I have approximately 137 issues of Wine Spectator from 1997 to 2006 to
give away for free. You have to collect them in Brooklyn, NY. I have
kept the issues that discuss port. Otherwise, this is almost an entire
run.

If no one takes these free issues, they will join the recycling.

jfacciol wrote:
> I have approximately 137 issues of Wine Spectator from 1997 to 2006 to
> give away for free. You have to collect them in Brooklyn, NY. I have
> kept the issues that discuss port. Otherwise, this is almost an entire
> run.
>
> If no one takes these free issues, they will join the recycling.
>

Because of the broad geographical distribution of this newsgroup, there
likely aren't many takers within an easy commute of Brooklyn. You might
have better luck finding a taker by advertising on the Brooklyn section
of Craig's List (http://newyork.craigslist.org).

Just a thought,
Mark Lipton

--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

This is the best fate for any WIne Spectator, new or old.


On Aug 28, 9:27 pm, jfacciol > wrote:

> If no one takes these free issues, they will join the recycling.

On Aug 29, 4:35 am, Mike Tommasi > wrote:
> Mark Lipton wrote:
> > jfacciol wrote:
> >> I have approximately 137 issues of Wine Spectator from 1997 to 2006 to
> >> give away for free. You have to collect them in Brooklyn, NY. I have
> >> kept the issues that discuss port. Otherwise, this is almost an entire
> >> run.
>
> >> If no one takes these free issues, they will join the recycling.
>
> > Because of the broad geographical distribution of this newsgroup, there
> > likely aren't many takers within an easy commute of Brooklyn. You might
> > have better luck finding a taker by advertising on the Brooklyn section
> > of Craig's List (http://newyork.craigslist.org).
>
> I did not see the original post, but I ask myself who in their right
> mind would want to read past issues of a wine magazine? In fact, who
> would want to read a PRESENT issue of Wine Spectator? ;-0

One of the more brilliant things you have said, Mike....

"Mike Tommasi" > wrote in message
...
> Mark Lipton wrote:
>> jfacciol wrote:
>>> I have approximately 137 issues of Wine Spectator from 1997 to 2006 to
>>> give away for free. You have to collect them in Brooklyn, NY. I have
>>> kept the issues that discuss port. Otherwise, this is almost an entire
>>> run.
>>>
>>> If no one takes these free issues, they will join the recycling.
>>>
>>
>> Because of the broad geographical distribution of this newsgroup, there
>> likely aren't many takers within an easy commute of Brooklyn. You might
>> have better luck finding a taker by advertising on the Brooklyn section
>> of Craig's List (http://newyork.craigslist.org).
>
>
> I did not see the original post, but I ask myself who in their right mind
> would want to read past issues of a wine magazine? In fact, who would want
> to read a PRESENT issue of Wine Spectator? ;-0
>
IYO, Which of the readily available wine mags are worth reading?
Graham

graham wrote:

> IYO, Which of the readily available wine mags are worth reading?
> Graham

I am not Mike (duh!) but here's my response. I think that the Wine
Advocate, especially with the recent inclusion of David Schildknecht's
reviews of non-Parker-type wines, is good for its coverage and (once you
learn to parse his language and understand his biases) the consistency
of its reviewing; Claude Kolm's Fine Wine Review is good for geek-type
wines (Riesling, N. Rhone, Burgundy) if you share Claude's tastes;
Decanter is good for an English perspective.

Just my $0.02,
Mark Lipton



--
alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

On Aug 29, 2:27?pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
> graham wrote:
> > IYO, Which of the readily available wine mags are worth reading?
> > Graham
>
> I am not Mike (duh!) but here's my response. I think that the Wine
> Advocate, especially with the recent inclusion of David Schildknecht's
> reviews of non-Parker-type wines, is good for its coverage and (once you
> learn to parse his language and understand his biases) the consistency
> of its reviewing; Claude Kolm's Fine Wine Review is good for geek-type
> wines (Riesling, N. Rhone, Burgundy) if you share Claude's tastes;
> Decanter is good for an English perspective.
>
> Just my $0.02,
> Mark Lipton
>
> --
> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com

The question is do you include newsletters as magazines? I think of
the following as primarily review-driven newletters: The Wine Advocate
(aka Parker), International Wine Cellar (Tanzer), and Fine Wine Review
(Kolm). I'd also include Burghound (Meadows) and View from the Cellar
(Gilman), although both are more likely to have more extensive
articles than the previous three. The only ones I subscribe to are FWR
and VftC, as Claude Kolm and John Gilman seem closer to my tastes in
the areas where it is the hardest for me to sample before buying.

Among "real" magazines, at a newstand about to catch the train I am
more likely to buy Decanter than Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits, Wine
Enthusiast, etc (cover stories being equal). I thought the one issue
I saw of World of Fine Wine looked great, but an annual subscription
costs more than a good Grand Cru Burgundy.

There of course can be good wine writing in other magazines like
Saveur or Art of Eating. Occasionally stuff in Food and Wine, Cucina
Italia, etc.

As to the question of the value of older WS, actually I could see it
as a learning guide for a newbie. WS articles tend to be written at a
fairly basic level. If you read the article on Loire, it will tell you
that Savennierres and Vouvray are Chenin Blanc, and Sancerre and
Quincy SB. Articles on Piedmont will explain what terroirs are
considered more favored, and the differences between Nebbiolo,
Barbera, and Dolcetto (I'm betting WS doesn't get into Freisa). And so
on. If you are a real newbie, it might well provide a good start on a
region. Sure, the reviews might be out of date, but probably least
valuable part to start with. Most of the info I'm talking about
doesn't change that much.

On Aug 29, 3:18 pm, DaleW > wrote:
> On Aug 29, 2:27?pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
>
>
>
> > graham wrote:
> > > IYO, Which of the readily available wine mags are worth reading?
> > > Graham
>
> > I am not Mike (duh!) but here's my response. I think that the Wine
> > Advocate, especially with the recent inclusion of David Schildknecht's
> > reviews of non-Parker-type wines, is good for its coverage and (once you
> > learn to parse his language and understand his biases) the consistency
> > of its reviewing; Claude Kolm's Fine Wine Review is good for geek-type
> > wines (Riesling, N. Rhone, Burgundy) if you share Claude's tastes;
> > Decanter is good for an English perspective.
>
> > Just my $0.02,
> > Mark Lipton
>
> > --
> > alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com
>
> The question is do you include newsletters as magazines? I think of
> the following as primarily review-driven newletters: The Wine Advocate
> (aka Parker), International Wine Cellar (Tanzer), and Fine Wine Review
> (Kolm). I'd also include Burghound (Meadows) and View from the Cellar
> (Gilman), although both are more likely to have more extensive
> articles than the previous three. The only ones I subscribe to are FWR
> and VftC, as Claude Kolm and John Gilman seem closer to my tastes in
> the areas where it is the hardest for me to sample before buying.
>
> Among "real" magazines, at a newstand about to catch the train I am
> more likely to buy Decanter than Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits, Wine
> Enthusiast, etc (cover stories being equal). I thought the one issue
> I saw of World of Fine Wine looked great, but an annual subscription
> costs more than a good Grand Cru Burgundy.
>
> There of course can be good wine writing in other magazines like
> Saveur or Art of Eating. Occasionally stuff in Food and Wine, Cucina
> Italia, etc.
>
> As to the question of the value of older WS, actually I could see it
> as a learning guide for a newbie. WS articles tend to be written at a
> fairly basic level. If you read the article on Loire, it will tell you
> that Savennierres and Vouvray are Chenin Blanc, and Sancerre and
> Quincy SB. Articles on Piedmont will explain what terroirs are
> considered more favored, and the differences between Nebbiolo,
> Barbera, and Dolcetto (I'm betting WS doesn't get into Freisa). And so
> on. If you are a real newbie, it might well provide a good start on a
> region. Sure, the reviews might be out of date, but probably least
> valuable part to start with.

> Most of the info I'm talking about
> doesn't change that much.

....and therefore would be available in books...

"DaleW" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> On Aug 29, 2:27?pm, Mark Lipton > wrote:
>> graham wrote:
>> > IYO, Which of the readily available wine mags are worth reading?
>> > Graham
>>
>> I am not Mike (duh!) but here's my response. I think that the Wine
>> Advocate, especially with the recent inclusion of David Schildknecht's
>> reviews of non-Parker-type wines, is good for its coverage and (once you
>> learn to parse his language and understand his biases) the consistency
>> of its reviewing; Claude Kolm's Fine Wine Review is good for geek-type
>> wines (Riesling, N. Rhone, Burgundy) if you share Claude's tastes;
>> Decanter is good for an English perspective.
>>
>> Just my $0.02,
>> Mark Lipton
>>
>> --
>> alt.food.wine FAQ: http://winefaq.hostexcellence.com
>
> The question is do you include newsletters as magazines? I think of
> the following as primarily review-driven newletters: The Wine Advocate
> (aka Parker), International Wine Cellar (Tanzer), and Fine Wine Review
> (Kolm). I'd also include Burghound (Meadows) and View from the Cellar
> (Gilman), although both are more likely to have more extensive
> articles than the previous three. The only ones I subscribe to are FWR
> and VftC, as Claude Kolm and John Gilman seem closer to my tastes in
> the areas where it is the hardest for me to sample before buying.
>
> Among "real" magazines, at a newstand about to catch the train I am
> more likely to buy Decanter than Wine Spectator, Wine & Spirits, Wine
> Enthusiast, etc (cover stories being equal). I thought the one issue
> I saw of World of Fine Wine looked great, but an annual subscription
> costs more than a good Grand Cru Burgundy.
>
> There of course can be good wine writing in other magazines like
> Saveur or Art of Eating. Occasionally stuff in Food and Wine, Cucina
> Italia, etc.
>
Thanks to both you and Mark for your replies. I have been a subscriber to
Decanter for some time. I'm a Brit living in W.Canada so the perspective it
offers suits me except that burgundies don't get reviewed much. Whenever I
have looked at a WS on the news-stand I haven't been impressed. I have been
looking for other journals/newsletters but the range available locally is
limited and the mags themselves not very interesting.
I'll look into your recommendations - I have printed off both posts.
Thanks again
Graham

>>
> Thanks to both you and Mark for your replies. I have been a subscriber to
> Decanter for some time. I'm a Brit living in W.Canada so the perspective
> it offers suits me except that burgundies don't get reviewed much.
> Whenever I have looked at a WS on the news-stand I haven't been impressed.
> I have been looking for other journals/newsletters but the range available
> locally is limited and the mags themselves not very interesting.
> I'll look into your recommendations - I have printed off both posts.
> Thanks again
> Graham
I prefer reading everything on the computer anymore. Those magazines stink
to high heaven. I know it doesn't bother some, but I could fall down dizzy
from the odors. I 'peek' into them occasionally at Borders while sipping my
coffee, but never lift them off the shelf.
A total novice myself, I wouldn't buy the magazine for the content. There
is one large wine encyclopedia that I had settled on but the color
photographs sent me reeling.

Good thing wine doesn't bother me 'as badly.'
Dee Dee

On Aug 29, 11:25 pm, "Dee Dee" > wrote:
> > Thanks to both you and Mark for your replies. I have been a subscriber to
> > Decanter for some time. I'm a Brit living in W.Canada so the perspective
> > it offers suits me except that burgundies don't get reviewed much.
> > Whenever I have looked at a WS on the news-stand I haven't been impressed.
> > I have been looking for other journals/newsletters but the range available
> > locally is limited and the mags themselves not very interesting.
> > I'll look into your recommendations - I have printed off both posts.
> > Thanks again
> > Graham
>
> I prefer reading everything on the computer anymore. Those magazines stink
> to high heaven. I know it doesn't bother some, but I could fall down dizzy
> from the odors. I 'peek' into them occasionally at Borders while sipping my
> coffee, but never lift them off the shelf.
> A total novice myself, I wouldn't buy the magazine for the content. There
> is one large wine encyclopedia that I had settled on but the color
> photographs sent me reeling.
>
> Good thing wine doesn't bother me 'as badly.'
> Dee Dee


Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
young urban professionals who want to make an impression in society).
Makes me want to puke.

Pardon my saying so, but this kind of attitude is every bit as
pretentious as that which some of you seem to be deploring. To suggest
that those who read a magazine are being pretentious, is in and of
itself pretentious.

Personally, I don't buy WS, but do read it on occassion if it's lying
around somewhere. I don't pay for it because I disapprove of it, or
it's readership, but simply because it provides too little value for a
rather hefty price. Pretty simple consumer economics.

But I'm surprised at the negativity towards the magazine here. It may
not represent everyone's feeling towards wine or the wine industry,
but it obvioulsy has appeal to a wide audience - ergo it's circulation
numbers - and from the little of it I have seen, it has some good
content (despite the reliance on reviews). Wasn't it WS that ran some
pointed articles calling out specific wineries for practices in the
winery that created increased incidence of TCA contamination? And I
seem to recall more than one instance of WS being quoted in calling
out CA wineries for pricing practices - and touting lesser knwon
regions for providing better value - a recurring theme amongst many of
us wine geeks.

I'm not advocating for WS - but I think that the "anti WS' attitude,
when taken to such levels of attitude, is in and of itself trendy and
insubstantial.




In article . com>
> wrote:

> Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
> young urban professionals who want to make an impression in
> society).Makes me want to puke.


--
I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 96 days.
You should really try it!
http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

On Aug 30, 10:38?am, AxisOfBeagles > wrote:
> Pardon my saying so, but this kind of attitude is every bit as
> pretentious as that which some of you seem to be deploring. To suggest
> that those who read a magazine are being pretentious, is in and of
> itself pretentious.
>
> Personally, I don't buy WS, but do read it on occassion if it's lying
> around somewhere. I don't pay for it because I disapprove of it, or
> it's readership, but simply because it provides too little value for a
> rather hefty price. Pretty simple consumer economics.
>
> But I'm surprised at the negativity towards the magazine here. It may
> not represent everyone's feeling towards wine or the wine industry,
> but it obvioulsy has appeal to a wide audience - ergo it's circulation
> numbers - and from the little of it I have seen, it has some good
> content (despite the reliance on reviews). Wasn't it WS that ran some
> pointed articles calling out specific wineries for practices in the
> winery that created increased incidence of TCA contamination? And I
> seem to recall more than one instance of WS being quoted in calling
> out CA wineries for pricing practices - and touting lesser knwon
> regions for providing better value - a recurring theme amongst many of
> us wine geeks.
>
> I'm not advocating for WS - but I think that the "anti WS' attitude,
> when taken to such levels of attitude, is in and of itself trendy and
> insubstantial.
>
> In article . com>
>
> > wrote:
> > Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
> > young urban professionals who want to make an impression in
> > society).Makes me want to puke.
>
> --
> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 96 days.
> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo

I agree with Axis. I get a comp to WS so I don't pay for it so take
my opinions with a grain a salt on the matter. Nice pictures, some
interesting travel and restaurant info at times. I find the wine
articles to be fairly thin on content but make nice light reading.
The ratings (like them or not) are an important part of the retail and
secondary market in this country. Much like Parker ratings, a good
rating from WS can make a market for a wine and vice versa a bad one
can spell doom and as a distributor it can have an impact.

On Aug 30, 10:38 am, AxisOfBeagles > wrote:
> Pardon my saying so, but this kind of attitude is every bit as
> pretentious as that which some of you seem to be deploring. To suggest
> that those who read a magazine are being pretentious, is in and of
> itself pretentious.
>
> Personally, I don't buy WS, but do read it on occassion if it's lying
> around somewhere. I don't pay for it because I disapprove of it, or
> it's readership, but simply because it provides too little value for a
> rather hefty price. Pretty simple consumer economics.
>
> But I'm surprised at the negativity towards the magazine here. It may
> not represent everyone's feeling towards wine or the wine industry,
> but it obvioulsy has appeal to a wide audience - ergo it's circulation
> numbers - and from the little of it I have seen, it has some good
> content (despite the reliance on reviews). Wasn't it WS that ran some
> pointed articles calling out specific wineries for practices in the
> winery that created increased incidence of TCA contamination? And I
> seem to recall more than one instance of WS being quoted in calling
> out CA wineries for pricing practices - and touting lesser knwon
> regions for providing better value - a recurring theme amongst many of
> us wine geeks.
>
> I'm not advocating for WS - but I think that the "anti WS' attitude,
> when taken to such levels of attitude, is in and of itself trendy and
> insubstantial.
>
> In article . com>
>
> > wrote:
> > Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
> > young urban professionals who want to make an impression in
> > society).Makes me want to puke.
>
> --
> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 96 days.
> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo



WS is a joke. What value it has is mostly to wine shops who can use it
to sell lesser-known wines that may have some merit. The ads, though,
of course, are all from the big distributors. What good information WS
may contain is available in many books. Ratings are utterly worthless.
I have no reason to trust them whatsoever. Insofar as WS presents
itself as a source of ratings, therein I despise it. I despise the
very concept of ratings.

On 2007-08-31 08:06:35 -0700, UC > said:

> On Aug 30, 10:38 am, AxisOfBeagles > wrote:
>> Pardon my saying so, but this kind of attitude is every bit as
>> pretentious as that which some of you seem to be deploring. To suggest
>> that those who read a magazine are being pretentious, is in and of
>> itself pretentious.
>>
>> Personally, I don't buy WS, but do read it on occassion if it's lying
>> around somewhere. I don't pay for it because I disapprove of it, or
>> it's readership, but simply because it provides too little value for a
>> rather hefty price. Pretty simple consumer economics.
>>
>> But I'm surprised at the negativity towards the magazine here. It may
>> not represent everyone's feeling towards wine or the wine industry,
>> but it obvioulsy has appeal to a wide audience - ergo it's circulation
>> numbers - and from the little of it I have seen, it has some good
>> content (despite the reliance on reviews). Wasn't it WS that ran some
>> pointed articles calling out specific wineries for practices in the
>> winery that created increased incidence of TCA contamination? And I
>> seem to recall more than one instance of WS being quoted in calling
>> out CA wineries for pricing practices - and touting lesser knwon
>> regions for providing better value - a recurring theme amongst many of
>> us wine geeks.
>>
>> I'm not advocating for WS - but I think that the "anti WS' attitude,
>> when taken to such levels of attitude, is in and of itself trendy and
>> insubstantial.
>>
>> In article . com>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>> Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
>>> young urban professionals who want to make an impression in
>>> society).Makes me want to puke.
>>
>> --
>> I'm using an evaluation license of nemo since 96 days.
>> You should really try it!http://www.malcom-mac.com/nemo
>
>
>
> WS is a joke. What value it has is mostly to wine shops who can use it
> to sell lesser-known wines that may have some merit. The ads, though,
> of course, are all from the big distributors. What good information WS
> may contain is available in many books. Ratings are utterly worthless.
> I have no reason to trust them whatsoever. Insofar as WS presents
> itself as a source of ratings, therein I despise it. I despise the
> very concept of ratings.

He says, rating Italian wines superior...

"AxisOfBeagles" in :
> ...
> But I'm surprised at the negativity towards the magazine here.

You should have seen the more specific testimonials about it posted here in
late 1980s. (And about other wine publications as well.) From one thread
(one poster quoting another):

>> After a previous discussion on wine, someone suggested that
>> we look into the Wine Spectator ... but the buying guide has
>> caused us to have some interesting (funny) experiences...
>> recently, we have been in ... stores carrying a copy of the
>> buying guide and looking for specfic wines. Out of the
>> woodwork, the wine buyers in each of the stores has
>> come up to us and offered to help locate things...
>
>Well, no wonder: the average subscriber to the Wine Spectator has an
>annual household income of $245,000! Carrying the WS into a wine store is
>like carrying a cat through the Westminster Kennel Club dog show,
>guaranteed to gain attention. My local (and unimpressible) merchant calls
>it the Wine Speculator, says the average person who walks in carrying it is
>both inexperienced and insecure, but will buy anything that WS recommends
>as long as it has an impressive label and at least LOOKS LIKE it cost a
>lot!


Of course that was two decades ago, presumably things have changed somewhat.

[Note: Income figure adjusted to equivalent 2007 dollars by US government
Consumer Price Index. -- MH]

<Ronin> wrote in message ...
>> WS is a joke. What value it has is mostly to wine shops who can use it
>> to sell lesser-known wines that may have some merit. The ads, though,
>> of course, are all from the big distributors. What good information WS
>> may contain is available in many books. Ratings are utterly worthless.
>> I have no reason to trust them whatsoever. Insofar as WS presents
>> itself as a source of ratings, therein I despise it. I despise the
>> very concept of ratings.

I wish I had not listened to Wine Advocate, Antonio Galloni gave 92 pts. to
DEI Vino Nobile de Montepulciano 2003, which I just opened for lunch. Wine
Spectator gave it 84. The grapes we Prugnolo, Canaiolo, Mammolo
Should've carried a magazine in.
Dee Dee

On Aug 31, 11:06 am, UC > wrote:
>
> WS is a joke. What value it has is mostly to wine shops who can use it
> to sell lesser-known wines that may have some merit. The ads, though,
> of course, are all from the big distributors. What good information WS
> may contain is available in many books. Ratings are utterly worthless.
> I have no reason to trust them whatsoever. Insofar as WS presents
> itself as a source of ratings, therein I despise it. I despise the
> very concept of ratings.

Wine Spectator mails sheets of shelf-talkers in advance of the next
issue so retailers can stock up on high score wines and be ready as
soon as the issue hits the stands. Their meaningless restaurant
winelist "awards" were exposed by Amanda Hesser in the New York Times
last year. Out of 3800 entries who paid $200, 3600 got some sort of
"award".

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 15:06:35 -0000, UC >
wrote:
>> > wrote:
>> > Those magazines are for people with more money than sense (you know,
>> > young urban professionals who want to make an impression in
>> > society).Makes me want to puke.
>>>
>WS is a joke. What value it has is mostly to wine shops who can use it
>to sell lesser-known wines that may have some merit. The ads, though,
>of course, are all from the big distributors. What good information WS
>may contain is available in many books. Ratings are utterly worthless.
>I have no reason to trust them whatsoever. Insofar as WS presents
>itself as a source of ratings, therein I despise it. I despise the
>very concept of ratings.

Okay, I think we get it. You think the magazine sucks.

The fact is, lame as it may be, the WS promotes wine both as an
industry and as a consumable. There's nothing wrong with that. I
didn't know squat about wine when I started reading it ten years ago,
so I bought it. I stopped doing that several years ago, just like I
stopped watching Fox News Channel. But that still doesn't mean the mag
(or Fox, for that matter) is entirely useless, even if it's useless to
you.

Further, if you're the type of person who only gets information from
one source, your knowledge isn't going to be very well-rounded. Anyone
who relies exclusively on the Spectator is going to be the wine
equivalent of a functional illiterate. Ditto for anyone who relies
exclusively on Parker or Rovani. You might come away with some good
basic information, but you won't be able to place it in a broader
context.

And btw, I guarantee you I'm about as far away from Yuppiedom as they
come, and my income level is nowhere close to your assertion. So, you
know...while it's generally a good thing to be passionate about one's
preferences, there are as many wine publications out there as there
are TV channels. Feel free to use the remote.

JJ