Neal Martin just posted the following on Facebook:
The most pathetic situation during en primeur this year? Being banned from tasting a specific wine by a winemaker, presumably because of previous comments. I won’t mention any names. It’s their right. The sample was supplied for others to taste at a négoçiant tasting. Indeed, I could look at the bottle nestling amongst others in the flight. I could touch the bottle. I even could watch someone else drink it. But it was not allowed to cross my own palate.
I’m curious as to your thoughts on this. We do not know the producer nor do we know what had been written by Neal about the winemaker or his/her wines in the past, so we don’t know the ‘whole story’.
It seems a little odd that Neal would take the time to specifically post this. He could have simply noted, in a writeup for this particular Bordeaux vintage, that he didn’t have an opportunity to taste _____ wine and leave it at that. It’s not like posting the above is going to make the winery change its mind. I can actually see how a winery might want to do this…a bad score from a respected critic and severely harm sales. That said, if I was the winery, I don’t think I’d outright ban him from tasting it.
My take is that he’s obviously peeved and needed to vent. He saw others being able to taste it but it was not specifically offered to him.
Again, I don’t know the entire back story, but speaking from a winery’s perspective that has had wines panned by specific reviewers, using ‘specific words’ to convey, IMHO, ‘below the belt’ meanings, I have chosen in the past not to respond to reviewer’s requests to try my wines . . .
Still waiting to get the entire story - but I just find it fascinating.
I’m not trying to have a go, but I find it a bit less fascinating than you do Larry, because we’ve seen this play out before. Huet banned Chris Kissack (the Wine Doctor) from tasting their wines after some less than favorable reviews.
If I owned a winery and thought a reviewer was unfairly slagging my wines, I’d probably handle it differently, but I can understand the response.
I think it’s a ultimately a mistake by wineries to ban reviewers who have given their wines bad reviews. The reviewers generally make it known that they are not welcome, and they generally then buy the wines on the open market and review them anyway. Then the winery has lost any control over the process, or any chance to further interact with the reviewer.
In the case where the the reviewer visits the property, the estate can ensure that the wines are presented properly, with the right glasses and the right amount of air, and ensure that the bottles are representative. Also explain the wines to the reviewer. In the circumstance where the wines are supplied and tasted off site, at least the estate can be sure the bottles supplied haven’t been mishandled by a shipper or wine shop. I’m not sure what is gained by trying to totally cut off from a reviewer.
As I read it, this is one specific wine in their lineup. E.g. He was allowed to taste the grand vin, but not the second label. If I’m reading that correctly, It’s even more bizarre and petulant to my outsider’s eyes.
I get that it’s frustrating. One of my businesses is a yelped restaurant and sometimes you grind your teeth reading “unfair” reviews. Still, I’d say “put on your big boy pants and take the good reviews with the bad”. Or…withdraw from the EP tastings entirely.
I agree in principle - the question that really needs to be answered is why he is not being allowed to taste it in the first place? Was it a poor review? Was it something else? Without that knowledge, it’s easy to ‘jump to conclusions’ but perhaps we should not?
Obviously you don’t comp “Yelpers” who eat at your restaurant. But theoretically, if you thought some dude was unfairly knocking you, would you give him free food?
I’m not defending the practice, but I can understand the mindset of the winery.
They want their wine to be pushed during the EP campaign and can’t afford a bad score. Bad business but I understand their dilemma. The only way to resolve this is to just wait until the wine is available in bottle and throw it in a blind tasting and see what happens with the score then publish it.
If he doesn’t want to cause ill will towards the winery (and there are lots of reasons he might not) then he is right not to say who they are. The domaine might know but people who follow Neal’s writings will not.
Presumably (though I don’t know for certain) to get people’s opinions on the action in general as opposed to prompting a backlash against the producer who took it.
As you know, there has been a rash of wineries uninviting Vinous reviewers, primarily Antonio (Giacosa, Aldo Conterno). Perhaps he just wanted to indicate what the reality is in general for reviewers. I think there is a value for a reviewer to show now and then that they aren’t just there to keep the winemaking estates happy and sell their wines for them. Of course who the reviewers’ primary audience is is another question.
Exactly correct. Neal can now patiently wait until the wine is released, purchase the finished bottle, and give his honest (ahem) unbiased opinion. wineries that do this are really being foolish, as they are opening the door to getting toasted at a future date. Anyone remember the rather entertaining feature by Gilman “Roadkill?”
