Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2008 > August > 21 > Entry
Wine Spectator rises to the defense
Wine Spectator Executive Editor Thomas Matthews has presented in one of the magazine’s online forums a vigorous and spirited defense of its actions in giving an Award of Excellence to a fictitious Italian restaurant.
Matthews details the efforts of his magazine to check out the restaurant and points out that the inclusion of a handful of low-scoring wines represented only a small portion of the wine list that was submitted to the magazine. Here is how Matthews summarized what he called the “elaborate hoax” that led to the brouhaha:
It has now been demonstrated that an elaborate hoax can deceive Wine Spectator.
This act of malicious duplicity reminds us that no one is completely immune to fraud. It is sad that an unscrupulous person can attack a publication that has earned its reputation for integrity over the past 32 years. Wine Spectator will clearly have to be more vigilant in the future.
Most importantly, however, this scam does not tarnish the legitimate accomplishments of the thousands of real restaurants who currently hold Wine Spectator awards, a result of their skill, hard work and passion for wine.
In addition to the Spectator’s own forum linked to in the opening paragraph, the most robust discussion of the issues involved is occurring over on the Vinography wine blog.
What do you think of Wine Spectator’s defense?
Permalink | Comments (12) | Post your comment |
Comments
By Mark Koppen
August 22, 2008 11:51 AM | Link to this
I agree with some of the opinions here that WS has not taken the right approach in defending itself re the hoax. There are obvious flaws in their awards and part 2 of their response needs to be a completely new procedure and rules system, or these awards will become a joke (and will not likely gross $1 million next year)…By Randy
August 22, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
OK, but here’s the problem. WS scores on the “cult” wines are still a joke. Why? The condition of the fruit arriving at the crushpad for these high scorers are in decimated state. For those out there who don’t realllly know, the bunches are shriveled to the point of unregonition- somewhere beween 26-28 brix (true story), the Ph’s are in the 3.8 (or higher range) leaving the future wine in an “intensive care” condition. I find it frankly insulting to growers and winefolk alike when these cats are receive high accolades for respecting a variety they’ve intentionally neglected on the vine! I have pic’s of the fruit from 03 harvest that shows the absolute destroyed condition of a wine the WS and Parker gave 95 and 97 respectively!!! WS contributes to this bigger-is-better, SUV-style of winemaking that is ruling this industry. WHAT A JOKE!!! Again, Corporate gets what they deserve!By James
August 22, 2008 10:32 AM | Link to this
ron, a wine-list with no lower-scoring wines? in a restaurant, the wines are actually drunk. And scores are not about drinking wine, but about owning it.By Jim T
August 22, 2008 6:31 AM | Link to this
At $250 apiece, the 4,128 restaurants in the 2008 list would have grossed more than $1 million total. What else does one need to know?By Insider
August 22, 2008 12:45 AM | Link to this
Truth is, most of the wine producers I know in CA despise the Speculator for its duplicity and disingeuous MO but have to play the game by the Specualtors rules due to the power they wield. When will this country learn to understand their own tastes, as opposed to being led around by a nose ring called the Speculator. And to any journalist running to their defense - we now understand the level of your integrity.By Bruce
August 21, 2008 6:20 PM | Link to this
Okay, Goldstein’s deception on the Wine Spectator is reprehensible, and the Wine Spectator needs to vet its selections prior to placing them on the list. Oh well, I still intend to check out the WS articles and its Award of Excellence list. As noted by Mark, our local restaurants on the list are “excellent” restaurants. Moreover, I have never been dissatisfied with other restaurants on the list from outside the Dayton area. The WS is for the most part only a reference aide regarding wine and food and not necessarily objective or free from error. Sure, I was disappointed in the WS when I learned about the scam. Even so, those of us who have been duped by a scam know who it feels and can feel some empathy for the WS in this instance.By Mike
August 21, 2008 5:29 PM | Link to this
Tasted any good wines lately?By Dino
August 21, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this
Let’s see, the WS Award of Excellence fraud was exposed by a hoax, and Matthews claims that it was his magazine that was the victim. Got now, 1WD.By Arthur, winesooth.com
August 21, 2008 4:01 PM | Link to this
I agree that the use of the word “award” is misleading at best. At the same time, there is no big secret on the part of WS how a restaurant should go about being considered for the program. All these things notwithstanding, it seems that Goldstein’s methods are as damaging to him as his “revelations” are to WS (if not more so). I’m still waiting to see the full wine list.By ron
August 21, 2008 2:11 PM | Link to this
To me, an award is given to reward excellence. How can a wine menu with ANY lower scoring wines be considered excellent? Does that then mean that your scores are no scale to be taken seriously? Or does it mean that it’s acceptable for an award winning wine list to include sub-standard wines? I’m sorry but there is no excuse. You awarded a wine list, disregarding if it’s real or not, an award of excellence for having wines you yourself have rated as being a good to poor rating.By 1WineDude
August 21, 2008 10:31 AM | Link to this
Well… at least we know where he stands! His defense is actually quite sensible. But his defense also suggests that a wine list can have 5% crap wines and still receive their basic award. Which might be troubling for wine lovers & restaurant-goers who view the WS awards as a means to help them select restaurants that care deeply about wine and wine service. Calling the study an “act of malicious duplicity” and “unscrupulous” is a bad move. Better to have acknowledged that this highlights a potential area of concern and commit to reducing the 5% margin of error - and maybe even asking Robin Goldstein for help. Instead, WS is viewing it as a personal attack and reacting in kind. Not classy.By Ed
August 21, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
How do you defend the indefensible? It only serves to reinforce my opinion of these publications.