I confess to being conflicted on this. I love more in depth articles, where we learn about approach, vineyards, style, etc. But that also, almost necessarily, fosters a more positive write up. The selection process in reaching that point probably validates it, most of the time. But a blind tasting can also reveal a lot, and is a good way to check for unintended, but natural, bias.
2 Likes
Both very true statements. I donāt fault someone for giving a more favorable review for getting a better understanding of the wine.
Small anecdote. I got to taste the Hartwell vineyard bottlings from Realm side by side, with Scott Becker. I liked both wines quite a bit, but for very different reasons. The 2019 Moonracer was by far the best of that vineyard Iāve had from Realm, and was a stunning wine on its own. Having the Hartwell XX next to it gave even more context to the Moonracer, and the Hartwell really showed me what the potential of the vineyard was. Iām not so sure a blind tasting would have done either wine any justice. Scott explaining the clones they had, and the future plans for the vineyard brought a whole new dynamic to the wines. I wasnāt spell bound by anything other than was in the glass, but it has me wanting to taste future vintages and will have the basis for future vintages.
1 Like
Great post.
1 Like
More context, Domaine Serene used the results of said tasting on a monthly basis in WS as a full page ad.
So thereās that.
3 Likes
You are right.
Drift: I look at criticsā¦of books, wines, movies, music, etc more as tools that alert me to the presence of something, first and foremost.
If there is a critic whose tastes align with mine, fine. But even if they donāt align, the most important part to me is that they offer a consistent opinion from which I can expand from.
Does anybody hear need a Wine spectator review in order to decide if the are in on Mouton for 2020?
No, my accountant clued me inā¦
2 Likes
This thread feels familiar
1 Like
You probably could have kept selling. First sale doctrine likely exhausted the copyright protection on sale of that good when the first owner bought it. You should be able to resell that specific copy of a copyrighted work you purchased for however much you can get for it. That doesnāt mean you can do other things. Like make copies from your copy and sell those.
Anyway, this thread is crazy long but Iāll jump back to the idea one could possibly control opinions about about a wine product purchased or acquired off the shelf or even given as a sample.
A law in the US that purported to create IP in a good like a bottle of wine that prevented opinions about that wine would facially violate the first amendment almost certainly. That law does not exist. Others here have made similar points.
By contrast, one could sell to a purchaser through a contract that prevents the purchaser from publishing or otherwise disclosing a negative review or requires the seller to approve the review. That purchaser violating that provision would likely give rise to contractual liability but thatās because the purchaser agreed to that provision as a condition of purchase. Thereās no IP at issue there at all. Good luck entering such a contract as the seller with anyone, let alone a critic who would purports to provide unbiased opinions. But if Marcus wanted to try that, he could.
1 Like
Iāve never heard of such a thing. I thought people could make a business writing about whatever they wanted and sell it to whomever would pay for it. Newspapers (used to) write stories about all kinds of things with nobodyās permission - movies, books, restaurants. Is there something Iām missing?
Iām with Andrew here, and now confused. Not an IP lawyer, so maybe there is an interesting legal twist here that I am missing. Seems like this interpretation would undermine the entire field of ācriticismā - whether it be on wine, restaurants, movies, whatever.
1 Like
At the risk of Andrew (I originally said Michael- that was incorrect), Alfert et all re-hashing Marcusās quoted post above, letās focus on one of the more recent comments he made that softens the edge a bit. Thanks.
Well, letās be clear since you used my name, I do not begrudge Marcos maintaining the stance that he maintains, and I obviously highly respect him, his opinions and his wines. I just do not think the status of the law supports this kind of claim. Use as an example, Eric Asimov for the Wall Street Journal. Do you really think any court would entertain a lawsuit against him, based on him and the Wall Street Journal publishing a criticism on a winery or wine, because the winery asked him not to publish it? Personally, I think it gets dismissed immediately, and probably with sanctions against the law firm that filed it. Again, I am not an IP lawyer, and maybe there is a nuance here that I am missing.
1 Like
Robert, I donāt think anyone would. And thereās a flurry of posts over the last day stating so. I was just hoping to nip any re-hashing of the topic, since it seems like itās more or less settled at this point.
3 Likes
Yes, when Andrew asked āwhat am I missing,ā I wanted to respond āapparently all the more recent posts where this issue is settled and Marcus walks back his original comment about suing.ā 
2 Likes
well, the NYTimes might sue if Asimov published in the WSJ since Asimov is their reporter!
1 Like
Damnit, that cheating b@stard!
Shows you how much I read some of these critics.
More importantly, does any one need a WS review to market and sell 2020 Mouton?
Answer- NO.
Rohit hit the nail on the head. This is completely shouting at clouds at this point.
No one is getting sued. This is just the WS trying to take someone elseās ball to go home from a game they are losing.
2 Likes
Thank you all for the polite, reasoned, and thoughtful discussion. Iāve read this thread and enjoyed all the points of view. Having folks like Marcus and Adam contributing is pretty amazing. This is the kind of subject that would be really enjoyable to hash out over dinner and a few bottles of wine. A true Socratic Symposium on a deep topic.
Iāve been thinking about how far wineries will go in terms of requests for samples. In this age of Influencers and Influencer Marketing (including Influencer marketing software platforms and agencies) we have gone far beyond 3 or 5 or 10 top review publications seeking samples. There could be hundreds (or more?) of folks asking for a free set of bottles to report on. How do producers decide whether to submit or not? Where do you draw the line and how do you justify it?
In my experience nearly any producer (except maybe the rarified in Burgundy) will say yes to anyone who wants to show up at the winery with an appointment to sample. So thatās a low bar (though of course whole bottles arenāt being shipped out, and the producer can decide how many get tasted). But the TikTok or Insta lifestyle champion is a different kind of channel and by its nature likely to offer shallower reviews. Some of these likely have more distribution than WS.
Thoughts?
3 Likes
There is a simple, very elegant solution to all of this.
The Wine Spectator owes it to their readers to review first growths.
But the protocols do not work; so they should get off their butts, and go out and taste the wines like everyone else. Except they should not score them; instead put a box on the side with notes. Scores are the lifeblood of the futures industry; having some notes covers the diligence part of their tastings, at the same making a not so subtle point that they did keep true to their protocols. Then score them when they are in bottle and can be purchased.
To be honest, if I trusted Wine Spectator reviews, tasting blind would be a very good thing. I disagree with them far more often than agree, and consider their notes pretty useless, regardless of protocols.
1 Like
In asking the First Growths, Wine Spectator is not exactly clean here. The first response I received this morning stated ā¦
āFor samples since ever, we refuse to give free samples outside Bordeaux, except for Covid. The critics have to come to taste. WS and James have decided first step to refuse to taste if it is not a blind tasting and second step since the covid (and continue today) they refuse to come to Bordeaux. We don t understand this but we have to respect their decision. So to answer your question, WS change we don t.ā
I can tell you from my personal view and observations that prior to Covid, sending samples of First Growths and other wines never took place. Covid changed that, and in most cases, forever.
Today, I am slowly wrapping up tasting perhaps 800 samples of 2020 Bordeaux. All those wines were shipped to me. I have over 600 notes already in my database. I will finish the remaining 200 wines by the end of February. The WS tasted about 350! Clearly, WS does not focus on Bordeaux these days.
Of course, WS sells more wine than we do. But I taste just about everything. As a guess, maybe 10-12 wines do not send to me, and all of those estates have agreed to allow me to taste those wines in April, alongside their 2022s. Well, all except for 1, which will not provide samples because they feel my score is too low!
I hope this clears up a few questions.
4 Likes