum?

Publications have their submission policies. Wineries have to adhere to them if they want any chance of having their wines rated in that publication. That's pretty much it, unless the wine critic visits your winery on their own, and does his / her own piece, which has been an issue of favoritism.

Melissa, you are one incredibly saucy little thing... love it...

Damn......let's either stop with letting the board know that Jack and Neil are limp dicks, or ban them both. At this rate, we will never attract more women to this site!!

Welcome Walter! It is great to have you here.

J

Originally posted by Guillaume Deschamps:


Two words: Wall Street

Everyone should have a problem with it in principle. The biggest problem is that this facilitates cheating by wineries. Who knows how big a problem it is, but I'm sure it does occur.

I'm not saying that purchasing their own wines is feasible for WA or WS to do, because of cost as well as limited availability, but Consumer Reports does purchase all the wine they review. Obviously they don't review the wines that we are most interested in, but there is a good reason why they do this.

WA and WS are for-profit businesses. It obviously doesn't behoove them to institute changes that would hurt their bottom lines. Consumer Reports is a non-profit.

... with some pretty abysmal wine reviews though ... and I am a big fan of CR generally. Hard to see, though, how one could enforce having a reviewer pay for literally all the wine he or she reviews. That would mean no trade tastings, no en primeur, and basically bankrupting oneself, at least until one could get to the scale of a Parker or a Robinson, IF one could ever get there.

OK I can not hold out any longer. I have read almost everything from all parties about this issue. Most resently I read Parkers reply to the WSJ but toning while surfing I found a post from Jay miller himself stating "I had dinner with the Rollands and a number of other people including Alan Shoup at Long Shadows in Walla Walla about a week ago where Rolland had come to put together the final blend for his wine (predominantly Merlot) that he makes at Long Shadows." I mean what the Fu## He reviews Washington!!! again if you take meals and entertainment from the people you review you can not state and I belive you are not unbiased in your reviews!! If as Parker stated in his reply he has discussed the bad choices and displained miller a while ago how and this type of event not be addressed. What a sham, For me I can now only look at all information from this publication as tainted.

Faulty Rivets Emerge as Clues To Titanic Disaster:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/01/27/scien ... wanted=all

Re: "Bias from Wine Critics?" the question is Will the WSJ article enable true change or simply damage control? When you begin to consider what some of the basic issues are, this topic transcends Parker/Squires/Miller/individual wine boards. Once again, talk is cheap (notwithstanding our economic meltdown). Where will trusted wine evaluations/evaluators be in a year or three? eBob's dilemma signifies a protruding iceberg as a symptomatic manifestation of things quite amiss underneath. I'm hoping that some influential people (ITB?) might try stepping up to the plate and attempt to transform this unseemly challenge into a rare opportunity for improvement.

As Peter Gabriel concludes in his eulogy "Biko": the rest is up to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLg-8Jxi5aE

I guess that's the real rub here eh?

Yup and the Monkton Mafia is okay with that.

Jay Miller apoligizes....

http://dat.erobertparker.com/bboard/sho ... p?t=203403

discuss...

For those who are not able to view, he says....

"I have just returned from a lengthy tasting trip to Washington State. Bob and I had discussed my conduct and what was expected of me five weeks ago and I am very clear about what I have done wrong. I have told Bob that I am deeply sorry for creating an impression of impropriety and using poor judgement in socializing with importers who have been good friends of mine predating my full-time employment with The Wine Advocate. I know Bob has always analyzed my work for fairness and independence and never found it wanting. Nevertheless, I can assure everyone that there has never been any bias. I am deadly serious about my wine evaluations and whether the person repersenting the wine is a friend or casual acquaintance is of no significance when it comes to wine evaluations. My integrity and success is all about writing about what is in the bottle and I am truly sorry about having put Bob in the awkward position of defending me when it was my own responsibility for the choices I made. It will never happen again. I am now operating under two fundamental rules: 1) All of my expenses at tastings or on tasting trips will be paid either by myself or Robert Parker's Wine Advocate and 2) I will only sit down with importers or members of the wine trade in the context of a formal tasting.

I am fortunate to be covering some of the most exciting wine regions in the world. I hope my writings reflect my love of these regions and my committment to thoroughly reviewing all wines in as objective a manner as possible. My apologies to everyone."

A nice letter, but kind of like forgiving Roger Clemens for taking steroids.

I won't be cherry picking anything he recommends.