To me, the whole ‘wine submission’ game is just one I prefer not to ‘play’. I can see it being helpful for many wineries, especially as a sales tool, but to me, the bottom line is that wine is more than ‘just a number’. I’ve ‘survived’ having a reviewer call one of my entire releases ‘pedestrian’ and another rate the majority of a release 82 points and lower . . .
Do higher scores make ‘life easier’ for a winery? Of course they do - let’s not fool ourselves. Do wineries ‘need’ these scores? That comes down to the individual winery and what their ‘goals’ and ‘visions’ are.
I can see why many First Growths are not submitting to WS - the real question is whether these same ones have done so in the past and why they are not this specific vintage? Was that already answered above - and if so, sorry for the repetition.
And one last point - the term ‘independent wine review’ is truly an oxymoron - there is no such thing. Each and every reviewer has ‘preferences’ - whether they are overt or covert. It’s simply human nature (which is why some wineries I know submit wines only to specific reviewers whose palates they feel match their wine styles).
cappellano requested the wines not be scored, so they aren’t.
the movie studio analogy is interesting as those review are embargoed until a date certain set by the studio. imagine if all wine reviews for a particular wine had to come out on the same day?
here’s another interesting development - Domaine Dujac now schedules groups of critics to come at the same time and taste the wines as opposed to accommodating individual visits. This seems like a no brainer to me, but i’m sure some critics won’t love it.
Sure? No. This is WB, and anything I say here is not legal advice, etc etc.
But here’s my thoughts:
The C in OPEC stands for Countries. Matters of sovereignty immediately take over. And that’s about the exploitation of their natural resources (how much they’re going to produce), also a matter of sovereignty. And their decisions are not US-targeted. DeBeers would likely be a better example than OPEC as entities go.
As to where the act took place, the talks presumably in France, sure, but they were about a specific US publication, that helps American consumers. And they definitely do business here. Talking somewhere else about acts targeted to the US doesn’t shield from the applicability of US law.
We’re definitely one of the wineries that submits based upon understanding the reviewers palates align with what we do.
I submitted our 2010s, a vintage I loved, to one of the foremost palates for Pinot Noir in the world, and it wasn’t his style(his words, not mine). Review was reasonable, and I appreciated his statement but it made no sense to continue sending him samples.
Both to stave off Megan putting me in a month long time out from Wine Berserkers and because I think my impetuous posting that I would sue a publication for posting a negative review of a purchased wine, we don’t typically get engaged in lawsuits and I personally have never sued anyone.
I do have a strong reaction to having someone push past a request not to publish an opinion aimed at making money if our wines are involved. And I absolutely think most professional reviewers would not do so. As I posted in the beginning of this, our reputation is our most valuable asset. There sometimes appears to be a feeling that wineries are non-feeling entities that should have no say in how our wines are spoken about and presented. While I care very much about consumers being able to have access to opinions and information about our wines, I also very strongly believe that not all opinions are created equally and that it is definitely my job to sheperd them to the people who understand them the best. That said, I also try to accommodate anyone who takes an interest in out wines.
I did learn the hard way that even the most respected reviewer can get into a logistical quagmire. He still put up his opinion, and I still disagree with it. It is my job to avoid having a very good wine be ranked at the bottom of the class.
Sorry if some of my earlier posts were aggravating to anyone, that wasn’t the intent.
My thought (not that anyone has asked for it) is that “respecting people’s wishes” (as Marcus points out) means only respecting the winery’s wishes - not necessarily the wishes of the consumer. I believe that the wine belongs to the consumer (or it will, hopefully, if I can sell it) and publications provide consumers with something that they find worthwhile (they wouldn’t subscribe otherwise). Thus, by submitting wine to reviewers, you are really providing a service to the consumer. — One thing I do know that you are seeing in Oregon (and CA) is wineries that normally submit to WS for tasting not doing so in the 2020 vintage - not because they didn’t make wine but because they are seemingly concerned about real or perceived smoke taint. IMO, that’s a prime example of the problems potentially associated with not submitting.
Hmmm…when I used to watch Siskel & Ebert (two thumbs up!), I never thought that either Siskel or Ebert should consult with the film’s director before reviewing the film. Nor did I think that Frank Prial needed to consult with a restaurant before dining there. Certainly the winery can choose not to submit and WS then will need to figure out whether or not they are willing to pay to review those wines. But I don’t think that WS is under any obligation to the winery to do what they want. I think any wine publication’s primary obligation should be to the consumer.
And (entirely personally), I think that a winery also has an obligation to the consumer to make wines available for review.
I strongly agree with your first paragraph. I actually would think much less of a wine reviewer who honored a producer’s request not to review its wines. However, I don’t think a producer has any obligation to facilitate reviews and whether to do so should be based solely on the producer’s judgment about whether getting the reviews will benefit its business.
Thanks for the response. I understand the second part entirely. I want consumers to accept my wines, I think that a decent number of consumers (perhaps more than we all care to admit) base their buying decisions on reviews (especially true at the prices that many of us - me included - charge), and that making the wine available for review is thus doing the consumers a service. Perhaps my word obligation was too strong - but I value the consumer and think that being responsive to what they use to make decisions is a good thing to do.
I very infrequently disagree with Marcus, but I do in this case. I think any product on the market, including services, is fair game for being reviewed, by both laymen and professionals. I certainly do not believe that wineries are obligated to participate in the process, but if the product/service can be obtained on the open market, people should be allowed to review it.
Having said all that, I pay absolutely no attention at all to any professional reviewers. I take note of certain people here and on CT, and also have a few trusted winemakers (including Marcus) and a merchant (Ansonia) that I trust to give me the the straight scoop. I’ve enjoyed many wines that got lukewarm reviews from pros, and I’m pretty skeptical of the process for reasons that Marcus (and others) have written about.
Edit: I forgot that I do take note of what William Kelley writes ITF.
that’s the crux here. i’ve only read what WS put out on this thread, so this is based only on what OP provided. it’s the last sentence that goes too far - way too far imo. a little passive aggressive shaming is fine, it’s akin to an author writing “we reached out to X for comment, but they didn’t get back to us before publishing.” but here WS claims their process is the ethical one, which means all others are unethical.
one can argue whether tasting blind is the best or correct way, but it’s certainly a reasonable way. but so is not blind. calling it ethical - and the only ethical way - comes off as intentionally antagonistic. if i worked at another journal, i’d have a serious problem with this.
(this is not to say that’s the reason they didn’t submit samples).
This is an outstanding point. If a wine really needs 6 hours in a decanter to show it’s best, and it’s not given that time, it won’t show well. So why subject yourself to that? This is the fatal flaw of tasting everything blind.
And blind tasting wouldn’t be necessary if you weren’t taking advertising.
The whole spat began not because the chateaux did not want to submit wines to the Spectator to suit their protocols. Too bad. That leaves them their own self important platform to complain and two choices.
Go around like every other journalist, attend the UGC tastings and visit the chateaux to taste the wines.
Not taste.
I am pretty sure that none of the first growths give a toss whether their wines are tasted by Spectator.
Finally, if a winery puts a product out there, of course it can and should be reviewed.
I completely disagree. Wineries submit samples for reviews to promote the winery and help sales. Good reviews and continued good scores help sales and bring in new customers. Even if a winery sells out today, that is not a guarantee of future sales.
That does not mean some wineries sell without reviews. Some can. But review samples are sent for the promotion of the product.
