Parker feud, hope this is OK ?

I would assume that what Jamie is referring to is the veneer of objectivity that many assume to be behind such scores. If push becomes shove, I would suppose that few would be willing to go on the record in defence of wine scoring as absolutely "objective" even though that polite fiction sells mega-tons of wine each year. Daniel, I salute your willingness to discuss this issue -- most unlike certain others. Salute !

How about we toss another variable into this discussion... It seems to me that wineries were asked to pay $ 500.00 a piece to underwrite this trip of Mr. Millers. So my question is - Did the wineries that chose to pony up the $ 500.00 get a rating in the WA ? If so, wouldn't that be very similar to "pay to play" ? At five hundred bucks, that is a mighty cheap admision for a rating in the WA that can sell a gazillion boxes ! Did the wineries that submitted wines but who did not pay get left out ? What was the crriteria for all these NON-Blind tastings ? And on that same note, how many wineries paid the money and what was the final total of "contributions" ? Equal to the cost of the trip ? Less than the cost ? Greater than the cost ? I am sure if it is indeed a government marketing type arm that hosted Mr Miller, these numbers and participants are publicly available.
Anybody know the answer to this one ?
Thanks
Linda
PS, How much can it possibley cost to get a Critic to your country, house him for a bit, pay for local travel and a tasting venue ?

I come neither to bury nor to praise Caesar. Nor do I come to bury or praise any specific wine critic or publication. I do come however because I think we may at times be asking wine critics to be just a bit too holy – in fact so holy that we would be tying their hands, sealing their mouths with tape and turning them into oenological eunuchs.

1. Critics at newspapers, magazines, newsletters and other venues have jobs because someone is willing to pay for their efforts. That in turn means that people want to read what at least some of those critics have to say. The moment people stop reading a critic (and there are research methods to determine such things) the critic in question becomes an unemployed critic.

2. In order to be at least half-way informed (and hopefully the better critics are far more than half-way informed) one has to taste a great many wines every year. Being brutally honest, the critic who tastes fewer than 50 wines weekly is at the distinct disadvantage of not having enough of a tasting repertoire to make valid comparisons between wines, producers, vintage years, etc…. And believe me, 50 wines a week (or, if we prefer, about 2,600 wines annually) is not very many wines to taste. Some serious critics taste anywhere from 8,000-12,000 wines annually.

3. In the most recent issue of the Wine Advocate alone, nearly 1,800 wines are reviewed. Considering that the Advocate does not publish tasting notes for wines that earn under 85 points, one can easily assume that at least 2,500 wines were tasted for that issue alone. Considering that the wines tasted varied in price from US$ 8 to US$ 350 per bottle, one can estimate that the wines for that single issue would have cost some US$ 200,000. And that, of course does not include costs for shipping, unpacking, storing, serving and other attendant expenses to tasting the wines. With the possible exception of Consumer Reports (which reviews relatively few wines annually) there is no critic alive and no serious publication in existence on this planet that can afford to purchase all of the wines they are tasting.

4. In a simple phrase, critics have no choice but to rely to a great extent on bottles that are submitted for tasting. It is, of course, the privilege of any winery in the world to send or not to send bottles for sampling and in the case of those who do not those are the bottles on which the critics budget goes. It should never be "held against" the winery that chooses not to submit their wines.

5. As to bottles that are submitted or purchased, that is one of the reasons why tastings should be done blind whenever possible, that if nothing else eliminating whatever unconscious bias (positive or negative) that one has towards a specific winery, and that for any reason whatsoever. Wines so submitted should thus be tasted blind. I can speak only for myself in this case but my attitude is quite simple – as much as I rely on such tasting samples, I never begrudge a winery that chooses not to send me those samples and that whether sending such bottles is against their policy or because I have been personally selected not to receive those bottles (happens sometimes when a winery thinks you consistently underscore their wines).

6. There are other ways of tasting wines as well.

6a: Attending professional wine exhibitions (e.g. VinExpo, VinItaly, ViniSud, Vinoble, etc) at which one can taste and evaluate vast numbers of wines. As noted earlier by me in this thread, visiting such events involves an enormous amount of concentration, effort and time. To the honest critic, such trips are hardly junkets made for the joy of "visiting far-away places". In some cases such trips are funded by the critic's publication, in some cases by the critic him/herself, and in other cases by the exhibition and/or the governmental body that is sponsoring it. I see no ethical contradiction in accepting such invitations so long as the acceptance is preceded by a formal letter from the critic to the inviting agency to the effect that he/she will accept the invitation but with the condition that anything written will be written from the critical point of view and that if any article is to be written at all that will be up to the needs of the critic and his/her publication. Agreed that accepting an invitation to such an event by a specific winery, importer or distributor opens the door to many serious conflicts of interest and should thus be avoided much as one would the bubonic plague.

6b: Visiting wineries in order to do extended tastings. Again, simply stated, there is no critic alive who can afford to purchase the wines to do a 50 or 100 year vertical tasting of the wines, let's say of Chateau d'Yquem or Chateau Margaux. In fact, I would go as far as to say that damned few critics could do a 25 year vertical tasting of the wines of The Golan Heights Winery, first of all the wines being largely unavailable and the probability of all of those in his/her personal cellar very limited.

More than that, when it comes to barrel tastings and extensive tastings of soon-to-be-released or future release wines, there is no other way to do such tastings. That the winery has invited and hosted you and that the tastings on such days are not blind (they cannot be for obvious reasons) is meaningless to the professional. As discussed earlier on many occasions, the pro puts aside the sales spiel and the insignificant details and focuses entirely on his/her evaluation of the wine. Details from a winemaker are appreciated. Descriptions are ignored for the most part. Agreed, if those winery visits are to take place in a country other than your own or an appreciable distance from the critic's home base, transportation and hotels should be on the account of the critic and/or their publications.

6c: Attending winery sponsored unveilings of their wines, those sometimes at restaurants and yes, sometimes even at prestigious restaurants. Here too the professional does not go for the free meal or "the pleasure". He/she goes in order to taste wines!!! And quite frequently those are wines that one would not be able to otherwise taste. Positive bias? I doubt it, for anyone who regularly attends such events knows precisely how boring and tedious they can be. (Oh yes, and how truly mediocre some of those meals can be) Again, one goes in order to taste the wines.

Does the critic have biases and is the critic subjective? Absolutely. Critics, despite the best of intentions are mortals and have biases and a subjective point of view. It is, however, one of the most important functions of the critical process to put those biases aside as much as is possible and to clearly state whatever subjective points of view are held.

Let us also keep in mind that those who read the critics also have a role in all of this – the first in deciding whom they can and whom they cannot trust; the second in determining which critic/s give best direction to their own palates; and the third in the realization that anyone who buys a wine primarily or entirely on the basis of a score is, for lack of a better word, a shmuck. Scores do nothing more than sum up a particular critic's point of view. The tasting note says much more, as does the reputation of the critic.

Enough from me at this moment…….

Best
Rogov

Nice post Daniel. Thanks !

For those of you open to additional takes on this fundamental topic, I've cut-and-pasted several thoughtful opinions I culled from the web 2 weeks ago. Some of us elect to post elsewhere when posts here have gone poof !

Yet another data point: Bottled Prose -- The Ethical Paradox of the Wine http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:c4G ... clnk&gl=us

Robert D. Richards is a professor of journalism and law at the Pennsylvania State University-as well as a wine educator and a certified sommelier through the Court of Master Sommeliers.

The web is full of intriguing data points:
http://www.thoriverson.com/faq.html
The myth of independence
The ethics of wine criticism
The myth of objectivity
The importance of negativity
Wine writing vs. wine criticism
Does arrogance go hand-in-hand with professional criticism?

http://oenologic.blogspot.com/2009/03/i-in-wine.html


http://www.wineberserkers.com/viewtopic ... int#p49933

Does arrogance go hand-in-hand with professional criticism?

How dare they, those infidels, even ask such a question? Harummmmmph. In fact, double-harummmmmmph.

On a serious note - pride, yes. The critic who is not proud of and take pride in what he/she is doing should not be a critic (and that criticism in any field whatsoever). On the other hand, when that pride becomes overbearing and takes its way out by behaving in a superior manner or thinking that others are your inferiors - that critic should also not be writing or professing criticism.

Best
Rogov

P.S. Returning to humor, one is reminded of the man who went to a psyhiatrist and explained that "I think I have an inferiority complex". After several sessions the psychiatrist told him - "I can gladlly report that you do not have an inferiority complex. You are simply inferior".

Whilst there are valid criticisms of trips being funded by wineries / trade bodies - is anyone able to confirm my understanding that Parker has now banned his sub-contractors from taking such funded trips?

regards

Ian

For those of you open to additional takes on this fundamental topic, I've cut-and-pasted several thoughtful opinions I culled from the web 2 weeks ago. Some of us elect to post elsewhere when posts here have gone poof !

Really? That would be unusual IME here, where Robin typically cuts us a lot of slack.
regards
Ian

For those of you open to additional takes on this fundamental topic, I've cut-and-pasted several thoughtful opinions I culled from the web 2 weeks ago. Some of us elect to post elsewhere when posts here have gone poof !

Really? That would be unusual IME here, where Robin typically cuts us a lot of slack.
regards
Ian

My experience here has been the same as yours, Ian. And god knows if anyone were going to be made to go poof on occasion it would be me.

Surely you aren't suggesting that I spun this out of thin air are you??

For those of you open to additional takes on this fundamental topic, I've cut-and-pasted several thoughtful opinions I culled from the web 2 weeks ago. Some of us elect to post elsewhere when posts here have gone poof !

Really? That would be unusual IME here, where Robin typically cuts us a lot of slack.
regards
Ian

My experience here has been the same as yours, Ian. And god knows if anyone were going to be made to go poof on occasion it would be me.

[David M. Bueker]

Well that is your rep on eBob Mitch.

David,

Most see through your stance; e.g., http://www.wineberserkers.com/viewtopic ... TCA#p53549

You might even notice that one of the bark haters has actually come around to acknowledge other regular causes. OMG!

FYI, poofing this won't make it disappear forever...

Have a good life.

Surely you aren't suggesting that I spun this out of thin air are you??

I wasn't doing that. I had just never noticed a thread disappearing here. But, someone just pointed out to me in a private message that one did in fact disappear.

[David M. Bueker]

D

Have a good life.

Thanks. I do and will.

Be careful of those black helicopters.

I wasn't doing that. I had just never noticed a thread disappearing here. But, someone just pointed out to me in a private message that one did in fact disappear.

More than one POST; threads I don't know about. One of mine and at least one of a well-known wine journalist. No biggy. Its just that if a blog site gets a reputation for zapping well-intended posts, what does one infer? And I'm not pointing a finger toward the moderators who are well-known.

[Robin Garr]

Really? That would be unusual IME here, where Robin typically cuts us a lot of slack.

Beats hell out of me, too. I was puzzled by M's statement, but then reasoned that he's probably copying and pasting his post here from someplace else.

I won't say I've never removed a post, but only spam by non-regulars or (in very rare cases) extreme violations of civility by regulars or blatant copyright violation, in which case I normally disclose the removal and its circumstances. Can't recall doing this in the last year, though.

Just out of curiosity, Robin, does anyone else have a finger on the button?

[Robin Garr]

Just out of curiosity, Robin, does anyone else have a finger on the button?

Frank,

Just out of curiosity, Robin, does anyone else have a finger on the button

Frank, I don't think any of this is secret: The only people who have "finger on the button" status (in terms of power to delete or move posts) are Jenise and me. There's a somewhat larger group of volunteer advisors who are listed on "The Team" page as moderators. But if you'll click "the team" on the main page (or use this link - memberlist.php?mode=leaders - you can see the names of those folks, and you'll also see that only Jenise and I have the color-highlighted status that indicates Magick. (You'll also notice one "anonymous," which is actually a former member who has moved on.)

My overall philosophy of hosting this forum is that we're, as much as possible, a self-moderating community of peers. If the buck ever has to stop, it stops with me. But the good news is that thanks to the good graces of 99 percent of our members, moderation issues rarely arise.

I think I can assure you that no post here will be removed without my knowing about it. And unless the circumstances are trivial (spam, accidental duplicates), we'll make public any such decision. Again, though, this kind of thing isn't common here. I don't get my jollies out of being a petty tyrant, and neither does Jenise.

[Jenise]

Surely you aren't suggesting that I spun this out of thin air are you??

I wasn't doing that. I had just never noticed a thread disappearing here. But, someone just pointed out to me in a private message that one did in fact disappear.

Joe, our policy is to never make threads "disappear". Now, occasionally, usually in the case of some promotional spam, we move theads out of public view. Member threads almost never require that. The last time I personally moved the thread of a member was a joke you posted because we got complaints about it and Robin was out having surgery, which you'll remember, and you'll remember that I notified you at the time that I'd done so "pending further review by Robin upon his return". I didn't like having to do that but as the acting manager here I erred on the side of caution. I hate bringing that up since it caused such pain at the time, but it makes the point of rare it is that we do anything and how carefully and considerately we do what we do have to do. The incident Mitch refers to was an unfortunate one where many years ago a member claimed that a post of his (a benign one, not something controversial) had been removed, but we have only his anger to prove that it had ever existed in the first place because no one on staff (at the time, a few others had powers that are now more restricted) admitted to doing it nor could Robin or I uncover any motive for anyone to have done so. We still have no idea what or how that happened.

Furthermore, let me make this perfectly clear: nobody here has "poofed" any message of Mitch's. We just. Don't. Do. That.

My overall philosophy of hosting this forum is that we're, as much as possible, a self-moderating community of peers. If the buck ever has to stop, it stops with me. But the good news is that thanks to the good graces of 99 percent of our members, moderation issues rarely arise.

Thanks Robin. Actually I helped run a RoundTable here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GEnie

about 20 years ago and -- while I wasn't generally moderating for content, my wife kept pointing out that it was occupying every waking moment when I was at home. And I was just an Assistant Sysop on a couple of boards. So it's great that you can keep this place mostly self-moderating. Come to think of it part of the reason it all took so long was that 300 baud modem I had to use to get online.

F

Daniel

Great post, thank you for your opinions on this subject. They are well thought out and very well written.

Nevertheless, I find it difficult that you could speak for every wine critic. Each wine critic has his/her own biases, as you point out. It is our job, as consumers, retailers, etc. to trust on each wine critic and hope that they have put aside the biases. Nevertheless, full disclosure would not be asking too much from the critics, if there was any potential bias.

If a wine critic, such as yourself, flies to Hungary to taste Tokaj for 3 days straight (and survives the diabetic coma), if that trip was paid for by a select importer or a select winery, that information would help the consumer better understand why the critic ONLY tasted and/or visited those select wineries. If a critic promotes one importer over and over again, it would help, in the interest of full disclosure, that that critic and importer are very good friends.

Full disclosure and honest reviews is all I would like to see. I know I am not alone in this, despite the loud minority of some who would like to see this just buried under the rug.

Jenise:

Furthermore, let me make this perfectly clear: nobody here has "poofed" any message of Mitch's. We just. Don't. Do. That.

Mitch's post that disappeared from David Bueker's "WTN: Pinot Blah-nc" thread:

David,

I'm truly glad that our dialog seems to be remaining respectful. I did indeed add a genuine and accurate quote of yours to my signature line for a few days, but not to make you look silly, David; you left me few options. Simply to set the record straight: forum peers, including me !, generally dislike unfounded condescending remarks linked with their name in public; or ad hominem remarks in unsolicted PMs. Come to think of it, that's one reason there have been at least two exoduses from another forum!

It may have been in the very same thread [elsewhere!!] that another contributor who, like you, seems to prefer screw-capped wines, asserted that he had never had a screw-capped wine faulted by taint -- UNTIL a mined quotation from him refreshed his memory. I respect your knowledge of German wines, as I told you then. In return, I simply ask that you try not to be disrespectful to forum peers such as me. Deal?

[Robin Garr]

Mitch's post that disappeared from David Bueker's "WTN: Pinot Blah-nc" thread:

For the record, there are two ways a post can disappear in this forum. (1) A moderator deletes it or moved it to a private section for review. (2) The individual who posted it removes it himself, for whatever reason.

Our old forum software kept track of previous posts and revealed posting shenanigans on the rare occasions when such things occurred. I'm kind of missing that feature right now ...

Hi Robin,

I assure you that I didn't remove my own post. Since you don't know me I'm sure this assurance doesn't help you much.

All the best,

Mitch

May I remind us all, quite respectfully of course, that even paranoids have real enemies..........

Truth is that although I have been a part of the WLDG for only under a year, I have rarely seen any forum as liberal and with as positive attitudes towards moderation and humor as this one.

Best
Rogov