Lol…everyone seems to be stuck on the theme of a law suit. As noted above, things don’t have to got to court. And in the real world they almost never do.
Also, just because someone buys a wine, doesn’t mean they should get a C&D or a lawsuit. Most wineries would be happy if a reviewer bought all of the wines they reviewed.
As Mark Golodetz noted, the First Growths, do not want to participate in the WS specific blind tasting protocol. And that’s the crux of the issue here. They have asked not to participate, basically stating that they don’t like the risk involved. WS has publicly asked them to rethink that.
But WS has not publicly said they will ignore the First Growths stance and just buy the wines anyway. These entities have a lot of history together, and both have done very, very well working together. I’m interested to see how it turns out, but I think the “damn the torpedoes, just buy the wines and publish regardless!” is a naive outlook.
A libel has to be a false statement as I understand it, not an opinion. I expect that the standard for proving malice is higher than the fact that the statement could cause damage. You have to show it intends to cause damage. Again, I’m not a lawyer and I don’t play one on TV, but I can read libel law well enough and this isn’t even close. I await with bated breath the first time a reviewer buys your wine without asking and publishes a review.
Why is it wrong for them to expect not to be reviewed?
If someone asks you not to do something, then that should be respected(as long as it’s legal).
It’s not a truth that because someone wants to read about a wine that the producers wishes to not have the wine reviewed, or reviewed under a specific protocol, shouldn’t be respected. No review means no publicity, but if a winery wants no publicity then it would be wrong to ignore that.
I want to hang out on a yacht myself, but I am pretty sure that if Bill Gates told me to stay off his I would abide by his decision. And not because I would be trespassing but so as not to be a selfish ass.
Isn’t the most accurate way to review a wine for an audience obtaining in it the same way and under the same conditions a reader might? Could be DTC, big box wine, or a grocery. The average drinker isn’t getting ideal samples in ideal conditions.
Took me a bit to find this on the thread, but I am really glad your parents enjoyed the visit, and the wines! Getting to meet people, or their family, is really one of the great things about this board. It makes a lot of our appointments a lot more special.
I appreciate your commentary on blind tasting as well. It’s the counterpoint to my example, but still defines that in most blind tastings the flight typically affects perception.
I’ve posted on multiple threads that I prefer a TN on the Berserker board to most professional reviews. That’s primarily based upon the fact that Berserkers typically will drink the bottle over time, and see how it develops and changes, and (often) the lack of other wines competing for attention.
Anecdotally, I feel like notes on our wines in CT from blind tastings are often lower than notes on individual bottles. That may be because the wines are over rated, or it also could be that a lot of the nuance that makes our wines attractive are lost in a flight format.
David Schildknecht said no. I asked him about whether it was ok to decant things for him or open them in advance. He said, “do it however shows the wine to me at it’s best”.
He wanted to see potential and to speak to how the wine could be, and then could address the aspects of preparation if need be, IIRC.
It took me a minute, but I appreciated the idea. It offers iron-clad acceptance if his review by the producer. I poured it for him the way I wanted it to be handled, then I can have no issue with the tasting format. And for consumers it does mean digging a little deeper into the process than the score or TN, but for most of us on the board that’s part of the enjoyment of wine, and for those who just want to grab 90 points and feel good about a glass of wine, it’s still probably not that big a deal.
And tastings at big box stores are not really the peak of what we should aspire to in critical reviews.
Great wines are truly an experience, and while they can be consumed anywhere out of whatever, hopefully the majority are given the respect they deserve.
That’s a through line for me in this thread. Grapes to wine is easy. Grapes to great wine consistently year after year is really difficult, time consuming work.
People can buy wines wherever they like, and drink them as they like. But I hope that many of our consumers take the time to go beyond normal effort in cellaring, drinking, and enjoying our wines. And Megan and I will do absolutely everything we can to produce wines that validate that extra effort.
I’m not sure I understand your point. Are you saying that if a winery doesn’t want its wines reviewed, all for profit periodicals should avoid reviewing them? Would this logic apply to a movie studio? A restaurant? Any product reviewed by Consumer Reports?
Sometimes, Hollywood would put out a brainless big budget summer type movie, knowing it was going to get bad reviews, and not do the customary advance screenings for critics.
But even then, the critics could watch it on opening day and review it. The studios just wanted to get some people in there before the bad reviews could hit the airwaves.
I don’t think you have to be an expert in EU law. WS is primarily a US publication targeted to US consumers (maybe Canada too but regardless). First growth chateaus are certainly placing their items in commerce in the US. They even have distributors here. US law would apply to the AT analysis.
Without trying to present an ultimatum, or binary world…
…my post is suggesting that respecting people’s wishes is correct behavior. And that it can be done by a for profit publication.
Wine Spectator is currently looking at doing EXACTLY this, by posting their desire for the First Growths to participate but not forcing the issue. Maybe they’ll change their minds, but they are doing the right thing now(IMO).
For profit doesn’t have to mean you have to just run roughshod over anything that impedes maximum compensation. Especially when there are literally millions of wineries that will participate in your business.
I would be interested to hear AGs perspective on what Vinous would do if a winery politely declined to send samples for review. I doubt he would lose much sleep over it. (One of the reasons my comment about suing a publication wasn’t something I took too seriously, perhaps incorrectly)
Where did they make that statement? I must have missed that😁
They are only stating that either you taste their wines at the property, under the conditions they control, glasses temperature, ambiance, etc., or you buy them on your own dime and taste them blind, or not, have them for dinner or cook with them.
They are treating all reviewers equally and have not singled out WS.
FWIW, numerous BDX chateau do not send samples to Vinous or to other reviewers
if a winery without a track record wants to continue not submitting then consumers either 1) won’t care 2) won’t know or 3) can learn about the wines another way (cue Tercero and Larry Schaffer because he declines to submit and should be the one answering this question.
strictly for me as a consumer, correct behavior is to not force something on someone they don’t want. So while I might want a review for some insight into Chateau Rayas, Lassaigne’s Clos St. Sophie, or Doyard’s Clos de l’Abbaye, if those producers decline to offer submissions for review I trust their judgement and absolutely DO NOT want to buy or support a publication that would disregard that choice.
And if I am frustrated by not knowing anything about those wines I will buy someone else’s wines. There’s millions to choose from.
The situation with the big 5 is frustrating, probably for both sides. But they’ll settle it out, but most of all…if they don’t want to play then they shouldn’t have to. I can absolutely survive on Ducru, Las Cases, Pichon-Lalande, and VCC(thanks Mark), and will have more money for Vatan if I do.
You sure about that? I’m not sure either way. If there’s a violation, it was the act of agreeing (if in fact they did), and (presumably) that act took place in France, not where the magazine is or where its readers are. OPEC reaches much more blatantly violative agreements all the time, and its members sell their product in the US, yet they are beyond the reach of US antitrust law. DeBeers does, or at least did, likewise (I believe). It would be great if just selling the stuff here were enough to lead to an international form of long-arm jurisdiction, but I’m not sure that it is.
I have visited Bordeaux and have what I want of the 2020’s on futures so whatever WS writes about the vintage is of little interest to me. I was very impressed by what I tasted on my visit. My biggest surprise in Pauillac was Chateau Pedesclaux and I was still able to buy some futures when I got home.
I think there are examples like this in many areas. And to be frank, most products that would decline a review in Consumer Reports, I would simply avoid buying. I have no reason to want CR to review them if the company doesn’t want to but it would be a red flag.
Goodfellow definitely submits wines for review. But I came to a similar conclusion to the Chateaux. I’d prefer to know that the reviewer understands our wines and motivations, and can see how they evolve. We opened 18 wines back to 2012 for the WS visit none of which will be reviewed but definitely gave me the peace of mind that Tim gets what we are attempting to achieve. If that sounds arrogant it’s not intended.
Tasting with Tim, he made a very good impression on Megan and I, and if it wasn’t for the blind tasting protocols I would probably be ok shipping samples. Though it is always, by far, my preference to taste through with the reviewer at the winery.
