Aviation Hall of Fame induction
MidFirst balloon festival
You've been spotted: 2008 Air Show
Home > Blogs > Uncorked > Archives > 2007 > November > 13 > Entry
Vanity, thy name is Wine Spectator
Wine Spectator believes that we are so intensely interested in its “Top 100 Wines of 2007” that it has launched a Top Ten Countdown all this week. That’s right — the magazine “revealed” its picks for wines number 10 and 9 on Monday; 8 and 7 will be “revealed” today; 6 and 5 on Wednesday; 4, 3 and 2 on Thursday (THREE selections! Be still my beating heart!); and … the number 1 Wine of the Year on Friday.
Gosh, I’ll have to wear my Depends that day. The excitement and anticipation may be too much.
Oh, but that’s not all. The Spectator also offers us videos of its editors explaining why each wine in the top 10 were chosen.
Does this strike anyone else as just a teensy bit presumptuous on the Spectator’s part?
Perhaps those in the wine industry who have a dog in this hunt are sitting around on pins and needles awaiting this Grand Proclamation.
For the rest of us, I somehow suspect this doesn’t quite rise to the level of whether black smoke or white smoke belches from the tower at the Vatican.
But I also suspect the Spectator doesn’t realize that.
Cheers!
Mark Fisher
Comments
By el jefe
November 24, 2007 1:43 AM | Link to this
Observation: At some level, they are trying to enter the 21st Century by leveraging the web… but it’s also like the Dance of the Seven Veils, only completely different. The audience decides..By Keith
November 15, 2007 5:14 PM | Link to this
In response to Josh, I couldn’t agree more. But it goes beyond that. How the grapes are grown has changed dramatically in the last 15 years, due to this trend. Most growers are growing the grapes in full sun, in climates that cause the grapes to be sunburned and have all vestiges of any vegetal characters baked out of them. A Cabernet doesn’t taste like Cabernet anymore. Heaven forbid that the seeds have any trace of green. The grapes are left to hang in dry California or Australian climates until they are halfway raisined due to the wineries insistance of extended hang time. The poor grower then has lost the water weight of the grapes and lost some to depridation also and suffers lost income at the wineries behest. Then the wineries are starting to complain that the grapes are sunburned which causes lighter colored wines and less tannin development, etc. etc. etc. I’m sorry, but I’m afraid to buy a California or Australian red wine or Chardonnay anymore. Now they are starting to go too far the other way on most of the Pinot Grigio and Sauvignon Blancs. Too thin and grapefruity.By Josh
November 14, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
I work in the wine industry and can tell you that ratings are killing artisan, individualistic wines. The three most powerful critics in the world are Robert Parker, who was a lawyer and has no wine credentials or certifications. James Laube is a journalist by trade and once again has no credentials or certifications. Lastly James Suckling is a small time writer that Spectator propped up like Laube, and once again no credentials or certifications. These three people are telling what the world to drink? They all like over extracted high alcohol fruit bombs, and now wineries are changing their approach to get high ratings.By Stoakes
November 14, 2007 10:57 AM | Link to this
The Spectator is nothing but a subjective money-making machine, and they need to be understood as such. Also, their wine ‘editors’ are usually well-educated, but less than accurate. I’ve caught Harvey Steinman and James Laube posting inaccurate information on their blogs within the last four months. This publication should be appreciated for its pretty photography, and not much more.By Hedges
November 14, 2007 10:27 AM | Link to this
This kind of quantifying of a subjective product is sad and is typical American consumerist marketing. One day, WS will no longer exsist. This goes for other Magazines that rate wines based on a 100 pt scale. It amazes me that people actually buy wine based on this media hype.By chiefwino
November 14, 2007 8:08 AM | Link to this
My primary concern about the “Speculator’s Top 100” is that it invalidates their 100 point scoring system (or vice-a-versa). During the course of the year, multiple wines are scored 98-100 pts. Yet frequently the #1 wine scored a respectable 96-97. So which is correct? Should the top wine be selected from only those wines that received the top score during the year? If the 100pts is so infallible then how can the #1 wine not be one of the 99 pointers? Once the #1 is revealed will all the other scores be readjusted (like the curve in high school algebra class)?By A friend of a friend
November 14, 2007 2:38 AM | Link to this
I have a friend who makes great wine. after backing out of a WS event for unfortunate, but legitimate reasons, they have been roasted by WS since and the last two reviews they received didn’t even reach 80. Isn’t that a little pathetic to use your power to try and hurt someone’s reputation by being vindictive? So much for objectivity.By holly
November 14, 2007 12:28 AM | Link to this
The spectator’s timing for the top 100 is awful, along with many other things in their periodical. It’s pre-thanksgiving week and no regular consumer is thinking about or can afford most of the top 100 list. Especially in this economy. My top selling wines are under $15 right now. They can take their list and @%$#!!By Shawn
November 13, 2007 8:58 PM | Link to this
Why not try different wines on your own and decide what your palate tells you? No one can tell you what you like and only sometimes what you should taste. I’ve great wines that were rated highly and some that I didn’t think much of. I guess that’s the fun of it. However, I do think Robert Parker is one of the few that I think is generally unbiased in his ratings. Although that doesn’t him right.By Nancy Bentley
November 13, 2007 8:50 PM | Link to this
Grateful as I am for the Wine Spectator video contest enabling me to attend the NY Wine Experience, I still have to note that there is absolutely no category for a midwest wine to be submitted for judging to them.By mel
November 13, 2007 7:15 PM | Link to this
I would love to sell wine based solely on taste but as long a customers want numbers to validate their own taste we will be hostage to the WS, Parker and WE as well as anyone else who dreams up a number to plaster on the wine. its a cold fact numbers sell i remember a cartoon a customer is tasting a wine and says it taste like @#@# the clerk says it got a 90 the customer says I’ll take a case. sad but trueBy Mike
November 13, 2007 5:18 PM | Link to this
Wine Spectator is not the only one to release a Top 100 list. James Halliday does this every year for Aussie wines; which is of more interest to me than the WS Top 100. But WS does have more fanfare associated with the release of their list. Its a wild guess, but maybe they want the biggest exposure they can muster so they can maximize the sale of magazine and website subscriptions?By Stevevino
November 13, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this
Wine Spec would be nothing if it weren’t for the wine industry, which aids and abets it in a 12-step, co-facilitative way. But I do sense a mounting dislike of WS’s power in California wine country.By Tish
November 13, 2007 3:46 PM | Link to this
Fantastic post, Mark. This pompous striptease is just one more example of Wine Spec folks trying to convince the world that they are the only wine critics that matter. And they are so, so not.By Kyle Britt
November 13, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this
Note to Marvin Shanken: I’ve tasted with you and I tasted with Mark Fisher in Texas this weekend. “Marvin, you’re no Mark Fisher.”By bobwino
November 13, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
I have to agree with John (above). It’s likely a ploy to drive individual traffic to the W.S. website multiple times in a single week. More hits = more revenue. It’s a math thing… kinda like their ratings.By Mark
November 13, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Wow, hating on someone that is actually attracting attention and has something interesting to say.By VinoDino
November 13, 2007 1:22 PM | Link to this
I’ve long ago gotten tired of the various “experts” opinions about wine (and other things). The best recommendations are those from friends you can trust. Their favorite wines are frequently not available anyway.By Jonah
November 13, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
John is absolutely right. Though I don’t think there are too many people sitting on the edges of their seats, drooling with anticipation. I also don’t expect that there is going to be a daily rush of people ordering cases as each of the picks is released. Wait until Friday, then see them all.By John
November 13, 2007 10:39 AM | Link to this
You have to admit, Mark, the ‘Wine Spectator’ did achieve one important goal; they got you talking about the magazine.By stuckdog
November 13, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
My aren’t we snippy.