I’m surprised you didn’t lean into the Siskel and Ebert comparison. It’s not an apples and oranges comparison at all, although the similarity isn’t about aging. I don’t know how they do it these days, but back in the Siskel & Ebert days, movie critics would be invited to screenings in theaters (I had a friend whose dad owned a theater and sometimes got invited to screenings before release). An important reason for that is that movies were (and are) perceived to show better in theaters. Of course, other reasons were that each print of a movie cost a lot of money and the number of reels were limited (it wasn’t digital). But in theory they could have perhaps sent reels to the most important critics and still didn’t because studios couldn’t control the audio experience and video quality in a critic’s private theater (it had little to do with the critic allowing others to see the film as I know from personal experience).
My views on how critics should behave have been pilloried around here before, but I think your argument regarding controlling the tasting has some merit (as in the movie example).
Back when Berserkers were slamming Galloni for his special subscription for producer/distributor PR firms that allowed them to pull bad reviews from publication, I joined the chorus on the matter of Vinous systemically rescoring higher already published wines. But I also gave examples of unimpeachable publications like Mosel Fine Wines which already limit their reviews to wines they recommend.
I noted that:
Now however, it is those with consistently good scores (the First Growths) pulling their wines from WS. I don’t think doing so will cost them any sales, but I sincerely wish it would. In my view it crosses a line. Despite the criticism you level against WS’s blind tasting system, I think it is a valuable data point that sometimes helps elevate otherwise lowly bottles or bring down over-hyped ones a peg or two. WS is not the only source of ratings and notes I use, but I do use them and many times they get it right. It is important for me as a consumer that they get access.
If WS were the only available source for reviews, and no critics were doing producer-controlled tastings, then the matter might be different. So I understand why you would not want your wines reviewed there. Goodfellow wines simply don’t get the amount and diversity of coverage of the First Growths. One bad blind showing could be the only review out there for one of your wines. And you produce wines in an outlier style that may not be a good idea to taste in a flight of producers with more stylistic commonalities among themselves. None of that is the case with the First Growths. You need to control your showings for much better reasons.
I do think you generally went too far earlier in the thread in theoretically threatening a legally baseless lawsuit against any critic who scored your wine for profit without your permission. And I don’t think it would be much of an expense or hassle to win a motion to dismiss against your theoretical lawsuit.
But you didn’t need to do that, my friend. You do yourself and your wines a disservice by taking up the flag of the most privileged producers in the world. It is not the same situation.