By winegeeks.com

April 15, 2006 12:17 PM | Link to this

WOW! Now that’s healthy discourse, baby! As someone in the industry I agree with both sides of the “bought” ratings equation. I know too many winemakers who have said they were told by the Spectator that if they wanted better ratings they should advertise with the mag. Could they ALL be lying? Yes. But they all have the exact same story. Odd, huh? I also know someone who worked for the Spectator years ago and says they “pad” their ratings for certain wineries. How else can you explain the wild variances in ratings from one publication to another? Personal taste? No way, as we may disagree on what the specific flavors of a wine may be, but very seldom will I say it’s a 94 and you say it’s a 78, yet this happens all the time. Too many of these “blind” tastings occur at the winery under very casual and familiar conditions. But hey, that’s the incestuous nature of the wine industry. Once you are big you have met and know everyone from one place or another, and the only hope that the readers have left is in the integrity of the mag/writer/site. That being said, there are plenty of great mags/sites out there that still kick out unbiased opinions about the wines they review. Even the Spectator and Parker do the same, but to say that human opinion isn’t biased in some way, when as humans we are influenced by everything around us from money in our pockets to having a head cold to getting in a car accident on the way to review that wine, well that seems a little naive. It is opinion after all. You should read our site. No one has offered us any money for anything- yet. :)

By spratt

April 14, 2006 5:05 PM | Link to this

G.ball: You state: “Not enough people subscibe to these things for all these people to be in a business that is only appreciated by a few people. More people may drink wine, but only a small % read and care about wine. Most people are just drinking it - not reading and analysing.” If this is the case, then WHO GIVES A RAT’S PATOOEY how much money is exchanged between a winery/importer/whoever and a wine magazine??? Let them work whatever “angles” for the “small %” of people who read these magazines and let the rest of us EAT CAKE!!! I mean, DRINK WINE!!

By CaptainEd

April 14, 2006 11:56 AM | Link to this

Wow…Quite an exchange of ‘opinions’. But let me shed some light on the blending thing. Mark McKenna (who says he is a wine maker) over in “Wine Sediments” produces 50,000 cases. A litle arithmetic reveals a tank 25 feet in diameter and 30 feet tall would handle this quantity. The Italians would need 4 such tanks to handle the 200,000 cases and four sizable pumps to do the blending. Not unreasonable.

By mark fisher

April 14, 2006 11:51 AM | Link to this

Cathy: From the horns of Unicorns? Really? Is that why pink wine makes me — oh, never mind … By the way, I took the “joe” reference to be to Trader Joe’s, not to the other Joe, who has, I’m sure, been called many things, but probably never “Trader.”

By cathy

April 14, 2006 11:22 AM | Link to this

Okay, Mark, good for you. Then, to G.Ball: I find your comments/opinions to be baffling at best. You assert that “at least 20% of the time… (wine)ratings are bought.” I find that difficult to believe, but I guess I’d be willing to listen if you had some hard evidence to back that up. I happen to agree with Mark that, if you are going to make such a strong allegation, then, an example would be appropriate. I don’t think it’s Mark’s job to go prove every wild allegation made by those who choose to post on this blog. If that were the case, I could say, ‘Mark, 20% of all pink wines are really extracted from the horns of unicorns—and it’s your job to prove it.’ So maybe you can help us naiive readers understand where you are coming from on the rating-buying assertion. Next, I need help understanding your opinion that Mark thinks that “the wines at Joe’s actually are intended to be real wines…, all the while they provide the public with way “over-pricedâ€? cheap juice that makes my stomach hurt.” Do you mean Joe, the wine manager at Jay’s? (Ouch!! If Joe has offended you in some way, I don’t think this blog is the place to air it. Just saying.) So, what do you define as “real wines,” and how do they differ from what is being offered at Joe’s wine tastings? And if they make your stomach hurt, perhaps you might consider going elsewhere to taste your wines. Finally, I want my favorite blog back!! My favorite blog, Uncorked, was never so accusatory and hostile in the past. Can we please be more polite in the future? Please? Peace, Love, and Cheers.

By mark fisher

April 14, 2006 10:55 AM | Link to this

Cathy: Banish G.Ball from the blog? Heck no, that was simply a robust exchange of differing opinions — okay, VERY robust — but it would take FAR more than than to earn a blog banishment (not that I’m throwing down a challenge for anyone to try to find out exactly where that threshold is, mind you…). I’ve let G.Ball have the last word, and we’ll move on. Cheers!

By cathy

April 14, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

Oh.My.Goodness!! G.Ball makes many wild assertions and sweeping generalizations, and he is not being polite. IMO, he should be heretofore banned from this blog, which used to be filled with respectful oenophiles respecting each others’ opinions. Just saying. Oh BTW, I’ve been to many a wine tasting where we taste the wines blind and later compare our notes to those published. All serious students of wine tasting do so.

By g.ball

April 13, 2006 11:24 PM | Link to this

I need to bring you proof? Give me a break. Don’t you work for a newspaper? It SHOULD BE YOUR JOB TO FIND THE TRUTH! But, then again, that would take time away from your busy schedule. I would tell you to get a real job, but making stuff up is apart of your job? Must be fun. Right? Why does the “angle” of this paper (and others) call me 6 times a night for my buck? Money? The paper should sell itself. Or does the DDN not promote themselves as a business, rather a public service. You live in a world where you think the wines at Joe’s actually are intended to be real wines(sometimes they are), all the while they provide the public with way “over-priced” cheap juice that makes my stomach hurt. 17 years, wow……. not all 17 years have been spent on wine, now have they. You have the avenues of being some sort of “know-it-all” and cant recognize that this is done on a daily basis. You should prove me wrong…….. I only need to prove it once, right? If i do, I want a case. One time “pulls the pants down” and therefore shall expose many other examples of this situation - which neither you nor I have time to explore. I have seen this happen many times. Just say the word and a case shall be mine.But you have a job to do - and I like the job you do. Often even you get swayed by those who were swayed before you - ie retailers. Wine is the most over produced, most misunderstood comercial items out there on the market today. Do we truely ever know where grapes are coming from? The laws allows a lot to happen in terms of the proper desiganation of wine, but some how your 17 years and reading Parker and then in turn drinking Joe’s wine makes you an expert. I respect your blog, but slamming me on my experience. You work part time on this, right? And then you can’t even state that this practice happens in every other business in the world but the wine business. It is about the Juice, not the label - or in your terms “POLO”. Seriously, blind select your favorite wines and compare them to WS, Parker or who ever. Would you do that? No. B/C you should like what you like and keep on trying new wine - rather than promote or bash certain wines (or people.)

By Mark Fisher

April 13, 2006 9:54 PM | Link to this

G.Ball: I’ve got news for you, pal: You DO live in my world. Tell you what: You make a lot of very serious allegations, including that, “20% of the time in these big publications,” ratings are bought and paid for. Why do you think no one has ever ratted? What, none of the wine producers who paid for a rating later decided they were going to stop paying, subsequently got lower scores, and then started hurling very public accusations? If the world is as you describe it, this would be happening every day. Every DAY. Media cover-up? No way, dude. The media would be eating it UP. Tell you what: you bring me verifiable proof that this has happened just ONE time — let alone 20 percent of the time — I’ll be glad to publish it. And you’ll win the bet.

By g.ball

April 13, 2006 6:18 PM | Link to this

I would really love to live in your world. I will be willing to bet you a case of wine it happens at least 20% of the time in these big publications. Parker isn’t rich b/c he knows about wine. Someone is lining his pockets. It happens in every single business in every part of the world every day since the beginning of time. Some ratings are very accurate, however many ratings are bought. Tell me the the DDN does not have a political angle and someone is getting something from it from someone with money. EVERY BUSINESS has their “angles”, this is their way of making money. Not enough people subscibe to these things for all these people to be in a business that is only appreciated by a few people. More people may drink wine, but only a small % read and care about wine. Most people are just drinking it - not reading and analysing. To review this, read three write up on the same wine and then view the winemakers impressions……. why are they all soooooo different. Not all wine, but a good percent.

By mark fisher

April 13, 2006 5:59 PM | Link to this

G.Ball: I know it’s “cool” to be cynical about these kinds of things, but I think your allegation that these ratings being all bought and paid for is, well, hooey. And I think much of the grumbling about the “pay for ratings” comes from those whose wines didn’t get good ratings — in other words, sour grapes. And I say that from the perspective of someone who has written a wine column for 17 years (admittedly, not for a publication renowned for its national impact on the wine industry). I’m not saying it’s never happened. I’m suggesting it happens far, far less than you imagine.

By g.ball

April 13, 2006 5:41 PM | Link to this

Umbria + Wine Spectator = Selling All Their Wine. Or, for your math crowd 2.4 million bottles X $13.00 = $31.2 million dollars. If this was all sold in Ohio, that would be a $10.4 million profit for the retail boys and girls on this one product or if it was reserved for resturants, it would be three times that in profits. All ratings published via large magazine companies are being paid for these ratings. They must, because there are so many differences in rating from one to another and many are rated in the 90’s when most anybody thinks it GOOD not GREAT. For instance,I rate this blog a 94, b/c you bought me a beer last night. My motto is “Drink the Wine Already!”

By John

April 13, 2006 12:28 PM | Link to this

Couldn’t agree more about your comments on wine ratings. I’ve tasted various wines given a high rating by Parker, or others, and wondered why I wasn’t enjoy that completely escaped by taste buds. The best rating a wine can get is from you. Parker and the other rating services should be considered a guide and not an assurance of taste, or quality.