What is political about a discussion about someone resigning from an organization because of the mishandling and obfuscation of an internal issue and a questionable commitment to diversity?
A lot of people on restaurant floors have the regular CMS which is, IMO, not incredibly difficult to get and aside from the service portion and “grid”-oriented tasting structure I feel most people who use this board regularly could pass. But the number of formal sommelier/wine director jobs outside of fine dining and chains/corporations are dwindling, and modern sommeliers/wine directors are often restaurant GMs as well, especially in smaller places. Advanced level looks decent on resumes and implies a pretty serious commitment to wine study but by the time you hit AS and MS, it seems fewer and fewer of them are actually on the floor of restaurants (whether that is the average age of an MS or otherwise) and seem to be transitioning into other areas of the industry.
The only person I know who has a MW never insisted upon being called a “Master” in day to day to life. That’s really weird behavior from the ‘court of master sommelliers’
I do work with someone who has an MBA, and insists on appending it to their emails, biz cards etc. Their MBA is a business degree, and generally, people don’t flaunt it or anything. And one our catty colleagues mentioned its not even from a notable school or anything.
“Questionable commitment to diversity” is wholly political; that statement carries a ton of assumptions (and has absolutely nothing to do with wine).
About the invalidated exams, I believe there was already a thread going.
Reminds me of the Maestro episode of Seinfeld.
I’m not interested in getting political. I would like some context around the issues that are being raised. Many of the tweets seem vague unless you’re ITB.
Levi is going hard at Jancis Robinson for her role in SOMM 3 and the implicit connection with the CMS, which the director claimed had no direct financial backing from the CMS and that Jancis and others were not paid for their appearances. He is also taking issue with her retweeting praise for herself. I’m unsure if it’s the right tack to take and battle to fight when it comes to these issues, but that’s been the source of his tweets.
I had my own short discussion about her FT article about a need for more diversity in the wine business and a comment on her own writing team’s diversity and a really negative experience with an winestagram influencer type on Twitter as a result that I’ve detailed on my own Instagram page, but that may indeed be getting political.
Yes it is huge! I was giving a somm who worked at a Michelin starred restaurant some good natured ribbing about it being a waste of time and I said why are you bothering? He shot back health insurance! Despite working at top restaurant in a major city he could not even afford health insurance.
When you become a master somm an entire world of opportunities open liking running the wine program for a major airline to other high profile jobs.
The irony is as far as I know very few MS’s work as floor somms.
First off, Hi Robert! Hope you are well.
On this topic:
It seems to me to be hugely important in some markets, but less so in some, notably NYC, SF or LA, where people generally seem to value reputation and references more. Most NYC restaurants with great wine programs don’t have MS’s at the helm. But if you want to land a six-figure wine gig in Houston, yeah, you probably need it. There’s also not that many restaurants that can pay “adult” wages, offer benefits etc, which is why MS’s end up hawking for Southern or Kendall-Jackson instead of working the floor.
I came to the US in the height of the SOMM craze, and I’ve been asked an exhausting number of times by guests if I was “a Master”. I did go down that path briefly, but decided that it was not for me. Too much grandiosity, fratty vibes and truthfully, money involved… While there are lots of great MS’s that I count as friends, I also met way too many where I thought “this guy clearly has no clue what he’s doing or talking about”. On the other hand, there are truly great, successful sommeliers that have tried and failed repeatedly, which in my mind is more embarrassing for the court than said individuals.
The court has done a good job at monopolizing accreditation in the US and it’s probably time for that to change.
Sorry to derail, but Arvid, I thought your IDTT interview was one of the best non-producer ones I’ve heard and I really appreciated your perspective on the pros and cons of the Court/Competition culture. Your personal story was also really interesting since we rarely hear from non-American sommelier types, especially ones who still work in restaurants. As a floor person myself, it was great.
Hey Arvid - Hope you are well.
Great post! I agree with all of what you wrote and it was the spirit of what I wrote but you have a much more indepth understanding.
Link to the interview for those of us interested and learning?
As far as I know there’s no Levi interview. Most of this recent blowback started when an African American wine professional (@sippingsocialite) posted an Instagram live video recounting her experience with the court when several MSs insisted on her (as a POC, but it sounds like the class as a whole as well) refer to them as ‘Master’ when addressing. Add to that the testing fiasco and I think it makes a perfect storm of a lot of people feel it’s an organization that’s waaaaaayyy behind the times and has needed change and diversification for a long time.
I think Glenn was asking about Arvid’s interview that was referenced above in post 30. I too would be interested in it if it is available.
Thanks for this link – it helped me to better understand some of the issues. The instagram video is worth watching. She is quite compelling in the issues she raises, how she raises them, and the dignity that she exudes. While I have been aware of these issues in society generally, and assumed they existed in the wine industry, I was not aware of the specific manifestation in the wine industry and the distortion that it has created for the enjoyment and education of wine.
This is a link to Levi & Arvid’s chat.
TL;DR version:
“Anachronistic and increasingly irrelevant organization seems increasingly anachronistic and irrelevant.”
Thank you Sean!
In what world is highlighting a lack of diversity and inclusion in an organization a “political” issue? Did “political” suddenly become a code word for “asks uncomfortable questions”?
I find it more disturbing that you apparently feel that having such a discussion is not germane to this forum.
I cannot of course speak for the moderators, but I assume that the issue is not political versus non-political, but political related to wine versus non-political related to wine. Supporting or opposing diversity, or human rights, or anything else is, by definition, a political act. I think some people confuse political (which is more benign than many think) with partisan (which can be quite inflammatory and at times irrational). So if I were to post here about whether DACA should be rescinded or not, that would be political not related to wine. If I were to post about the business practices of a winery, or wine-related organization, that would be political with respect to wine. My sense is that the former should be placed in the politics forum, and the latter here in wine talk (though I guess if the original poster wanted it in the politics forum I assume that would be allowed). To bring this back to some of the discussion here, the integrity and transparency issues with respect to the 2018 exam, and the issues related to inclusion, respect, and diversity raised by Habibi, Brett, and others, inform my assessment of the legitimacy of the CMSA as an institution, which in turn affects how much weight, if any, I give to their statements about wine or the wine business. For example, my assessment of a wine recommendation from a somm of color who is not a member of the CSMA may look at bit different now that I know that there are barriers to people of color becoming members of the CMSA.