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.
I’ll go off on a tangent here. A couple decades ago WS did a blind tasting pairs article of red Burgs vs OR PNs with their Burg and OR critics. Two reviews for each wine, guessing which was from which region. It was telling, and a valuable lesson to readers, and very counter-productive to critical mags. They got the regions wrong quite often. Their ratings differed interestingly…and glaringly in a couple cases. One wine got ratings about 25 points apart. Brave to publish that, but they seem to have learned the lesson. Telling readers that wine appreciation and perception are highly subjective is bad business.
They didn’t pull from WS - they offered WS the chance to taste and review, but only at the Chateau, and only non-blind. Presumably they are offering those same conditions to the other publications?
this is not, in my view, “the sad thing about our system.” In fact, access to the courts is an essential part of our system of government.
The sad part is that you have to rich enough to pay the piper. The costs of litigation are so high that as a practical matter, only those who have resources have access to the system. And this imbalance provides the rich with leverage to force those with legitimate claims or defenses to surrender them.
Quite OTT, but I think this is pretty clearly the case
I appreciate the thoughts, and my spouting off about suing them wasn’t a well thought out process.
But I’m not taking up the flag for the first growths. I’m defending every businesses right to have their products treated fairly and with respect for the intention it was produced with. Regardless of their standing in any pecking order, and whether it costs them business or not.
I posted above that I side with Wine Spectator on this even if I am defending the FGs rights to ask for a process they find more advantageous. Loyalty does matter to me, and if the FGs have participated as they built value then my personal(no actual value) opinion would be that they should stay the course.
I also believe that this could very well cost the FGs money in the future. They enjoy remarkable status, but removing yourself from a conversation the size of the WS vintage report is a significant step. It has a good possibility of devaluing both the report, and the FGs. Bear in mind they have a LOT of value, so it may not make a difference to them.
It doesn’t have to be the only review. If a wine has a bad review in the mix, every single distributor and retailer is going to be extremely apprehensive about carrying any of you wines. “What the hell is up with this?” Imagine being a little guy growing the business and suddenly nobody wants to carry your wine.
What Marcus said about the wines showing well with maturity, and giving critics that context… Well, I think that’s an exercise that helps the critic become better in understanding a region, type or style of wines. Even if that’s just some knowledge they bring to future blind tastings.
I think of James Laube. He always significantly underrated Santa Cruz Mountains wines, in my opinion. More importantly, he always underrated Monte Bello…in his opinion. Tasted blind on release against Napa Cabs he gave it low scores. Tasted in retrospectives, where it had the maturity, and surely got more attention, he rated it similar to everyone else, 3-5 points higher than his initial review.
That’s a flawed format, and/or a failure on the part of the critic to learn and grow over the decades. (See pattern, wonder what was missed…)
So, if you know a certain critic is seriously underrate your wines relative to the other critics, why bother submitting to that critic. Readers of that publication aren’t going to buy your wines from those reviews. Consumers who figure out which critics they align with, and are inclined to like your wines, will have reviews of your wines they can parse.
Well put Wes, we ran into this several times in the early years and it is absolutely why I am 100% loyal to Josh Reynold’s. He seemed to get what we were aspiring to right away.
I’m not sure this action devalues both the report and the FGs, or that both have a “LOT” of value. I suspect the FGs will be just fine with or without WS
My recollection of this goes back decades. What they say now vs. what they said then is probably why they moved away from it. Parker was sharply critical of WS in a very public way in the early 2000s, and they used the reason I said above at the time. If they suddenly stopped blind tasting, I’m sure there would effigy over the fact that they still took ads.
I agree with basically everything you said. I think it’s not inconsistent with what I said.
Almost none of it applies to the First Growths though. Or at least it shouldn’t.
I speculate that the reason they threw in Santa Cruz cabs with Napa was that they only included Ridge and Mount Eden and maybe one or two more, and 2-4 wines are too few for their flights. That’s definitely a flaw in their system. Each Bordeaux appellation should have enough wines for independent flights. Just like Laube doesn’t say he underrated the Napa wines, none of the First Growths face that systemic disadvantage. And they have the historical scores to prove it.
It seems to me that if there is one region whose appellations are the most amenable to blind ratings it is Bordeaux. Unlike Burgundy (or Oregon) with two hundred (or however many) crus and villages and very few monopoles, meaning each producer releases 6, 12+ wines, Bordeaux producers release one or few wines; and they are not classified by vineyard, but by producer, with their physical boundaries changing even as the wine name and classification and cru stays the same. The entire claim to First Growth status is a comparison of producer quality. They should be able to consistently emerge on top of blind tastings of their appellation’s vintages (with only few outliers). And even if there are outlier low reviews, each wine gets more reviews than any other anywhere except maybe DP in Champagne.
That’s not even remotely the situation with Marcus. And so what’s fair to Marcus or Oregon or Burgundy, may not be the same as what’s fair to the First Growths or the Bordelais or even maybe Napa.
If however you believe that the WS blind format is irredeemably and universally flawed, then what you’re arguing is that they should change it or close up shop. Are you?
Hence the reason for going winery to winery, with breaks in between makes sense.
You also learn a hell of lot more context. Wineries go through changes all the time! Winemakers, new vineyards, new vineyard practices and so on…the story for me is always more important than some numbers ascribed to its “supposed quality.” It was my biggest criticism of Perrotti-Brown at TWA. She wrote sterile, boring notes with no context of anything. Parker set a high bar for visiting and REPORTING, not just tasting and scoring.
