Wine Spectator got OWNED

[Ns1]

Text

t?s troubling, of course, that a restaurant that doesn?t exist could win an Award of Excellence. But it?s also troubling that the award doesn?t seem to be particularly tied to the quality of the supposed restaurant?s ?reserve wine list,? even by Wine Spectator?s own standards. Although the main wine list that I submitted was a perfectly decent selection from around Italy meeting the magazine?s numerical criteria, Osteria L?Intrepido?s ?reserve wine list? was largely chosen from among some of the lowest-scoring Italian wines in Wine Spectator over the past few decades. The reserve list appears in its entirety below (with scores and some excerpts from the Wine Spectator reviews of those wines added here):

I rossi italiani ?riserva? della nostra cantina

AMARONE CLASSICO 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 80,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. ??Not clean. Stale black licorice??

AMARONE CLASSICO ?LA FABRISERIA? 1998 (Veneto) Tedeschi 185,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 60 points. ??Unacceptable. Sweet and cloying. Smells like bug spray??

AMARONE CLASSICO ?GIOÉ? 1993 S. Sofia 110,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 69 points. ??Just too much paint thinner and nail varnish character??

BARBARESCO ASIJ 1985 (Piemonte) Ceretto 135,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 64 points. ??Earthy, swampy, gamy, harsh and tannic??

BAROLO 1990 (Piemonte) Az. Agr. GD Vajra 140,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 64 points. ??Earthy, musty, lacking in charm??

BAROLO RISERVA 1982 (Piemonte) Bruno Giacosa 250,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 72 points. ??Agressive [sic] tannins that are sharp and harsh??

BAROLO ?ZONCHERA? 1994 (Piemonte) Ceretto 120,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 74 points. ?Quite disjointed?a coarse, chewy texture and an astringent finish. Hard to tell if it will ever come around??

BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO RISERVA 1996 (Toscana) Gianfranco Soldera 235,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 74 points. ??Turpentine. Medium-bodied, with hard, acidic character. Disappointing??

BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO ?LA CASA? 1982 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 200,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 67 points. ??Smells barnyardy and tastes decayed. Not what you?d hope for??

BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO 1993 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 180,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 80 points. ??A bit lacking in concentration, but with pretty, round tannins and a soft finish??

BRUNELLO DI MONTALCINO RISERVA 1995 (Toscana) Tenuta Caparzo 135,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 81 points. ??The palate is light-bodied with a slightly diluted finish. Light for the vintage. Rather disappointing for this producer??

CABERNET SAUVIGNON ?I FOSSARETTI? 1995 (Piemonte) Poderi Bertelli 120,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 58 points. ?Something wrong here. Of four samples provided, two were dark in color, but tasted metallic and odd??

SASSICAIA 1976 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 250,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 65 points. ??Even Sassicaia could not apparently escape the wet weather of this memorably bad vintage in Tuscany. It lacks harmony, having oxidized??

SASSICAIA 1980 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 280,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 77 points. ??Light, watery and diluted vanilla and milk chocolate character??

SASSICAIA 1995 (Toscana) Tenuta San Guido 300,00 ?

Wine Spectator rating: 90 points. ??Rich in currant, blackberry, dried herbs and tanned leather??

 

[ElFenix]

all they like is fruit and oak bombs anyway.

 

[Descartes]

Though this will probably reflect poorly on Wine Spectator, I don't really see how they're at fault. The point of the program is, as ironic as it seems, to certify that a restaurant actually exists. It's conceivable that a restaurateur would submit their menu far in advance of any actual opening. If someone wants to spend the time to create a menu, formulate a wine list, spend the $250 and go through the certification process then more power to them.

As far as the quality of wines, I still don't think it's that big of an issue. The point is more about diversity and correlation to the menu, not about absolute quality as defined by Wine Spectator. It just tries to separate restaurants that cater to Beringer and Kendall Jackson drinking consumers and those that appreciate something else.

And as with all things, caveat emptor. The best restaurants don't bother with the award at all from what I've seen; the quality speaks for itself.

 

[Apex]

Thread about it on Wine Spectator (shut down, of course):

http://forums.winespectator.co...6826053161/m/281100245

Thread about it on eBob:

http://dat.erobertparker.com/b...howthread.php?t=178480

WS's answer:

"Thomas Matthews
Executive Editor
Wine Spectator

Posteddocument.write(''+ myTimeZone('Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:11:32 GMT-0700', 'Aug 20, 2008 05:11 PM')+''); Aug 20, 2008 04:11 PM Aug 20, 2008 05:11 PMWine Spectator learned yesterday that, for the first time in the 27-year history of our Restaurant Awards program, a fictitious restaurant has entered its wine list for judging.

To orchestrate his publicity-seeking scam, Robin Goldstein created a fictitious restaurant in Milan, Italy, called Osteria L?Intrepido, then submitted a menu and wine list to Wine Spectator?s Restaurant Awards as a new entry in 2008. The wine list earned an Award of Excellence, the most basic of our three award levels.

Goldstein revealed his elaborate hoax at a meeting in Oregon last week. He is now crowing about the fraud on his own Web site. The story has been picked up in the blogosphere, and now Wine Spectator would like to set forth the actual facts of the matter.

1. Wine Spectator?s Restaurant Awards

Our Awards program was founded in 1981 to encourage restaurants to improve their wine programs, and to aid readers in finding restaurants that take wine seriously. The program evaluates the content, accuracy and presentation of restaurant wine lists. It does not purport to review the restaurant as a whole.

In the program?s 27 years, we have evaluated more than 45,000 wine lists. There is no doubt that more restaurants offer good wine lists today than back in 1981. We would like to think that this program has contributed to that development. Further, our Dining Guide is a widely used resource by our subscribers. View more information on the program here.

2. How could a restaurant that doesn?t exist earn an award for its wine list?

We do not claim to visit every restaurant in our Awards program. We do promise to evaluate their wine lists fairly. (Nearly one-third of new entries each year do not win awards.) We assume that if we receive a wine list, the restaurant that created it does in fact exist. In the application, the restaurant owner warrants that all statements and information provided are truthful and accurate. Of course, we make significant efforts to verify the facts.

In the case of Osteria L?Intrepido:
a. We called the restaurant multiple times; each time, we reached an answering machine and a message from a person purporting to be from the restaurant claiming that it was closed at the moment.
b. Googling the restaurant turned up an actual address and located it on a map of Milan
c. The restaurant sent us a link to a Web site that listed its menu
d. On the Web site Chowhound, diners (now apparently fictitious) discussed their experiences at the non-existent restaurant in entries dated January 2008, to August 2008.

3. How could this wine list earn an award?

On his blog, Goldstein posted a small selection of the wines on this list, along with their poor ratings from Wine Spectator. This was his effort to prove that the list ? even if real ? did not deserve an award.

However, this selection was not representative of the quality of the complete list that he submitted to our program. Goldstein posted reviews for 15 wines. But the submitted list contained a total of 256 wines. Only 15 wines scored below 80 points.

Fifty-three wines earned ratings of 90 points or higher (outstanding on Wine Spectator?s 100-point scale) and a total of 102 earned ratings of 80 points (good) or better. (139 wines were not rated.) Overall, the wines came from many of Italy?s top producers, in a clear, accurate presentation.

Here is our description of an Award of Excellence:
Our basic award, for lists that offer a well-chosen selection of quality producers, along with a thematic match to the menu in both price and style.

The list from L?Intrepido clearly falls within these parameters.

4. What did Goldstein achieve?

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."

 

[JohnCU]

"i saw a wino eating grapes one time and i was like, 'man you have to wait.'"
- mitch hedberg

 

[Ns1]

thanks for the update

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
"i saw a wino eating grapes one time and i was like, 'man you have to wait.'"
- mitch hedberg

Haha, great quote. 🙂

 

[HardcoreRobot]

egg on the hoaxsters face, IMO

 

[bignateyk]

Hoaxter sounds like an asshole and a douchebag. Glad he ended up getting owned in the end.

Good response by wine spectator :thumbsup:

 

[TallBill]

Im confused.

 

[xSauronx]

Originally posted by: JohnCU
"i saw a wino eating grapes one time and i was like, 'man you have to wait.'"
- mitch hedberg

a friend of mine is going to love that, thanks 🙂

 

[Rinaun]

Originally posted by: TallBill
Im confused.

ditto

 

[Apex]

Originally posted by: Rinaun

Originally posted by: TallBill
Im confused.

ditto

Cliffs:

1. Researcher invents fake restaurant in Italy.
2. Researcher builds web site for fake restaurant.
3. Researcher constructs wine list of the lowest scoring Italian wines from Wine Spectator in the last decade.
4. Researcher enters Wine Spectator Restaurant Awards.
5. Fake restaurant wins Wine Spectator Award of Excellence.
6. Wine Spectator closes thread on WS Forums, opens new one stating "Oh noes, we were scammed; it wasn't our fault, they were duplicitious, unscrupulous, and just plain mean. Though we can't be bothered to actually eat at restaurants we give awards to, or even do a quick driveby, the awards still represent lots of hard work (probably cashing those $250 checks)."

 

[AstroManLuca]

Originally posted by: Rinaun

Originally posted by: TallBill
Im confused.

ditto

I've never understood wine. It kinda all tastes like sour fermented grapes to me.

 

[TonyB]

wine snobs: you could do the pepsi challenge with a few bottles of wines but have one bottle with dog urine. remove the labels and they would probably rank the dog urine as 100 points.