W Blake Gray reports on a possible scandal involving the Wine Advocate this time involving Sonoma wines.The Gray Report: Wine Advocate in Sonoma County: No scandal, so far
if you take the number 3 and squeeze really hard you can make it look like an 8
What you see here strike me as growing pains. As the WA has become more and more central to the world of wine, people scramble to get their wines in front of them. The WA relies on various local groups to organize bigger mass tastings, and lo and behold, allegedly some of these groups get creative about using this to try and push membership or benefit their own members.
As usual, I think Galloni’s response is earnest and forthright. That is who he is: “From time to time I work with several regional organizations that assist in setting up centralized tastings. All of these associations have strict instructions that membership in their organization is not a requirement for me to taste a given producer’s wines. Before a tasting I receive a list of the proposed wines and I chose what I will taste, independent of which wineries are and aren’t part of the association that is organizing that tasting.”
That said, I think the WA has to step up their game and put some more teeth into their policies around these tastings. If the SCVA is disregarding Antonio’s wishes that wine submissions should be open, then Antonio should drop them and find someone else for the future. Period.
Keep in mind also that this is for a tasting in January, so given what is floating around out there, I have no doubt that Antonio will get to the bottom of it and fix anything if it is amiss.
You know, I go back a long way, and have seen the very first Wine Advocates that Robert Parker sent out, where he was buying the wines he was reviewing from places like Calvert Woodley and that place on Route 40 about 5 miles south of Elkton, MD I used to go to but can’t remember the name right now, and nobody knew who he was. He was truly an “Advocate” of the consumer then.
But absolute power corrupts absolutely, and this is what we have today. Even eTony has been corruptd by Parker’s power.
As Angelo Gaja’s old man would say “Darmagi”. “Que lastima”, what a pity.
Really? AG, corrupt? Really?
To some extent the tail is wagging the dog, and RMP’s success is a double-edged sword at times. I think the WA needs the rules for tastings like this ‘contracted in blood’ so that organizers don’t get creative.
Lord knows I am no Parker fan, but as a retired criminal prosecutor of 33 years, I feel constrained to note there is no proof of any corruption. It is WAY TOO early to make such a call.
As Gertrude Stein once said about Oakland… “there’s no there there…”
The association is organizing a tasting of it’s members’ wines… which is a promotional activity. That’s one main reason such associations exist, though. If they promoted non-members equally, what’s the point of being a member? To that degree it’s rather silly for TWA to ask an association to organize tastings and ignore membership status.
AG and in general TWA needs to figure out how they will taste wines from places who, for whatever reason, don’t belong to an association such as this. That’s on him/them and it is something they should do I think. The best thing would be for them to have something akin to a submission policy, i.e. “we taste in $REGION every January. While we cannot taste every single wine, we want to taste as many as we can. We’ll be working with $REGION Association, so if you’re a member of that organization please work with them to get your wine in the lineup. If you’re not a member, please email us at…” Or something like that.
Did you see Antonio’s quote in my reply? Specifically “All of these associations have strict instructions that membership in their organization is not a requirement for me to taste a given producer’s wines.”
It sounds like SCVA may have been running afoul of that. I suspect if that is the case that AG is knocking heads right now.
Until they go back to the original concept, of buying the wines off the retail shelf, incognito, they will always be subject to corruption, period. Anyone who can’t see that is naive, IMHO. dc.
Is there any U S wine newsletter that buys all of the wines they review off retail shelves?
None that I know of, which is why I only read TNs here or on WCWN. Everything else is a waste of time, totally corrupted by $ and power.
Cue Daniel Posner and Dr. Vino, both of whom have ranted heavily over the last couple of years about the long since exaggerated claims re: the Wine Advocate buying wine to taste.
Personally I think the wine world has gotten too large for the old method to work, but I think the WA needs MUCH more formal and buttoned up policies (and penalties for abuse) for their new approach. They also should stop exaggerating about the percentage they buy.
Really, if you look at so many of the various issues over the past few years, they stem from a lack of foresight and planning as they greatly expanded the WA editorial team. Plus one inappropriate choice of writer. That last problem has been fixed. I think they can rectify the rest if they really care to. I wish they would, as this is getting tiresome.
This is the relevant piece in Parker’s ethics:
Of course, if you taste all wines double blind, the potential corruption issue disappears.
But they are never going there.
However where they could go is to actually be even more formal with their policies by ensuring they actually meet their practices.
(And I write all this knowing that Antonio is likely reading every word and taking it to heart.)
Yeah I did. But Antonio is naive if he thinks an association isn’t going to favor its members.
Well, just for the record, (watch for self serving plug) EVERY wine tasted for the California Grapevine wine newsletter is tasted double blind. (www.calgrapevine.com)
Eric: “Cue Daniel Posner and Dr. Vino, both of whom have ranted heavily over the last couple of years about the long since exaggerated claims re: the Wine Advocate buying wine to taste.”
Eric, I do not know who these gentlemen are, but they would appear to be very intelligent and knowledgable regarding human behaviour. :~)
Is he saying that producers can submit their wines for the event the organization is sponsoring? Or simply that he won’t limit himself to wines presented at the event, which will be limited to members’ wines? If it’s only the latter, then you can see how non-members might feel disadvantaged because they may figure that’s the best way to get Antonio’s attention.
Yeah, that’s my take on it also.